The English Channel

they get better benefits in the EU and they can legally work there quicker, remember they are also illegal in France.

I get the impression if there was a straight choice between housing the asylum seekers in the UK or simple executing them, quite a few posters on here would argue strongly the virtues of the latter.

If you were to ask some asylum seekers if they would simply accept a rejection decision and go home, or stay and fight it or try to rape or execute British people what do you think they would say?
 
The question you need to ask yourself is,

Are these people doing more harm than good?

Screenshot-20211126-101829-Chrome.jpg


How many rapes and murders are acceptable?

Screenshot-20211126-102031-Chrome.jpg


The government have a job to protect British citizens, don't forget this.
 
Then maybe read the posts they were responding to. Instead of writing a critique without that context.

Here are the times I've quoted that stat:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/s...t&o=date&c[user][0]=141583&c[thread]=18942430

It really doesn't matter. It is playing Top Trumps. You're in the game, regardless of your motivation.

The end point of that is a competition to get the biggest number, or the smallest number.

How do we compare to Estonia, Malta or Norway? Do we look at per capita or raw numbers? Do we smooth for single year spikes or look at multiple years?

It's simplistic and it's Top Trumps.

I could also say that taking this line means you are tacitly delegating policy decisions to other countries.

This game gets played a lot, and detracts from the real issue, which is that both France and the UK are playing pass the parcel, rather than looking to address public concern in both their countries.

Today's headlines demonstrate a complete unwillingness to negotiate, or even agree to a meeting, on this issue.
 
The question you need to ask yourself is,

Are these people doing more harm than good?

Screenshot-20211126-101829-Chrome.jpg


How many rapes and murders are acceptable?

Screenshot-20211126-102031-Chrome.jpg


The government have a job to protect British citizens, don't forget this.
Well clearly those people are doing more harm than good (except for the one who faked documents to work as a carer, I would suggest), but those people aren't all asylum seekers (meaning the whole population of asylum seekers). In fact, some of those articles are repeats, and others date back a decade, so it doesn't seem exactly pervasive.

Is there any evidence to suggest asylum seekers are any more violent than other unemployed sections of British society?
 
Read my post above this one.

Why do they want to rape and murder us? Why won't they go home if their claim is rejected?
The fact that you think posting 6 examples over a 9 year period is hard evidence for your disgusting mindset really says it all.
Bad people exist period, your logical of labelling all asylum seekers as the same is outstandingly ignorant.
 
It really doesn't matter. It is playing Top Trumps. You're in the game, regardless of your motivation.
It wasn't playing top trumps, it was repeatedly correcting people who wrongly believe Britain is uniquely affected, or soft, or whatever else, and were basing their opinion on that incorrect belief.

Giving correct context to frame the debate.
 
@The Running Man this thread is about the channel - please don't descend it into your ramblings about murder/rape.

To be fair the examples I posted were failed asylum seekers.

But okay the point stands if asylum seekers via the channel are unidentified how can we protect our people? If they are failed, how do we ensure that they can't stay?
 
But okay the point stands if asylum seekers via the channel are unidentified how can we protect our people? If they are failed, how do we ensure that they can't stay?
Failed means they were identified. Ensuring they can't stay is an issue of bureaucracy, which is the government's job to fix. Let's not blame genuine asylum seekers for the government's failings in dealing with rejected applications
 
Back
Top Bottom