General News Thread

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

It would be a rubbish and not even vaguely credible excuse.

Well it’s not in the same league as what Rayner did, it’s more an opening to get rid and try and get someone else in the role. 

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Tommy G said:

Well it’s not in the same league as what Rayner did, it’s more an opening to get rid and try and get someone else in the role. 

The problem is, they need to put taxes up.  Better she does it and then he moves her on after.

[FoxesWalk]

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's an interesting point, and I think it is to do with the fact that most people don't have an issue with asylum seekers who come through proper channels.  They do have an issue with those arriving illegally by boat, the vast majority of whom are clearly young men looking for work.  They then have more of an issue at these young men being 1) unable to work while the government takes years to process their claims, 2) put up in hotels in large numbers, and then 3) hang around and cause trouble as young men do when bored and in groups (recognising the trouble oftem looks for them).  Unfortunately, there are plenty who are too stupid to see that the government is responsible for all of that apart from the arrival in the first place, and in fact are also largely to blame for failing to stop that as well.  So they blame the migrants instead.

What are “proper channels” though? You can’t claim asylum without being in the UK, you have to get here to claim it in the first place. There are no legal routes to travel to the UK specifically to claim asylum, and no way to apply without being in the UK, hence why they use small boats or hide in Lorry’s etc. We have designed a system that plays directly into the hands of people smugglers, we built their industry with these rules. 
 

I personally don’t understand why we don’t allow people to make applications at any British embassy, we have them in almost every country. Surely that would be vastly cheaper, since they won’t be here and unable to work during the application process, and easier to control. It would also remove the incentive for legitimate asylum seekers to get on small boats, and therefore make it far easier to legally immediately remove anyone arriving via that route as it would be easier to demonstrate they did not follow the legal route. 
 

I am not right wing, I have no problem with immigration in general, I will never vote for a party like Reform. But we have an asylum seeker population larger than the entire city of Cambridge either waiting for their application or waiting for their appeal (some of whom will be taking the piss), that is clearly a problem and it’s absolutely crazy that we let ourselves get into that position (largely failures of the previous government), and it is a vastly expensive problem to fix. 

Edited 30 October 2025 by FoxesWalk

[Salisbury Fox]

9 minutes ago, FoxesWalk said:

 

I personally don’t understand why we don’t allow people to make applications at any British embassy, we have them in almost every country. Surely that would be vastly cheaper, since they won’t be here and unable to work during the application process, and easier to control. It would also remove the incentive for legitimate asylum seekers to get on small boats, and therefore make it far easier to legally immediately remove anyone arriving via that route as it would be easier to demonstrate they did not follow the legal route. 

I believe that you are underestimating how many would apply. Every embassy would be overwhelmed.

[Robo61]

13 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

It happened yesterday the main news was about the hurricane in Jamica on ITV and BBC last night they didn't even mention it on ITV news at 10.

Why do you think that it should take precedence over a once in 100 year disaster for the people of Jamaica,  when their were circa 400 murders in the UK in the last year that recieved zero coverage in the national media.  

[st albans fox]

Assuming quite a few people are surprised at their increased water bills dropping onto their emails ….

[Super_horns]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I am no fan of Rachel Reeves, but seriously who gives a shit about a rental license that her agent should have told her about.  She was pretty busy after the election.  It's aimed at shithole rental properties not nice well-maintained middle-class houses.  No harm no foul.

Different to Rayner who had to quit despite saying she just made an honest mistake ?

[Spudulike]

2 hours ago, FoxesWalk said:

What are “proper channels” though? You can’t claim asylum without being in the UK, you have to get here to claim it in the first place. There are no legal routes to travel to the UK specifically to claim asylum, and no way to apply without being in the UK, hence why they use small boats or hide in Lorry’s etc. We have designed a system that plays directly into the hands of people smugglers, we built their industry with these rules. 
 

I personally don’t understand why we don’t allow people to make applications at any British embassy, we have them in almost every country. Surely that would be vastly cheaper, since they won’t be here and unable to work during the application process, and easier to control. It would also remove the incentive for legitimate asylum seekers to get on small boats, and therefore make it far easier to legally immediately remove anyone arriving via that route as it would be easier to demonstrate they did not follow the legal route. 
 

I am not right wing, I have no problem with immigration in general, I will never vote for a party like Reform. But we have an asylum seeker population larger than the entire city of Cambridge either waiting for their application or waiting for their appeal, that is clearly a problem and it’s absolutely crazy that we let ourselves get into that position (largely failures of the previous government), and is a vastly expensive problem to fix. 

Those with failed asylum applications may well then get in a small boat anyway knowing they most likely can't be deported and slip away into the system.

 

The Home Office really have no idea how many undocumented migrants we have in the UK. It's happening all over Europe.

[leicsmac]

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. 

[Tommy G]

18 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Assuming quite a few people are surprised at their increased water bills dropping onto their emails ….

I'm with STWA and it went up 44% this year. Paying almost £100 a month for water now

[CrazyKopCorner]

11 hours ago, kenny said:

Oops. Rachel has dropped another b*llock.

Didn't get a licence which she's previously campaigned on, for renting her own house out at about £3,000 a month 

 

She's either incompetent or on the fiddle - I suspect both. 

 

Sling the twonk in jail. 

Edited 30 October 2025 by CrazyKopCorner

[FoxesWalk]

23 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Those with failed asylum applications may well then get in a small boat anyway knowing they most likely can't be deported and slip away into the system.

 

The Home Office really have no idea how many undocumented migrants we have in the UK. It's happening all over Europe.

They may, but then at least you can deport people more easily if there is a legal route. At present you can claim you are legitimate applicant who had no option other than to use a small boat, regardless of whether or not that is true, then you sit in a hotel for 18 months with your needs paid for by the state whilst you make appeals etc. If there is a legitimate route, that argument effectively dies. Why did you use a human trafficker when you can just go to an embassy in the first safe country you arrived in? If your claim is legitimate it will be considered and accepted via that route. At that point, anyone in a small boat is illegal by definition as they would now be making the choice to avoid the legitimate route (which currently doesn’t exist), and I don’t think the majority of people would have any issue deporting everyone arriving via a small boat in those circumstances even if a law change is required to do so. 
 

TLDR; the process of removing people is complicated by the lack of legal route, it means legit asylum seekers get lumped in with illegal immigrants, all using the same methods to get here, because that is is the only method at present. If you make a legal route, it should make it easier to deport people not using it.

Edited 30 October 2025 by FoxesWalk

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7eyg0808xo

 

Hopefully Korea can forge its own path. They've got the economic base to do so. 

[Spudulike]

36 minutes ago, FoxesWalk said:

They may, but then at least you can deport people more easily if there is a legal route. At present you can claim you are legitimate applicant who had no option other than to use a small boat, regardless of whether or not that is true, then you sit in a hotel for 18 months with your needs paid for by the state whilst you make appeals etc. If there is a legitimate route, that argument effectively dies. Why did you use a human trafficker when you can just go to an embassy in the first safe country you arrived in? If your claim is legitimate it will be considered and accepted via that route. At that point, anyone in a small boat is illegal by definition as they would now be making the choice to avoid the legitimate route (which currently doesn’t exist), and I don’t think the majority of people would have any issue deporting everyone arriving via a small boat in those circumstances even if a law change is required to do so. 
 

TLDR; the process of removing people is complicated by the lack of legal route, it means legit asylum seekers get lumped in with illegal immigrants, all using the same methods to get here, because that is is the only method at present. If you make a legal route, it should make it easier to deport people not using it.

There are already humanitarian routes including UK Resettlement scheme.

[FoxesDeb]

6 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

There are already humanitarian routes including UK Resettlement scheme.

That's for refugees, not asylum seekers

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

Different to Rayner who had to quit despite saying she just made an honest mistake ?

The independent report also found she'd made an honest mistake. 

 

I'm a bit torn on it tbh. On one hand I have to recognise that if this had been a Tory chancellor I'd have definitely said they should go. So it's hard not to say that here.

 

On the other hand, somebody renting out a house and their letting agent not mentioning they need a license specific to that locality feels more like a letting agent that needs firing. And who knows if that letting agent had an agenda. 

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, CornwallFox said:

The independent report also found she'd made an honest mistake. 

 

I'm a bit torn on it tbh. On one hand I have to recognise that if this had been a Tory chancellor I'd have definitely said they should go. So it's hard not to say that here.

 

On the other hand, somebody renting out a house and their letting agent not mentioning they need a license specific to that locality feels more like a letting agent that needs firing. And who knows if that letting agent had an agenda. 

So you're in agreement she should go then?

[CornwallFox]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

So you're in agreement she should go then?

As I said, I'm torn. 

 

Re the Tory chancellor comment, I think that's what I've said. But even then I'm not sure I wouldn't have been wondering what exactly they did wrong. 

 

Trouble for starmar is that I can't see how it's much different to Rayner. Again, relied on the expertise of others and been let down. Ultimately has led to them breaking a rule, or law, or by-law, or whatever it is. Surely an independent report would again just find it was an accident but even so still a breach of the ministerial code? 

 

Tbh I'm not great fan of reeves. She's like a wooden doll half the time. And I'd rather labour broke free from their self imposed spending rules - there's never been a Tory government in history that's ever stuck to its own spending rules - so they can properly invest in the country. 

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

As I said, I'm torn. 

 

Re the Tory chancellor comment, I think that's what I've said. But even then I'm not sure I wouldn't have been wondering what exactly they did wrong. 

 

Trouble for starmar is that I can't see how it's much different to Rayner. Again, relied on the expertise of others and been let down. Ultimately has led to them breaking a rule, or law, or by-law, or whatever it is. Surely an independent report would again just find it was an accident but even so still a breach of the ministerial code? 

 

Tbh I'm not great fan of reeves. She's like a wooden doll half the time. And I'd rather labour broke free from their self imposed spending rules - there's never been a Tory government in history that's ever stuck to its own spending rules - so they can properly invest in the country. 

The trouble is, if they move away from their spending rules they are going back on what they said. 

 

If they put up taxes for working people, they are going back on what they said.

 

They removed the winter fuel allowance then U turned on it.

 

They pledged to reduce the welfare bill, then couldn't get it through and U turned on it. 

 

These are 4 quick examples of where U turns happen and credibility goes down further and further. 

[Spudulike]

24 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

That's for refugees, not asylum seekers

They are safe and legal routes.

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, Spudulike said:

They are safe and legal routes.

The UK resettlement scheme you mentioned is for refugees and not asylum seekers, so what are the safe and legal routes for asylum seekers in to the UK? 

[CornwallFox]

22 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The trouble is, if they move away from their spending rules they are going back on what they said. 

 

If they put up taxes for working people, they are going back on what they said.

 

They removed the winter fuel allowance then U turned on it.

 

They pledged to reduce the welfare bill, then couldn't get it through and U turned on it. 

 

These are 4 quick examples of where U turns happen and credibility goes down further and further. 

I'll give you a serious answer but my (semi) unserious answer is that nobody that has voted Tory at any time in the last 15 years can point elsewhere about broken promises. 

 

Re the spending rules, labour always come into government on the back foot because there's a weird belief the Tories are economically competent, despite all the evidence being the other way. I don't know why they tied themselves into this given we've had weak growth since about 2010 and investment is what awakens an economy.

 

Will be interesting to see what they do re taxes. I'm still doubtful they'll break their manifesto pledges re IT, NI and VAT but we'll see I guess. I don't see how increasing tax on ordinary people helps the economy when the key issue is nobody has any money to spend. 

 

Winter fuel allowance. A strange one. The policy was a good one, though the level set was initially too low. The u turn corrected that but the whole thing was such a massive political own goal right at the start of government. 

 

Welfare - it's become such a political thing is lost the point of why welfare exists. We need some cross party consensus and some sensible discussion about benefit recipients. 

 

I get your point re u turns etc. some silly own goals in there. Some political point scoring elsewhere. 

[Spudulike]

21 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

The UK resettlement scheme you mentioned is for refugees and not asylum seekers, so what are the safe and legal routes for asylum seekers in to the UK? 

Depends where you come from. There are schemes for those coming from Ukraine, Hong Kong and some from Afganistan. Google is helpful 

 

The post was referring to 'legitimate' routes of which there are some.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Different to Rayner who had to quit despite saying she just made an honest mistake ?

Yes, no one is impacted at all by this issue, there is no suggestion she is a bad landlord - this is a scheme in place to stop bad landlord letting shitty accommodation.  This is a tory tabloid digging for dirt and finding a tiny insignificant oversight, not the housing minister saving $40k in tax due to failing to heed tax advice.  Even if the rental agency comes up with evidence they told her - in which case they should have asked to sigh the license - she had just been appointed chancellor and frankly had more important things to worry about.

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I am no fan of Rachel Reeves, but seriously who gives a shit about a rental license that her agent should have told her about.  She was pretty busy after the election.  It's aimed at shithole rental properties not nice well-maintained middle-class houses.  No harm no foul.

If all that's been said is true, then it seems a very honest mistake. You don't ask an expert for advice and then go off and do your own research. That's like owning a dog and barking.