4 ms·
Previous approaches of distributing them across low-rent hotels and bnb accommodation have recently suffered arson attacks. This isn't the first time a disused
by pjc50 25d ago
Previous approaches of distributing them across low-rent hotels and bnb accommodation have recently suffered arson attacks. This isn't the first time a disused military base has been used for this kind of purpose, and ultimately they have to go somewhere; wherever the government puts them is going to object.
I'm not even 100% clear whether they're allowed off the site!
The asylum system leaves people in an extremely unpleasant limbo for a long time while it makes decisions, based purely on the false belief that they're uniquely likely to be criminals.
- philipallstar 25d ago> A spokesman for the Home Office said: "The Government is closing every asylum hotel, saving taxpayers over £1 billion on asylum support since the election. This is why the hotels and bnbs were a bad idea.
- pjc50 25d ago.. and replacing them with what, exactly?
- philipallstar 25d agoWith nothing. Why does the UK have giant numbers of asylum seekers, and why wasn't any of the EU countries they travelled through to get there good enough? It's the hardest to reach country in Western Europe. EDIT: other than RoI.
- rapsey 25d agoBecause the UK wants them. They can stop the boats at any time. They can stop feeding and housing them at any time. They come because the UK government and NGOs provide them with a comfortable life.
- pjc50 25d agoIt's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just ignore them. This is why the problem hasn't been fixed. You can't say "just do X" when X isn't legal. Do you really think nobody's thought of this? That the government actually likes being in this position of the past decade or so?
- philipallstar 25d agoYes indeed, that is the oft-cited fatal flaw of remaining in the ECHR. But that aside: why come to the UK?
- rapsey 25d agoThe ECHR is actually very loose with their definitions and gives the governments much freedom. The UK chooses to interpret and enforce them as they do. Other european countries are within ECHR limits and deal with it entirely differently. The UK elites no longer have the EU to blame for their policies, so they speak about ECHR. On the continent people barely know ECHR exists.
- hn_throw2025 25d agoThe ECHR says you must give prisoners the vote. Successive UK governments chose to ignore that part. So don’t be so sure about “can’t” versus “won’t”.
- spwa4 25d agoI think you mean "Because the UK wants them, only 2% or so of illegal immigrants arrive by boats". Boris Johnson did Brexit "to stop the immigrants" ... and opened the floodgates. The very opposite of what his campaign promised. The very opposite of WHY the British public wanted Brexit.
- jalapenoj 25d ago[dead]
- grebc 25d agoMay as well house them in Westminster. They don’t actually do anything useful there.
- cdot2 25d agoThese are not Ukranian war refugees. They can be sent back to their home countries
- pjc50 25d agoCan they? Have you personally reviewed all 1,200 cases?
- zulux 25d agoReal refugees take their families.
- Timon3 25d agoOf course. When a family lives in a dangerous region and has too few resources to afford everyone's escape, no human would ever choose to save a loved one while staying behind themselves. And if they do, it must be virtue signaling or something like that, right?
- allanmacgregor 24d ago> and ultimately they have to go somewhere; wherever the government puts them is going to object. Back to their own country, look I am an immigrant myself but there is this massive trend of goverments developing suicidal empathy even at the cost of their own citizens; it really needs to stop.