Clapham Alkaline Attack

[Fen Canary 885]

What a shambles our asylum policy and border controls are! The country is unable to deport a man who illegally enters the country, is twice turned down for asylum and is then convicted for sex offences, before finally potentially destroying the lives of a mum and her children. Throw in the Albanian criminal gangs gaining entry via the Channel crossings and it becomes obvious why the public wants the government to clamp down on those entering the country illegally.

It’s not just in Britain either, with Ireland recently rioting due to crimes committed by people who should never have been in that country, and right wing parties gaining ground on the continent.

Say what you like about Rwanda but at least offshore processing and settlement prevents this from happening 

[Naturalcynic 679]

I agree with pretty much everything you’ve stated, and what galls me are the cries from the usual suspects about the threat posed by a rise of the right while those same individuals, activist groups and charities give unquestioning support to the economic migrants, doing everything they can to block any attempt to deport them, seemingly without realising that their actions directly precipitate the drift to the right they claim to want to avoid. 

Edited February 3 by Naturalcynic

[sonyc 5,541]

27 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

What a shambles our asylum policy and border controls are! The country is unable to deport a man who illegally enters the country, is twice turned down for asylum and is then convicted for sex offences, before finally potentially destroying the lives of a mum and her children. Throw in the Albanian criminal gangs gaining entry via the Channel crossings and it becomes obvious why the public wants the government to clamp down on those entering the country illegally.

It’s not just in Britain either, with Ireland recently rioting due to crimes committed by people who should never have been in that country, and right wing parties gaining ground on the continent.

Say what you like about Rwanda but at least offshore processing and settlement prevents this from happening 

It is a shambles and badly needs attention. If Labour were to get into power later this year they will have to tackle it. And it absolutely is one of many priorities for the public. There are very worrying signs of gangs in large towns and in cities. 

Things have got a lot worse and local services everywhere struggle to deal with the aftermath...let alone how the police have been affected. I've read that more people are leaving the police than being recruited.

 

[Fen Canary 885]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

It is a shambles and badly needs attention. If Labour were to get into power later this year they will have to tackle it. And it absolutely is one of many priorities for the public. There are very worrying signs of gangs in large towns and in cities. 

Things have got a lot worse and local services everywhere struggle to deal with the aftermath...let alone how the police have been affected. I've read that more people are leaving the police than being recruited.

 

The process needs streamlining to prevent endless baseless appeals clogging up the system. At present the reward is simply too great as they’re well aware if they manage to set foot in Britain the government is largely powerless to deport them thanks to the legal system allowing lawyers to drag the cases out for years on end.

I’d much rather a system where the government agrees an annual quota of refugees to take in depending on the state of housing, public services etc. and lifts them directly from the various refugee camps around the world rather than rewarding those handing over thousands of pounds to people traffickers but I know it’ll never happen.

The can will keep getting kicked down the road by both parties until the anger spills over into violence 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

The process needs streamlining to prevent endless baseless appeals clogging up the system. At present the reward is simply too great as they’re well aware if they manage to set foot in Britain the government is largely powerless to deport them thanks to the legal system allowing lawyers to drag the cases out for years on end.

I’d much rather a system where the government agrees an annual quota of refugees to take in depending on the state of housing, public services etc. and lifts them directly from the various refugee camps around the world rather than rewarding those handing over thousands of pounds to people traffickers but I know it’ll never happen.

The can will keep getting kicked down the road by both parties until the anger spills over into violence 

Too late now. The barbarians are among us now. The country has already fallen. 

[dylanisabaddog 5,049]

12 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

What a shambles our asylum policy and border controls are! The country is unable to deport a man who illegally enters the country, is twice turned down for asylum and is then convicted for sex offences, before finally potentially destroying the lives of a mum and her children. Throw in the Albanian criminal gangs gaining entry via the Channel crossings and it becomes obvious why the public wants the government to clamp down on those entering the country illegally.

It’s not just in Britain either, with Ireland recently rioting due to crimes committed by people who should never have been in that country, and right wing parties gaining ground on the continent.

Say what you like about Rwanda but at least offshore processing and settlement prevents this from happening 

Your concern should be that this man was allowed to stay in the UK because he claimed to have converted to Christianity. That is an absolutely ridiculous loophole which should be closed immediately.  We should not be allowing religious bodies to have any say in the running of this country. 

I think the other issue is that we only deport people who commit an offence that leads to a 12 month sentence. Despite the huge amount of criminal behaviour in this country that's still unusual. I see nothing wrong in expecting a higher standard of behaviour from people who are granted asylum. If my dog sh*** on the carpet I'll be annoyed but if your dog does it you won't get invited back. 

But in general this is just one case and people that come to live here from elsewhere in the world are statistically less likely to commit criminal offences (I suppose that's not surprising when 1 in 3 British people have a criminal record).

Immigration clearly bothers you but thankfully most of the population is more concerned with the NHS, standard of living and the economy, housing and education. 

[Naturalcynic 679]

11 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Your concern should be that this man was allowed to stay in the UK because he claimed to have converted to Christianity. That is an absolutely ridiculous loophole which should be closed immediately.  We should not be allowing religious bodies to have any say in the running of this country. 

I think the other issue is that we only deport people who commit an offence that leads to a 12 month sentence. Despite the huge amount of criminal behaviour in this country that's still unusual. I see nothing wrong in expecting a higher standard of behaviour from people who are granted asylum. If my dog sh*** on the carpet I'll be annoyed but if your dog does it you won't get invited back. 

But in general this is just one case and people that come to live here from elsewhere in the world are statistically less likely to commit criminal offences (I suppose that's not surprising when 1 in 3 British people have a criminal record).

Immigration clearly bothers you but thankfully most of the population is more concerned with the NHS, standard of living and the economy, housing and education. 

It’s true that most of the population are concerned about the failing NHS, the economy, standard of living, housing and education but I suspect the majority would put the utterly out of control level of immigration, whether legal or otherwise, and the effect it’s having on society as being at the top of their list of concerns.

[dylanisabaddog 5,049]

39 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

It’s true that most of the population are concerned about the failing NHS, the economy, standard of living, housing and education but I suspect the majority would put the utterly out of control level of immigration, whether legal or otherwise, and the effect it’s having on society as being at the top of their list of concerns.

You may think so but that's simply not the case. It is the case with a certain part of the population (mainly baby boomers) but the vast majority are far more concerned with other issues. Please don't take my word for it, there are opinion polls and underlying data readily available. 

You should perhaps also bear in mind that most migration to this country is legal. Around 700,000 people (net of departures) were granted work and student visas last year. The number arriving on small boats was around 25,000.  The government continue to bang the drum about this because it's basically all they have left. The reality is that they're just desperately trying to get people like you to vote for them. The fact that Labour is so far ahead in the polls should really tell you how most people think. 

PS. the last large opinion poll showed support for the Conservative Party at 14% among the under 40's

Edited February 4 by dylanisabaddog

[Naturalcynic 679]

29 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You may think so but that's simply not the case. It is the case with a certain part of the population (mainly baby boomers) but the vast majority are far more concerned with other issues. Please don't take my word for it, there are opinion polls and underlying data readily available. 

You should perhaps also bear in mind that most migration to this country is legal. Around 700,000 people (net of departures) were granted work and student visas last year. The number arriving on small boats was around 25,000.  The government continue to bang the drum about this because it's basically all they have left. The reality is that they're just desperately trying to get people like you to vote for them. The fact that Labour is so far ahead in the polls should really tell you how most people think. 

PS. the last large opinion poll showed support for the Conservative Party at 14% among the under 40's

If you bothered to read my post you’ll see that I clearly stated legal and otherwise.  Yes, I’m sure among younger, more “progressive” voters it’s probably of less concern than it is to those who are older with more life experience who clearly see that the lack of integration of such vast numbers of migrants is having irreversible effects on the cultural demographic of most of our major cities with associated pressures on housing, healthcare and education.  I agree that the Conservatives have utterly failed to address this, despite their constant claims that they’ll grip the problem, but Labour have absolutely no meaningful plans to sort it out either, not least because they know they have to keep the migrant/Muslim vote on side.  And all of this is pushing more and more people who used to consider themselves politically moderate to adopt views that are further to the right and this can be seen across the whole of Western Europe. Luckily in this country there’s currently no far-right political party that has any credibility, but it’s certainly the case that the Conservatives are looking over their shoulders with some alarm at the increasing support for Reform.  If those left of centre fear the rise of the right then they can’t continue to turn a blind eye to the crisis caused by our out of control migration and asylum system.

[A Load of Squit 5,229]

The Conservatives created this mess and then they made it worse.

Before 2010 we had a functioning asylum processing system, Cameron dismantled it and subsequent Tory Home Office ministers kept introducing policies that looked good in the headlines of the right wing media but in practice were bad laws that allowed the courts to challenge them.

The latest ridiculous idea of spending millions of pounds that, if it's ever implemented, will send about 20 people to Rwanda is a perfect example of how sh!t the Tories are. 

 

[Fen Canary 885]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Your concern should be that this man was allowed to stay in the UK because he claimed to have converted to Christianity. That is an absolutely ridiculous loophole which should be closed immediately.  We should not be allowing religious bodies to have any say in the running of this country. 

I think the other issue is that we only deport people who commit an offence that leads to a 12 month sentence. Despite the huge amount of criminal behaviour in this country that's still unusual. I see nothing wrong in expecting a higher standard of behaviour from people who are granted asylum. If my dog sh*** on the carpet I'll be annoyed but if your dog does it you won't get invited back. 

But in general this is just one case and people that come to live here from elsewhere in the world are statistically less likely to commit criminal offences (I suppose that's not surprising when 1 in 3 British people have a criminal record).

Immigration clearly bothers you but thankfully most of the population is more concerned with the NHS, standard of living and the economy, housing and education. 

Him being allowed to stay due to his conversion to Christianity isn’t due to pressure from the Church or religious bodies, it’s due to lawyers arguing that this conversion means he would face persecution in his home country which prevents him being deported. It’s not fair to blame the church for lawyers exploiting a loophole.

I agree with you in regards to those breaking the law. Anything more serious than a speeding ticket should result in their residency status being cancelled and them being deported. Whether asylum seekers are more or less likely to break the law is irrelevant, if they abuse the privilege of being allowed to stay then they should be gone.

Finally let’s not conflate legal immigration with the shambles of an asylum system as they’re two different things. I think you’ll find that immigration also often features quite highly on people’s list of concerns so unless the major parties start to get some control over both varieties then you could start seeing violence snd right wing parties gaining ground as is happening on the continent 

 

 

[Naturalcynic 679]

20 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

The Conservatives created this mess and then they made it worse.

Before 2010 we had a functioning asylum processing system, Cameron dismantled it and subsequent Tory Home Office ministers kept introducing policies that looked good in the headlines of the right wing media but in practice were bad laws that allowed the courts to challenge them.

The latest ridiculous idea of spending millions of pounds that, if it's ever implemented, will send about 20 people to Rwanda is a perfect example of how sh!t the Tories are. 

 

I don’t disagree about the doomed Rwanda policy, but to give them a modicum of credit they did at least realise that in the absence of any meaningful help from France, the EU, the ECHR, UN Refugee Convention etc, some sort of deterrent factor is essential.  But I also fully agree that immigration by illegal routes is only a small proportion of the overall huge net migration figures.  The whole thing is absolutely out of control, and without doubt it’ll be the major factor why previous Tory voters don’t vote for them at the forthcoming election.

[dylanisabaddog 5,049]

5 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Him being allowed to stay due to his conversion to Christianity isn’t due to pressure from the Church or religious bodies, it’s due to lawyers arguing that this conversion means he would face persecution in his home country which prevents him being deported. It’s not fair to blame the church for lawyers exploiting a loophole.

I agree with you in regards to those breaking the law. Anything more serious than a speeding ticket should result in their residency status being cancelled and them being deported. Whether asylum seekers are more or less likely to break the law is irrelevant, if they abuse the privilege of being allowed to stay then they should be gone.

Finally let’s not conflate legal immigration with the shambles of an asylum system as they’re two different things. I think you’ll find that immigration also often features quite highly on people’s list of concerns so unless the major parties start to get some control over both varieties then you could start seeing violence snd right wing parties gaining ground as is happening on the continent. 

 

 

I do blame the Church to the extent that someone in the Church of England was prepared to give evidence on behalf of a convicted sex offender. I blame the country for allowing the Church of England to have any say whatsoever. If they are allowed a say then we should also seek the view of Richard Dawkins as he now represents the views of more people in England than the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Lawyers are paid to 'exploit loopholes'. It's their job to represent their clients to the best of their ability. Quite simply we wouldn't have a proper legal system without them. 

For the last time, immigration doesn't feature highly in the priorities of most people. You may find it difficult to accept but that's what the polls say. Suggesting we may start seeing violence if something isn't done is absolutely terrifying. Are you suggesting a Night of Broken Glass? Perhaps with a little book burning thrown in for good measure? 

[Naturalcynic 679]

12 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I do blame the Church to the extent that someone in the Church of England was prepared to give evidence on behalf of a convicted sex offender. I blame the country for allowing the Church of England to have any say whatsoever. If they are allowed a say then we should also seek the view of Richard Dawkins as he now represents the views of more people in England than the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Lawyers are paid to 'exploit loopholes'. It's their job to represent their clients to the best of their ability. Quite simply we wouldn't have a proper legal system without them. 

For the last time, immigration doesn't feature highly in the priorities of most people. You may find it difficult to accept but that's what the polls say. Suggesting we may start seeing violence if something isn't done is absolutely terrifying. Are you suggesting a Night of Broken Glass? Perhaps with a little book burning thrown in for good measure? 

Allowing the Church to have any say?  I’m not sure they do, other than perhaps a lawyer using a vicar as a witness at an asylum application hearing to attest that the formerly Muslim applicant has attended their church regularly, engaged positively and perhaps even been baptised.  That then ties the hands of the Judge if he/she considers that a christian could be persecuted if they were returned to their Islamic country of origin (assuming they believe the story).  A transparent scam on the part of the migrant, their activist lawyer and the “charities” that support the whole sordid enterprise.

[Naturalcynic 679]

28 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I do blame the Church to the extent that someone in the Church of England was prepared to give evidence on behalf of a convicted sex offender. I blame the country for allowing the Church of England to have any say whatsoever. If they are allowed a say then we should also seek the view of Richard Dawkins as he now represents the views of more people in England than the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Lawyers are paid to 'exploit loopholes'. It's their job to represent their clients to the best of their ability. Quite simply we wouldn't have a proper legal system without them. 

For the last time, immigration doesn't feature highly in the priorities of most people. You may find it difficult to accept but that's what the polls say. Suggesting we may start seeing violence if something isn't done is absolutely terrifying. Are you suggesting a Night of Broken Glass? Perhaps with a little book burning thrown in for good measure? 

I fear that your insinuation that no-one under the age of 87 cares about immigration at its current unsustainable levels might be a little wide of the mark.  The longer it goes on, the greater the adverse effects will be on the crumbling healthcare system, the housing shortage, education, and the rapid irreversible changes on cultural demographics of most UK cities and large towns, and as a result increasing numbers will realise the true impact  of the issue.  If those left of centre are really concerned about a possible rise of the far-right then they need to stop pretending that uncontrolled immigration isn’t a major and extremely serious problem.  Oh, and book burning, metaphorically at least, is something the left have already embraced through their love of cancel culture.

Edited February 4 by Naturalcynic

[sonyc 5,541]

23 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

For the last time, immigration doesn't feature highly in the priorities of most people. You may find it difficult to accept but that's what the polls say. Suggesting we may start seeing violence if something isn't done is absolutely terrifying. Are you suggesting a Night of Broken Glass? Perhaps with a little book burning thrown in for good measure? 

I don't think it's top priority either, but it is a concern for many. Of those 'many' there will be a significant number of Brexiters, or a solid strand at least. They can cast (waste) their protest vote for the Reform Party. Probably leading to no seats.

As for Labour they will have to tackle immigration and I believe they will do but it will take a full term. They will do it by improving efficiency of the system. As many people have stated (from left and right of centre) the Tories have mismanaged spectacularly. But then they've done that with virtually everything in our society - their 14 years will leave an awfully long shadow - decades? You only have to watch Question Time ( I try not to) to see what the general British public thinks.

[Naturalcynic 679]

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I don't think it's top priority either, but it is a concern for many. Of those 'many' there will be a significant number of Brexiters, or a solid strand at least. They can cast (waste) their protest vote for the Reform Party. Probably leading to no seats.

As for Labour they will have to tackle immigration and I believe they will do but it will take a full term. They will do it by improving efficiency of the system. As many people have stated (from left and right of centre) the Tories have mismanaged spectacularly. But then they've done that with virtually everything in our society - their 14 years will leave an awfully long shadow - decades? You only have to watch Question Time ( I try not to) to see what the general British public thinks.

I agree fully about the Conservatives’ generally abysmal performance, at least since 2016.  You’re almost certainly correct that the majority of Conservative voters are extremely concerned about net migration, but I think you underestimate the strength of feeling amongst traditional Labour voters too.  As for QT, I don’t think reaction these days is any different to what it’s been for the last 20 years and that’s because local left-wing activist groups have for a long time been very well organised in applying for places in the audience.

[Herman 9,848]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

The Conservatives created this mess and then they made it worse.

Before 2010 we had a functioning asylum processing system, Cameron dismantled it and subsequent Tory Home Office ministers kept introducing policies that looked good in the headlines of the right wing media but in practice were bad laws that allowed the courts to challenge them.

The latest ridiculous idea of spending millions of pounds that, if it's ever implemented, will send about 20 people to Rwanda is a perfect example of how sh!t the Tories are. 

 

Yes, it is all another result of this long term decline thanks to the failed policies of austerity and brexit. If you strip away all the services and structures, clear away all the expertise and experienced staff then these dreadful things are going to happen. 

[Naturalcynic 679]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Yes, it is all another result of this long term decline thanks to the failed policies of austerity and brexit. If you strip away all the services and structures, clear away all the expertise and experienced staff then these dreadful things are going to happen. 

I don’t disagree about Brexit not having been the roaring success some promised it would be.  But looking at the general subject of this thread (alkaline attacker, migration and asylum), looking at the arguably worse problems being faced by many other European countries and the ability of economic migrants to travel where they wish due to the complete lack of border controls within the EU, it’s hardly the fault of Brexit.

[Herman 9,848]

6 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I don’t disagree about Brexit not having been the roaring success some promised it would be.  But looking at the general subject of this thread (alkaline attacker, migration and asylum), looking at the arguably worse problems being faced by many other European countries and the ability of economic migrants to travel where they wish due to the complete lack of border controls within the EU, it’s hardly the fault of Brexit.

How many boat people came here pre and post brexit?

You could also look at our failed foreign policy if you want to understand why people are coming here. 

Add too our unwillingness to confront climate change to see why immigration is going to become an even bigger problem. Voting for populists like the tories or reform aren't going to fix any problems especially if they don't admit they're happening. 

[Barbe bleu 837]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

 

As for Labour they will have to tackle immigration and I believe they will do but it will take a full term. They will do it by improving efficiency of the system. As many people have stated (from left and right of centre) the Tories have mismanaged spectacularly. But then they've done that with virtually everything in our society - their 14 years will leave an awfully long shadow - decades? You only have to watch Question Time ( I try not to) to see what the general British public thinks.

I'm not convinced by the 'at least Labour will be competent managers' line. Government ministers don't do day-to-day things, that's what civil servants do, and they won't change after the election.

The job of government isn't about being a competent manager, its about providing effective leadership.   That's what I want from labour, some form of leadership- setting out a strategic intent, inspiring those who will implement and support it and putting in the resources where they are needed and out of places where they are not.

I'm not seeing that, all I am seeing is the policy gap between the two parties narrow everyday.   Its good politics but it relies on us having faith that a new minister or two is suddenly going to make a 500,000 strong civil service (a figure that excludes the millions of other public sector workers)  suddenly much more effective.

[Naturalcynic 679]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

How many boat people came here pre and post brexit?

You could also look at our failed foreign policy if you want to understand why people are coming here. 

Add too our unwillingness to confront climate change to see why immigration is going to become an even bigger problem. Voting for populists like the tories or reform aren't going to fix any problems especially if they don't admit they're happening. 

Whatever the Tories might be (ineffectual, abysmal etc), I don’t think they can be described as populist any more than Labour can.  But if the left genuinely fear the rise of populist parties then they really have to recognise the extent of the migration problem and have viable plans to get it gripped.

[dylanisabaddog 5,049]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Allowing the Church to have any say?  I’m not sure they do, other than perhaps a lawyer using a vicar as a witness at an asylum application hearing to attest that the formerly Muslim applicant has attended their church regularly, engaged positively and perhaps even been baptised.  That then ties the hands of the Judge if he/she considers that a christian could be persecuted if they were returned to their Islamic country of origin (assuming they believe the story).  A transparent scam on the part of the migrant, their activist lawyer and the “charities” that support the whole sordid enterprise.

In this case a Church of England vicar gave evidence to the effect that the man concerned had been converted to Christianity. Obviously he was hopelessly wrong but he has an imaginary friend in the sky so his judgement is clearly questionable. Neither he nor anyone else involved in organised religion should be involved in any way, shape or form in the government of this country. 

I'm hugely amused by the term "activist lawyer". Sunak uses the term "lefty lawyers" to make people like you angry. They're neither of those things. They are good old fashioned ambulance chasers who because of changes in legislation have stopped cold calling about accidents and now hang around immigration centres instead. They are neither Lefty nor Activist, they are just milking the system like they've always done. And if they vote at all it will probably be for the party that reduces their tax. 

[Herman 9,848]

4 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Whatever the Tories might be (ineffectual, abysmal etc), I don’t think they can be described as populist any more than Labour can.  But if the left genuinely fear the rise of populist parties then they really have to recognise the extent of the migration problem and have viable plans to get it gripped.

Foreign aid was a good policy. Helping countries to advance and fix some of their problems through financial aid, meaning less people will want to leave. We should bring that back. 

[dylanisabaddog 5,049]

22 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not convinced by the 'at least Labour will be competent managers' line. Government ministers don't do day-to-day things, that's what civil servants do, and they won't change after the election.

The job of government isn't about being a competent manager, its about providing effective leadership.   That's what I want from labour, some form of leadership- setting out a strategic intent, inspiring those who will implement and support it and putting in the resources where they are needed and out of places where they are not.

I'm not seeing that, all I am seeing is the policy gap between the two parties narrow everyday.   Its good politics but it relies on us having faith that a new minister or two is suddenly going to make a 500,000 strong civil service (a figure that excludes the millions of other public sector workers)  suddenly much more effective.

Sorry but that's nonsense. When Labour came to power in 1997 they inherited 80,000 open immigration cases. They expanded the Home Office and employed agencies and got the number down to around 10,000. In their last 2 years they returned 30,000 people back where they came from. 13 years later the number is back up to around 100,000 and 3,000 were returned home in the last year.  That is solely because the Civil Servants and agency workers who used to carry out this task have been removed from their posts. If I was very cynical I might think that they know that huge numbers of immigrants sitting in hotel rooms is quite useful when it comes to elections. 

Edited February 4 by dylanisabaddog

[horsefly 4,318]

This issue is much more fundamentally about the tens of thousands of violent attacks perpetrated by men against women every year. NO violence against women is acceptable whether the man is an asylum seeker or otherwise. 

[Barbe bleu 837]

9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry but that's nonsense. When Labour came to power in 1997 they inherited 80,000 open immigration cases. They expanded the Home Office and employed agencies and got the number down to around 10,000. In their last 2 years they returned 30,000 people back where they came from. 13 years later the number is back up to around 100,000 and 3,000 were returned home in the last year....

 

You've started a discussion here, and it's an important one about how quickly we process applications, how we look after those that get through (and those that are waiting) and how we move on those that do not.    That's what the parties need to be doing, but do we really think they are, or is it just superficial?

I need a bit more than 'trust me bro' from politicians. I want to see detail and look at the merits of the plan. Else all I have to go on is the promise that half a million civil sservants will magically sort out issues.

Also, 1997 was 27 years ago, that's before the voting life of anyone under 45. Sure we can learn a lot from history but we shouldn't base where we choose to put out 'x' just on what we learn from history.

[Daz Sparks 1,204]

54 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry but that's nonsense. When Labour came to power in 1997 they inherited 80,000 open immigration cases. They expanded the Home Office and employed agencies and got the number down to around 10,000. In their last 2 years they returned 30,000 people back where they came from. 13 years later the number is back up to around 100,000 and 3,000 were returned home in the last year.  That is solely because the Civil Servants and agency workers who used to carry out this task have been removed from their posts. If I was very cynical I might think that they know that huge numbers of immigrants sitting in hotel rooms is quite useful when it comes to elections. 

If I am understanding this correctly, you are saying successive governments have dismantled or degraded the apparatus of processing immigration and dealing with asylum, with nothing to replace it practically? I haven't researched your claim, but I have no reason to disbelieve you. So, previous, so called soft on immigration and asylum seekers Labour governments, were probably more effective.

[Barbe bleu 837]

2 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

If I am understanding this correctly, you are saying successive governments have dismantled or degraded the apparatus of processing immigration and dealing with asylum, with nothing to replace it practically? I haven't researched your claim, but I have no reason to disbelieve you. So, previous, so called soft on immigration and asylum seekers Labour governments, were probably more effective.

Its an interesting theory but if you are dismantling something why would you put more resources into it?

The number of caseworkers has increased but that increase has not rested in increased outcomes.  Why the efficiency of caseworkers has dropped is a matter of speculation

Edited February 4 by Barbe bleu

[Naturalcynic 679]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

This issue is much more fundamentally about the tens of thousands of violent attacks perpetrated by men against women every year. NO violence against women is acceptable whether the man is an asylum seeker or otherwise. 

It’s fundamentally about a barbaric attack on a woman and her children, alleged to have been perpetrated by a migrant who entered the country through illegal means and who, despite being refused asylum twice and despite having been convicted of sexual assault, falsely claimed to have converted to Christianity in order to game the system.  So it very much is about our failed immigration and asylum system even though you might wish that it wasn’t.