The Official ‘Hi-Risk Anus PM’ Clusterfuck Thread

[carpetmonster]

4 minutes ago, King Ian said:

 

There is a legal route to asylum, and making a dangerous journey across choppy, freezing waters is not it.

You should tell the Home Secretary what it is then, because when she was asked what it was in committee she didn’t know. 

[welshbairn]

Just now, King Ian said:

I think it's a lot more complex than that WB.

There is a legal route to asylum, and making a dangerous journey across choppy, freezing waters is not it.

It's impossible to apply for UK asylum from outside the UK. Given that most people who make it across the channel are found to have valid cases, making crossing the channel in small boats the only way to apply is a deliberate strategy by the Government to restrict the number of applicants.

[carpetmonster]

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Depends how you stop them. Using torpedoes wouldn’t be very safe.

Wait til they need a new headline and that’ll happen so ‘PEDO ASYLUM SEEKERS COMING FOR BRIT KIDS gets blasted across their client media. 

[coprolite]

 

https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/enter-uk-asylum/
 

 

[Granny Danger]

25 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I don’t agree. This is that Duries guy on his 100th alias. It should be reasonably clear at this point he’ll continue to waste bandwidth regardless of anyone else’s efforts, or lack of. 

You’re wrong, but that’s your right.

[HTG]

24 minutes ago, King Ian said:

I think it's a lot more complex than that WB.

There is a legal route to asylum, and making a dangerous journey across choppy, freezing waters is not it.

 

11 minutes ago, coprolite said:

 

https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/enter-uk-asylum/
 

 

Go on then, tell us how the legal route to claiming asylum in the UK actually works. 

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, HTG said:

 

Go on then, tell us how the legal route to claiming asylum in the UK actually works. 

“Dear Santa….”

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 hours ago, King Ian said:

Would you rather people kept on dying?

Racist conservatives and pathetic wee right wing trolls? Absolutely.

Refugees, no.

[Todd_is_God]

5 hours ago, welshbairn said:

If they really want to stop people drowning or suffocating in the back of lorries all they have to do is provide a way of claiming asylum from outside the UK.

Which countries currently allow you to claim asylum from outside them?

[williemillersmoustache]

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Which countries currently allow you to claim asylum from outside them?

Do the answers to this question make allowing asylum applications from outside of the UK more or less likely to reduce the numbers crossing the English Channel in small boats?

[carpetmonster]

9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Which countries currently allow you to claim asylum from outside them?

None currently, I don’t think. The US had the ‘Remain In Mexico’ policy 2019-2021 where American immigration officers would vet candidates in cities just the other side of the border like Juarez but Biden terminated it within his first couple of weeks. 

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, williemillersmoustache said:

Do the answers to this question make allowing asylum applications from outside of the UK more or less likely to reduce the numbers crossing the English Channel in small boats?

It's a fair question.

In any case, it's highly unlikely the ability to apply for asylum from outside the UK would reduce the number of small boats crossing the Channel.

[williemillersmoustache]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

It's a fair question.

In any case, it's highly unlikely the ability to apply for asylum from outside the UK would reduce the number of small boats crossing the Channel.

I didn't say it wasn't, I just asked a perfectly reasonable question in return. 

But, I would challenge your fairly bold assertion that not needing to be in the UK to apply for asylum would have no reduction in the numbers of people crossing the channel in order to apply for asylum. To what do you base this on?

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, williemillersmoustache said:

I didn't say it wasn't, I just asked a perfectly reasonable question in return. 

But, I would challenge your fairly bold assertion that not needing to be in the UK to apply for asylum would have no reduction in the numbers of people crossing the channel in order to apply for asylum. To what do you base this on?

Why would it? If a person has the means to arrive at the UK border by rail, sea or air to claim asylum at the border then they would almost certainly chose that option over trying to get here on a dinghy.

Unless you are suggesting that the UK Gov should not only be allowing applications from outwith the UK, but providing transport for successful applicants as well?

[williemillersmoustache]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Why would it? If a person has the means to arrive at the UK border by rail, sea or air to claim asylum at the border then they would almost certainly chose that option over trying to get here on a dinghy.

Unless you are suggesting that the UK Gov should not only be allowing applications from outwith the UK, but providing transport for successful applicants as well?

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying once an asylum application from outside of the UK is granted the correct way for this person to get here is to deny them an established route like a ferry, or chunnel ticket and force them onto a lilo across the channel, ergo outside applications are a bad idea? 

If cost is the issue i am sure there are a plethora of charities who would happily fund cheap travel for successful applicants. 

[carpetmonster]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

 

If cost is the issue i am sure there are a plethora of charities who would happily fund cheap travel for successful applicants. 

Get Michael O’Leary to set up a Calais Jungle Airport. It’ll be handier for Paris than Beauvais. 

[Todd_is_God]

11 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying once an asylum application from outside of the UK is granted the correct way for this person to get here is to deny them an established route like a ferry, or chunnel ticket and force them onto a lilo across the channel, ergo outside applications are a bad idea? 

If cost is the issue i am sure there are a plethora of charities who would happily fund cheap travel for successful applicants. 

You think it is reasonable to expect the UK to not only be the only country to allow you to apply remotely, but they then also should pay for the transport?

I know you mean well but that's just absolute nonsense.

 

[williemillersmoustache]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

You think it is reasonable to expect the UK to not only be the only country to allow you to apply remotely, but they then also should pay for the transport?

I know you mean well but that's just absolute nonsense.

 

If they applied in Ireland would you allow them to walk?

If they had a positive decision and a charity agreed a deal with an airline to use last minute empty seats, or a ferry company, or a train would that be alright with you, if cost is the only objection?

I suspect it's not.

You see I am willing to believe there are people out there genuinely concerned about small boat crossings that don't believe any of the obviously sensible solutions, like safe routes or outside applications are the answer.

I just don't see any evidence that these are sincerely held beliefs from the people decrying these obviously effective measures and strongly, strongly suspect that at the root of this is not a desire to stop small boats, or break up smuggling gangs but a desire to stop people coming here at all.

Prove me wrong. 

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Which countries currently allow you to claim asylum from outside them?

There aren't any other countries trying to force traffic asylum seekers to Sub Saharan Africa either, time for some more blue sky thinking! 

[Todd_is_God]

35 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

There aren't any other countries trying to force traffic asylum seekers to Sub Saharan Africa either, time for some more blue sky thinking! 

Usual deflection from you when you don't have any answers to a legitimate question

1 hour ago, williemillersmoustache said:

If they applied in Ireland would you allow them to walk?

If they had a positive decision and a charity agreed a deal with an airline to use last minute empty seats, or a ferry company, or a train would that be alright with you, if cost is the only objection?

I suspect it's not.

You see I am willing to believe there are people out there genuinely concerned about small boat crossings that don't believe any of the obviously sensible solutions, like safe routes or outside applications are the answer.

I just don't see any evidence that these are sincerely held beliefs from the people decrying these obviously effective measures and strongly, strongly suspect that at the root of this is not a desire to stop small boats, or break up smuggling gangs but a desire to stop people coming here at all.

Prove me wrong. 

There are a multitude of reasons why your suggestion wouldn't work.

Namely that, in order for a person to claim asylum, it needs to be unsafe for them to live at home. Someone who is genuinely in a situation where it is unsafe to live at home does not have time to hang around for an application to be processed and an air ticket to be organised. They likely also do not have a passport / be allowed to leave their homeland via conventional means.

I'm also not convinced that many of those crossing the channel in small boats are coming from places where regular passenger air, rail or sea transport is in operation to have last minute seats available to be taken up.

Finally, your suggestion would allow a person anywhere in the world to apply for asylum in the UK. Given that the reasons a person can apply for asylum are protected, the UK would then have no option but to approve and tackle the logistical problem of getting someone from, say, Damascus, to the UK.

It's not practical.