General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

Why is taking aim at the guy that's launched a full on invasion of your country more concerning than the tens or hundreds of thousands of dead?

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

It is relevant becuase it reflects on of the arguments made from the right on countries abilities to absorb asylum seekers into their populations.  When in the EU we werer able to agree such numbers.  Most who have applied for asylum have been granted it by the last 4 governments who all professed to be tough on it.  There does though seem to be more non genuine cases in the last couple of years,  don't know why that is,  but is certainly not due to pull factors beyond this is a better place to be than their home country,  imagine that. 

They come for the benefits, but they stay for the women, who wear almost nothing, even though it's much colder than home.

[Robo61]

11 hours ago, kenny said:

As a percentage success rate, the UK is 25% above the EU average. It has come down, but typically, asylum claims are easier here.

 

They are now much lower success rate than they were while we were in the DC.

Maybe just maybe those willing to risk their lives to cross the channel do so believing they are genuine cases and therefore more likely to be granted asylum, who knows.  When we were in the EU most asylum seekers were coming here by safe and legal routes agreed with the EU and therefore there was not the pull to take very risking crossingsas we could send them straight back.   Perhaps the rate has reduced because we have a government who is not such a "soft touch".  

Edited 30 December 2025 by Robo61

[st albans fox]

11 hours ago, kenny said:

As a percentage success rate, the UK is 25% above the EU average. It has come down, but typically, asylum claims are easier here.

 

They are now much lower success rate than they were while we were in the DC.

Can’t compare eggs and apples 

outside the EU we are way more attractive for illegals because we can’t just return them as we’re able to (hence they didn’t bother trying to come) 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

he's a *****.

A Trump/Putin standard *****, no less. Doesn't get nearly as much bad press as he deserves in the UK.

[splinterdream]

11 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Nonsense. 

Having with worked in the benefits world previously, I can tell you that you cannot just turn up in the UK, legally or not, and claim benefits. That is a lie designed to keep people thinking the way you appear to.

I didn't say they can turn up and claim benefits. Soon as they get accepted for asylum which they undoubtedly will as with a massive line of lawyers waiting to to take the legal aid, they will get benefits, even if that be in work benefits, its still benefits, thats unless they work in the black economy. 

[splinterdream]

11 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

They literally have to prove they are being  persecuted. They can't just claim it. They can't lose their identity. If they cannot prove who they are and that are personally being persecuted they will not get asylum. And the majority of asylum seekers do successfully prove the those things. They are the facts. 

What you've written is ill-informed nonsense.

The biggest demographic over the past few years has been from Pakistan and Albania, you and I know, the asylum system is being taken advantage of, it is not being used as it was first designed, and it is causing huge problems in our own Country. I have no idea why people continue to support this system.

The people you regard as far right, would support a fair asylum system, but this system isn't it, it is making rich lawyers, hoteliers, security companies and many others richer, and causing and will cause misery for those at the bottom of the ladder

 

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

It is relevant becuase it reflects on of the arguments made from the right on countries abilities to absorb asylum seekers into their populations.  When in the EU we werer able to agree such numbers.  Most who have applied for asylum have been granted it by the last 4 governments who all professed to be tough on it.  There does though seem to be more non genuine cases in the last couple of years,  don't know why that is,  but is certainly not due to pull factors beyond this is a better place to be than their home country,  imagine that. 

 

[BKLFox]

If you were to build a town in England just for those that came via boats, of which most are granted asylum or fade into the woods, from 2021 to present day that town would become the 33rd largest urban development in England alone (over 1000) and be made up of predominantly males (181k) 

Sustainable?

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Robo61 said:

Maybe just maybe those willing to risk their lives to cross the channel do so believing they are genuine cases and therefore more likely to be granted asylum, who knows.  When we were in the EU most asylum seekers were coming here by safe and legal routes agreed with the EU and therefore there was not the pull to take very risking crossingsas we could send them straight back.   Perhaps the rate has reduced because we have a government who is not such a "soft touch".  

Often they are sold a Dick Whittington style story of streets paved with gold by people traffickers in their own country (modern day slavers, essentially). I would think they have little concept of "benefits".

[Trav Le Bleu]

40 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

If you were to build a town in England just for those that came via boats, of which most are granted asylum or fade into the woods, from 2021 to present day that town would become the 33rd largest urban development in England alone (over 1000) and be made up of predominantly males (181k) 

Sustainable?

 

Love the way you say "in England alone*.

 

So if you add in the whole of the UK it'll more likely be 50th, or something like that.

 

 

[kenny]

4 hours ago, Robo61 said:

Maybe just maybe those willing to risk their lives to cross the channel do so believing they are genuine cases and therefore more likely to be granted asylum, who knows.  When we were in the EU most asylum seekers were coming here by safe and legal routes agreed with the EU and therefore there was not the pull to take very risking crossingsas we could send them straight back.   Perhaps the rate has reduced because we have a government who is not such a "soft touch".  

It reduced under Sunak, we don't yet know whether the current government is more or less soft. In truth it's the home office that controls these processes rather than the government.

 

I suspect the number of crossings is increasing in line with immigration into Europe which is increasing. Brexit has little to do with it I don't think.

 

It would be interesting to know how many that apply here have already been rejected by the EU. As we have 100k applications a year, and the EU has 900k I suspect it is quite a few.

[Lionator]

4 hours ago, StanSP said:

he's a *****.

He’s not, he gets Russian oil and gas on the cheap.

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

A Trump/Putin standard *****, no less. Doesn't get nearly as much bad press as he deserves in the UK.

It’s crazy that he’s likely ordered assassinations in Canada and nobody talks about it

[BKLFox]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

Love the way you say "in England alone*.

 

So if you add in the whole of the UK it'll more likely be 50th, or something like that.

 

 

Ok let’s include Wales & Scotland it would be the 36th largest but now the total of urban areas nearly doubles to 2000.

I put England alone because most people would understand that Wales & Scotland are centred area 1 area…so now it looks even worse no 🤷‍♂️ 

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

It reduced under Sunak, we don't yet know whether the current government is more or less soft. In truth it's the home office that controls these processes rather than the government.

 

I suspect the number of crossings is increasing in line with immigration into Europe which is increasing. Brexit has little to do with it I don't think.

 

It would be interesting to know how many that apply here have already been rejected by the EU. As we have 100k applications a year, and the EU has 900k I suspect it is quite a few.

Pre Brexit we were able to return those applying for asylum here having already done so in Europe

[Trav Le Bleu]

24 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Ok let’s include Wales & Scotland it would be the 36th largest but now the total of urban areas nearly doubles to 2000.

I put England alone because most people would understand that Wales & Scotland are centred area 1 area…so now it looks even worse no 🤷‍♂️ 

You know, if you took all Muslims in the UK they'd make the 2nd largest (and by some margin), Poles would be 8th (would have been 4th a few years back - I guess Poland has better benefits now), Romanians not far behind and Italians about the size of Leicester.

 

However, these people don't all live in one big lump, they're all through our community. Likewise, new immigrants (legal or otherwise) are dispersed across the nation.

 

In short, I don't see you point. 

 

Do you feel overwhelmed by Italians?

[kenny]

58 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Pre Brexit we were able to return those applying for asylum here having already done so in Europe

500 a year were returned under the Dublin convention. Unfortunately, not the magic wand it is now claimed to be after brexit.

[Kisnorbo fox]

7 hours ago, splinterdream said:

I didn't say they can turn up and claim benefits. Soon as they get accepted for asylum which they undoubtedly will as with a massive line of lawyers waiting to to take the legal aid, they will get benefits, even if that be in work benefits, its still benefits, thats unless they work in the black economy. 

Unfortunately you’re debating with a member of the looney left. Nothing rational will come back the other way. 

[leicsmac]

On 30/10/2025 at 09:08, leicsmac said:

WRT immigration/asylum claims, the situation remains as clear as it ever has been. There are only three options IMO:

 

- work a lot harder, along with everyone else, on foreign policy matters that prevent people having to migrate and leave their nations in the first place

 

- accept the disruption and terrible happenings in other nations as simply "some people are lucky and some aren't", refuse entry for as many of them as possible, and abandon them to their fate

 

- muddle on with the status quo which seems to suit next to nobody

 

If there's another option, I'd like to hear it. 

 

On 04/11/2025 at 19:25, leicsmac said:

 global problems sometimes transcend national ones, sometimes the two are intertwined, and that while first and foremost a nation should look after its own citizens, doing that in every circumstance doesn't tend to end well. 

 

Edit: again, though, that approach guarantees the suffering and death of a great many people who just don't happen to be British. How well that sits clearly is up to the beholder, but I'd rather people have the stones to regardless admit that is the case and that's the choice they make.

 

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

(Still looking for honest answers or at least honesty of purpose in response to the above, BTW.)

 

And still looking for rationality of my own here. Or at least honesty.

[CornwallFox]

7 hours ago, splinterdream said:

I didn't say they can turn up and claim benefits. Soon as they get accepted for asylum which they undoubtedly will as with a massive line of lawyers waiting to to take the legal aid, they will get benefits, even if that be in work benefits, its still benefits, thats unless they work in the black economy. 

About 49% are on benefits. But benefits are good for the economy so it doesn't hurt anybody particularly. Tbh I don't have a problem with you thinking 49% is too high, as it is much higher than the general population (19%) but I wish you were expressing the same annoyance at the ultra rich who are taking the wealth of the nation for themselves.

[CornwallFox]

7 hours ago, splinterdream said:

The biggest demographic over the past few years has been from Pakistan and Albania, you and I know, the asylum system is being taken advantage of, it is not being used as it was first designed, and it is causing huge problems in our own Country. I have no idea why people continue to support this system.

The people you regard as far right, would support a fair asylum system, but this system isn't it, it is making rich lawyers, hoteliers, security companies and many others richer, and causing and will cause misery for those at the bottom of the ladder

 

 

You wouldn't support a fair asylum system at all. The people I regard as far right make it clear that their chief annoyance is cultural takeover - they aren't bothered about Ukrainian refugees, it's Asian and African refugees they don't like, particularly Muslims. There's no system of asylum that you would like if it involved those people.

[Zear0]

43 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

About 49% are on benefits. But benefits are good for the economy so it doesn't hurt anybody particularly. Tbh I don't have a problem with you thinking 49% is too high, as it is much higher than the general population (19%) but I wish you were expressing the same annoyance at the ultra rich who are taking the wealth of the nation for themselves.

I've always been a bit confused by your constant assertion that benefits are good for the economy. There's arguments for wealth distribution, but not for economic incentives. 

 

It increases inflation, disincentivies people into work reducing productivity and earned value, is money not spent on infrastructure and for benefits for migrants, is sent to families abroad.

 

Not against more wealth distribution, but this constant assertion it's economically beneficial just isn't right. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And still looking for rationality of my own here. Or at least honesty.

Will give it a crack

Quote

- work a lot harder, along with everyone else, on foreign policy matters that prevent people having to migrate and leave their nations in the first place

 

- accept the disruption and terrible happenings in other nations as simply "some people are lucky and some aren't", refuse entry for as many of them as possible, and abandon them to their fate

 

- muddle on with the status quo which seems to suit next to nobody

All three + good messaging

 

Quote

 global problems sometimes transcend national ones, sometimes the two are intertwined, and that while first and foremost a nation should look after its own citizens, doing that in every circumstance doesn't tend to end well. 

 

Edit: again, though, that approach guarantees the suffering and death of a great many people who just don't happen to be British. How well that sits clearly is up to the beholder, but I'd rather people have the stones to regardless admit that is the case and that's the choice they make

Align the locally perceived sacrifices with a long game rhetoric. (good messaging)

 

In summary, the right thing to do is rarely unclear, bur selling it to the masses is an art. (good messaging)

[leicsmac]

34 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Will give it a crack

All three + good messaging

 

Align the locally perceived sacrifices with a long game rhetoric. (good messaging)

 

In summary, the right thing to do is rarely unclear, bur selling it to the masses is an art. (good messaging)

Appreciate the effort taken there. 

 

The idea here is that the problem is one of communication rather than ill intent, and therefore the errors are ones of ignorance/lack of thought rather than malice?

 

That's a possibility and I'm pretty sure selling a solution that is perceived to be good is very important, but I've got to also say that the consequences will remain the same in severity and dire nature no matter which of the above is directly responsible. 

 

Additionally, I was looking more for an acknowledgement from those who appear to want to wash their hands of such consequences despite advocating for a pathway that will lead directly to them and thus have some responsibility for them. 

Edited 30 December 2025 by leicsmac

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Appreciate the effort taken there. 

 

The idea here is that the problem is one of communication rather than ill intent, and therefore the errors are ones of ignorance/lack of thought rather than malice?

 

That's a possibility and I'm pretty sure selling a solution that is perceived to be good is very important, but I've got to also say that the consequences will remain the same in severity and dire nature no matter which of the above is directly responsible. 

 

Additionally, I was looking more for an acknowledgement from those who appear to want to wash their hands of such consequences despite advocating for a pathway that will lead directly to them and thus have some responsibility for them. 

Ah no then, I am resigned to remaining discontented at the blood on my hands, albeit not at my own volition.