Net immigration 'will settle at 245,000 a year': OBR upgrades estimates by 40,000 since November, pointing to big inflows from Ukraine, Hong Kong, student boom and post-Brexit points-based system

[Mrs Doyle]

1 minute ago, captainb said:

I didn't say stop without reform... That's your odd binary choice of current system or nothing at all.

I can't quite understand why you continue to defend a system that's quite so clearly broken.

If you actually cared for plight of those fleeing (insert whatever you feel strongly about here) you would seek to reform a system that makes some people who have the 30k in funds to travel on a lorry for all those hours, and leaves others without.

Yes, I would create safe routes. 

The system is broken because our government cut the asylum service to the bone hence the massive backlog and also because there are few safe routes. 

How would you reform it? 

[captainb]

Just now, Mrs Doyle said:

You make a lot of forceful claims like 50,000 are in 5* hotels although you've now deviated from that 'fact'. 

You can't claim asylum until you are physically on the ground of the country you want to claim in hence the boats, lorries, shipping containers. 

So do you think honestly think it's the best possible solution or even rational to;

 

-have the right to claim asylum wherever you like as long as you are physically there.

-have countries spend huge amounts of resource blocking entry to stop claims

-having residule claims for those who spend umpteen in funds to get in and are physically able to only ..

 

Odd system to champion.

 

 

 

[captainb]

1 minute ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Yes, I would create safe routes. 

The system is broken because our government cut the asylum service to the bone hence the massive backlog and also because there are few safe routes. 

How would you reform it? 

Scrap the 1951 engagement, have redistribution from signatory countries direct from place of issue for agreed to numbers per annum, then sub divided between signatories on a per capita basis

Tie that up with increased local support in places for example Turkey or Lebanon and you wouldn't have to make those journeys.

Given resources allocated to above that would be the only claim route for asylum.

 

[Insane]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

You make a lot of forceful claims like 50,000 are in 5* hotels although you've now deviated from that 'fact'.

Deviated from that , what saying some of the hotels are only 4* is a major deviation ! You really are clutching at straws now Mrs Doyle. 

8 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

You can't claim asylum until you are physically on the ground of the country you want to claim in hence the boats, lorries, shipping containers. 

Why don't they claim in the first safe country they arrive in?  

[Mrs Doyle]

20 minutes ago, captainb said:

So do you think honestly think it's the best possible solution or even rational to;

 

-have the right to claim asylum wherever you like as long as you are physically there.

-have countries spend huge amounts of resource blocking entry to stop claims

-having residule claims for those who spend umpteen in funds to get in and are physically able to only ..

 

Odd system to champion.

 

 

 

I support the right to seek refuge. 

I support safe routes. 

I'm not responsible for how the Tories choose to spend out taxes. 

[captainb]

Just now, Mrs Doyle said:

I support the right to seek refuge. 

I support safe routes. 

I'm not responsible for how the Tories choose to spend out taxes. 

Bit lost now. The border control policy isn't limited to Tory Brexit Britain but consistently applied in signatories from Japan, to the EU states, Canada, Australia etc etc.

[Mrs Doyle]

16 minutes ago, Insane said:

Deviated from that , what saying some of the hotels are only 4* is a major deviation ! You really are clutching at straws now Mrs Doyle. 

Why don't they claim in the first safe country they arrive in?  

 

16 minutes ago, Insane said:

Deviated from that , what saying some of the hotels are only 4* is a major deviation ! You really are clutching at straws now Mrs Doyle. 

Why don't they claim in the first safe country they arrive in?  

You claimed 50,000 people were in 5* star hotels now you don't. That's a fairly big change of mind and suggests you don't deal in actual facts. 

Most refugees are in the poorest nations across the immediate border. 

There are many reasons some seek other countries including chances of acceptance. 

 

In our case some of the reasons given are perceptions of our reputation in the world on fairness and human rights, community links to those already here, our colonial links, the English language, and in one quite comical answer once given it was because of the compassion our nation showed when Princess, Diana died. 

[Mrs Doyle]

3 minutes ago, captainb said:

Bit lost now. The border control policy isn't limited to Tory Brexit Britain but consistently applied in signatories from Japan, to the EU states, Canada, Australia etc etc.

I support all those points I mentioned in all those countries. 

[captainb]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

I support all those points I mentioned in all those countries. 

Cool so you agree that the 1951 convention is outdated and needs serious reform...

[Insane]

Just now, Mrs Doyle said:

You claimed 50,000 people were in 5* star hotels now you don't. That's a fairly big change of mind and suggests you don't deal in actual facts. 

No it is not. There are currently 50,000 people in hotels. Many 4* and some even 5*. No it is not a big change from saying they were all 5*. As I said you are now clutching at straws. 

2 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Most refugees are in the poorest nations across the immediate border. 

Details?

We are actually talking about the System not working here in the UK so why so much on the Global situation. 

 

3 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

There are many reasons some seek other countries including chances of acceptance. 

 Safety first I would have thought would be the priority. 

5 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

In our case some of the reasons given are perceptions of our reputation in the world on fairness and human rights, community links to those already here, our colonial links, the English language, and in one quite comical answer once given it was because of the compassion our nation showed when Princess, Diana died. 

Well some of that is all nice and cosy. But we are dealing with a very serious situation here and emotions need be kept in check. As for English language that is spoken Widley across the world.  

Pleased that you bought up fairness and human rights as currently it is very unfair that our people are struggling with a cost of living crisis and seeing people arrive getting looked after to a very high standard. The other day there was a single disabled mother on the radio who said her landlord had issued her with an eviction notice as Serco had offered him such as great 5 year deal. Where is the compassion for her?  Fairness and human rights are meant to include Brits already here, those born here and those that have immigrated here. But right now many feel they are not being treated fairly. Maybe the UK needs to look into the fairness and human rights of its own people as they can get forgotten. 

 

[davemb]

53 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Yes, I would create safe routes. 

The system is broken because our government cut the asylum service to the bone hence the massive backlog and also because there are few safe routes. 

How would you reform it? 

No safe routes, the government should have the navy guard our borders properly and pick up any dingy people and take them back to France! 

[Mrs Doyle]

18 minutes ago, captainb said:

Cool so you agree that the 1951 convention is outdated and needs serious reform...

I suspect you don't really know much about the convention and just dip in and out when needed. 

The convention doesn't need reforming, government policy does. 

[Mrs Doyle]

2 minutes ago, davemb said:

No safe routes, the government should have the navy guard our borders properly and pick up any dingy people and take them back to France! 

That would be a breach of international law. 

Would you have turned to thousands of Jews away in the second World War? 

[davemb]

Insane, you are not insane, you are sane and I agree with you. Mrs Doyle on the other hand is insane and wants to fill up our already ridiculously overcrowded country with more people. 

[Cocha]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

That would be a breach of international law. 

Would you have turned to thousands of Jews away in the second World War? 

****** International law then.

[captainb]

11 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

I suspect you don't really know much about the convention and just dip in and out when needed. 

The convention doesn't need reforming, government policy does. 

Ah government policy, across multiple governments and worldwide.. like a UN convention change ... Relating to refugees... Last updated in 1951...

 

[Mrs Doyle]

16 minutes ago, Insane said:

No it is not. There are currently 50,000 people in hotels. Many 4* and some even 5*. No it is not a big change from saying they were all 5*. As I said you are now clutching at straws. 

Details?

We are actually talking about the System not working here in the UK so why so much on the Global situation. 

 

 Safety first I would have thought would be the priority. 

Well some of that is all nice and cosy. But we are dealing with a very serious situation here and emotions need be kept in check. As for English language that is spoken Widley across the world.  

Pleased that you bought up fairness and human rights as currently it is very unfair that our people are struggling with a cost of living crisis and seeing people arrive getting looked after to a very high standard. The other day there was a single disabled mother on the radio who said her landlord had issued her with an eviction notice as Serco had offered him such as great 5 year deal. Where is the compassion for her?  Fairness and human rights are meant to include Brits already here, those born here and those that have immigrated here. But right now many feel they are not being treated fairly. Maybe the UK needs to look into the fairness and human rights of its own people as they can get forgotten. 

 

1) Please evidence your claim that 'many' are in 4&5* hotels. 

You said 50,000 asylum seekers were in 5* hotels and now you've stayed that claim was untrue. You do like to play fast and loose with actual facts. 

2) https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/

3) Safety first on escape then somewhere that is most likely to make upping and leaving your homeland, probably for good, the most chance of a life worth living. 

What you think in the safety of your home and country is irrelevant. 

Is 'widley' a joke about the English language? 

4) We are the fifth richest nation in the world. What is, happening to our people is a political choice. 

I support the poor and vulnerable in this country and often by actual deed. 

What do you do to support the poor and vulnerable in this country? 

Asylum seekers are not getting looked after to a very high standard, quite the opposite in fact but I'm happy to go head to head with you on verifiable facts. 

Are you saying UK citizens don't get their human rights here? 

[Mrs Doyle]

11 minutes ago, Cocha said:

****** International law then.

Yeah, ****** all laws as long as it isn't detrimental to you, your family, or friends eh? 

[Mrs Doyle]

2 minutes ago, captainb said:

Ah government policy, across multiple governments and worldwide.. like a UN convention change ... Relating to refugees... Last updated in 1951...

 

Actually, 1951 wasn't the last update but hey ho, you only deal in opinions based on facts. 

You appear to be conflating immigration control with seeking asylum. 

[captainb]

Just now, Mrs Doyle said:

Actually, 1951 wasn't the last update but hey ho, you only deal in opinions based on facts. 

You appear to be conflating immigration control with seeking asylum. 

Your right, a genius in our midst.

Immigration control is irrelevant when seeking asylum where applications are only allowed in State. 

No point continuing if you insist this is the best possible solution in the best possible world. 

Sadly those who will suffer most won't be loons like yourself but those who suffer under the current system indefinitely while you defend it as gospel 

[Mrs Doyle]

16 minutes ago, davemb said:

Insane, you are not insane, you are sane and I agree with you. Mrs Doyle on the other hand is insane and wants to fill up our already ridiculously overcrowded country with more people. 

Do you charge for your medical opinion or is it free? 

"In 2020 alone, according to the Economics Statistics Centre of Excellence, the number of UK residents may have dropped by “more than 1.3 million” – the largest fall since the second world war.

Other demographers estimate that there was a smaller fall or a tiny increase. But all agree that thanks to our terrible Covid death toll, a drop in the birthrate, and fewer EU and non-EU migrants after Brexit, the UK’s population boom has come to an end. If and when the pandemic fades, there is little confidence that this growth will resume. Even before Covid, the birthrate was falling, and the long modern rise in life expectancy was stalling – the latter almost certainly connected to Conservative austerity."

 

[Cocha]

10 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Yeah, ****** all laws as long as it isn't detrimental to you, your family, or friends eh? 

You are happy supporting law breaking illegal immigrants and illegal people traffickers, I'm happy supporting law breaking measures to prevent them.

[Mrs Doyle]

23 minutes ago, Cocha said:

****** International law then.

Ah, so you wouldn't have let Jews flee to the UK during the second World War then. 

[Mrs Doyle]

2 minutes ago, Cocha said:

You are happy supporting law breaking illegal immigrants and illegal people traffickers, I'm happy supporting law breaking measures to prevent them.

Except it's not illegal to seek asylum and therein lies the issue. 

Safe routes = no traffickers. 

[Mrs Doyle]

3 minutes ago, Cocha said:

You are happy supporting law breaking illegal immigrants and illegal people traffickers, I'm happy supporting law breaking measures to prevent them.

Do you support the right to seek refuge?