Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
On the asylum seekers and hotels discussion a few posts above I think I would cancel any booking at an asylum seeker hotel, nothing to do with the hotel or the asylum seekers themselves and everything to do with the fact that I don't think we should be spending taxpayers money keeping them in hotels.
nothing to do with the hotel all the asylum seekers themselves and everything to do with the fact that I don't think we should be spending taxpayers money keeping them in hotels
I'd agree, we shouldn't. Seeing a family of five all climb out of the lift to go back to their small hotel room was depressing. It's no way to look after people.
But this is the consequence of government policy, trying to be "tough" and not "giving them a free house".
I'd agree, we shouldn't. Seeing a family of five all climb out of the lift to go back to their small hotel room was depressing. It's no way to look after people.
But this is the consequence of government policy, trying to be "tough" and not "giving them a free house".
Where are these free houses to give to this number of people arriving on spec, please?
It is safe shelter for people who are fleeing persecution, war and danger. If I was fleeing a warzone I'd be happy with a room in a YHA in preference to fearing being bombed every night.
If they're not fleeing persecution, then it becomes a problem, but people who aren't fleeing persecution are economic migrants, and that's a wholly different question.
It is safe shelter for people who are fleeing persecution, war and danger. If I was fleeing a warzone I'd be happy with a room in a YHA in preference to fearing being bombed every night.
If they're not fleeing persecution, then it becomes a problem, but people who aren't fleeing persecution are economic migrants, and that's a wholly different question.
FWIW the people I saw appeared to be Syrian and Iranian.
Veering wildly off-topic, I'm not convinced by the idea of many being purely "economic migrants", it's often not that clear cut. Even Albania, probably the clearest-cut example, was still a car crash of a country as late as the mid-2000s.
Separately, I also wonder how people square off Norman Tebbitt's "get on your bike" type opinions with a distaste for people who, er, get on their bike.
Veering wildly off-topic, I'm not convinced by the idea of many being purely "economic migrants", it's often not that clear cut. Albania was still a car crash of a country as late as the mid-2000s.
It's come a long way and was never really unsafe other than by way of self-inflicted "blood feud" (it takes two to end up in that position). It is primarily economic migration. And yes, I have been there (and to Kosovo).
Domestic homelessness is horrible, but it affects about 1% of households. People stuck in inappropriate or dilapidated housing is a bigger problem. All these issues tie in with a chronic lack of social housing.
There is no shortage of housing- a brief look on Air BnB proves that.
Imagine if the money spent on hotel accommodation for the homeless and refugees was spent on constructing social housing, not to mention the huge amount of housing benefit simply handed over for free to investment landlords.
The immigration services can, and used to, rent places for refugees. They don't now because they don't want the "we rent houses for asylum seekers" publicity, so they shove them in an anonymous business hotel or they try and build prison camps for them in the middle of nowhere.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Perhaps it was, but that's no different to any civil war, and doesn't change the position of the civilians caught in the middle.
I don't think Albania is unsafe any more, but it is only recently safe and still a very poor country. And now the UK government has pretty much shut all legal migration routes, oddly enough people use less lawful routes. "Taking back control" gives us less control, who'd have thunk it eh.
Albanian blood feud isn't a civil war, it's a curious and fatal manifestation of a tiff between two families. It takes two to tango. Bringing it here is unwelcome. I would not allow this as a reason to claim asylum any more than I'd suggest people in feuding drug gangs in the UK should be able to claim asylum in say Germany.
And now the UK government has pretty much shut all legal migration routes, oddly enough people use less lawful routes. "Taking back control" gives us less control, who'd have thunk it eh.
There is no reason to allow Albanians to enter the UK to settle, full stop, unless we specifically want their skills to fill an employment gap. Any who attempt to do so by illegal means should be returned to Albania.
If they want to come here on holiday they can do that legally by applying for a visa.
This has nothing to do with Brexit of course as Albania is not in the EU.
The problem is that this government have closed nearly all legal migration routes, claiming that only "highly skilled" people should be allowed to come here. Low-skill sectors with chronic staff shortages- hospitality and agriculture spring to mind- don't count. So we're in the ludicrous situation where fruit isn't getting picked yet we're spending a fortune in accommodating both political and economic refugees, and we have no way of knowing if these economic migrants are good eggs or drug lords. The whole thing is imbecilic.
If sensible legal migration routes existed then we would be able to vet who comes here in advance. Sensible legal migration routes are the best way of putting the people smugglers out of business.
The problem is that this government have closed nearly all legal migration routes, claiming that only "highly skilled" people should be allowed to come here. Low-skill sectors with chronic staff shortages- hospitality and agriculture spring to mind- don't count. So we're in the ludicrous situation where fruit isn't getting picked yet we're spending a fortune in accommodating both political and economic refugees, and we have no way of knowing if these economic migrants are good eggs or drug lords. The whole thing is imbecilic.
This is a totally separate issue, and one where I actually think we should look at a shift in our economy rather than whining about the lack of migrants. In the end we need to pay people properly and provide proper conditions so legitimate residents of the UK will do the jobs*, or provide short term visas for specific purposes e.g. spending the summer here to harvest crops.
If there is no legal route for economic migration, then economic migrants should not come to the UK at all, and any who do should be deported to their country of origin as quickly as possible. If it is not possible to do something legally you don't do it, you don't find an illegal way to do it.
* For instance I reckon for the right money, with easy online application, decent quality communal hostel-style accommodation and meals (not mouldy old caravans and a Pot Noodle) and decent social provision, you'd get students to pick crops during their long summer holidays. But the farmers aren't interested - they just whine while still providing slavery-grade accommodation and pay.
I work in a regulated sector where, fundamentally, it is a piece of cake to set up a website anywhere in the world and do business without scrutiny. If one goes down the "ban it all" route then those websites still exist, one simply doesn't have control of them. If one provides a legal way of operating these websites then the reputable operators will largely agree to be regulated as a market differentiator, and it's much easier for people to see who the really bad eggs are.
It's the same here. Completely pull up the drawbridge and people will simply hire a dingy from organised crime. The more legal migration is outlawed, the more people arrive in Kent on a RIB. Cause and effect.
I'm a pragmatist- allow it and you retain control, ban it and you don't. For every 10ft wall there's someone with a 12ft ladder.
If there is no legal route for economic migration, then economic migrants should not come to the UK at all, and any who do should be deported to their country of origin as quickly as possible. If it is not possible to do something legally you don't do it, you don't find an illegal way to do it.
The problem with that idea is that you can't tell until people apply and provide background information whether they are economic migrants or genuine refugees - and there isn't a hard line between the two, either in terms of the individuals or the countries they come from. The problem currently is that the Home Office is totally incompetent about processing applications from people who do arrive - the backlog has gone up by a huge factor over the past five years - so the politicians whip up public anger about the costs of keeping applicants in hotels in order to cover their own inadequacy and generate support for their policy of shutting off legal routes. The policy doesn't work, so the problem just gets bigger and bigger.
I work in a regulated sector where, fundamentally, it is a piece of cake to set up a website anywhere in the world and do business without scrutiny. If one goes down the "ban it all" route then those websites still exist, one simply doesn't have control of them. If one provides a legal way of operating these websites then the reputable operators will largely agree to be regulated as a market differentiator, and it's much easier for people to see who the really bad eggs are.
It's the same here. Completely pull up the drawbridge and people will simply hire a dingy from organised crime. The more legal migration is outlawed, the more people arrive in Kent on a RIB. Cause and effect.
I'm a pragmatist- allow it and you retain control, ban it and you don't. For every 10ft wall there's someone with a 12ft ladder.
On the asylum seekers and hotels discussion a few posts above I think I would cancel any booking at an asylum seeker hotel, nothing to do with the hotel or the asylum seekers themselves and everything to do with the fact that I don't think we should be spending taxpayers money keeping them in hotels.
The usual nasty parts of the press bang on about the hotels but as others have said it's because there's nowhere else. Government has failed to build sufficient temporary places for them and the reason so many places are needed is because it's taking Government years to process cases.
As to the use of hotels, asylum seekers are people who need a temporary place to stay. Hotels are places designed for people who need a temporary place to stay. What would you suggest? A launderette? Brewery?
Hotels have always been used by the authorities for this type of purpose. In the 1980s I found myself sharing a hotel with benefits claimants with nowhere else to live when I was working in Salisbury. The other part of this story that is used to deliberately mislead is talk iof 4- and 5-star hotels. This, intentionally, conjures up images of people sitting around in nice white bathrobes, sipping a beer from the minibar while they wait for their steak to be delivered by room service. This is not how it is. It tends to be the whole hotel taken over and no hint of luxury. Just poorly-trained security guards treating them like prisoners.
There can be genuine asylum claims from "safe" countries. As an example, India is a safe country - unless you happen to insult Islam and end up having to go into hiding (and ending up getting your hand chopped off).
Could it be that, under the current economic conditions, there's less demand for these higher-end hotels anyway? Luxury hotels aren't just about the fixtures and fittings; it's all about the top-class service, and I'm fairly sure asylum seekers won't be getting that.
Maybe I'm being cynical here, but if someone owns a 5-star establishment and had no customers paying full rate, isn't it better to be getting some income than no income at all? They could dispense with the unnecessary staff too.
Could it be that, under the current economic conditions, there's less demand for these higher-end hotels anyway? Luxury hotels aren't just about the fixtures and fittings; it's all about the top-class service, and I'm fairly sure asylum seekers won't be getting that.
Maybe I'm being cynical here, but if someone owns a 5-star establishment and had no customers paying full rate, isn't it better to be getting some income than no income at all? They could dispense with the unnecessary staff too.
I think you're giving the government too much credit if you think they aren't paying full wack !! In fact, since they block book the whole hotel (even if there are empty rooms) I wouldn't be surprised if the government are charged even more than the top rate
It will be an absolute gravy train for the hotel owners
I think you're giving the government too much credit if you think they aren't paying full wack !! In fact, since they block book the whole hotel (even if there are empty rooms) I wouldn't be surprised if the government are charged even more than the top rate
Block bookings and corporate bookings are almost always at a significant discount to rack rate. As an example, with my previous employer I got a rate of £60/night at a hotel that had a rate of £270/night if booked directly through their website.
I've always thought that they should be temporarily housed in the more affluent parts of the country. It's usually those who are more wealthy that are the ones suggesting we should be doing more. This is what happened after the Grenfell tragedy with the predictable backlash once it actually occured. Those who were harping on about doing more soon took offence when the unfortunate displaced were housed alongside those paying £2000pm+ rent. You get to see peoples true colours when they have to practice what they preach.
It was quite unsafe at a couple of points in the 1990s, so I wouldn't say that it was always safe. 1997 was quite a rough year, and it's a surprise that it didn't end up much worse than it did.
However, since roughly August 1997, it's been safe. The blood feuds are just pathetic, and we shouldn't be encouraging them by offering asylum to anyone taking part in such stupidity.
There can be genuine asylum claims from "safe" countries. As an example, India is a safe country - unless you happen to insult Islam and end up having to go into hiding (and ending up getting your hand chopped off).
I don't believe asylum should be offered to people as a means of protecting them from the relevant laws if they have broken the law of that country, with a small number of exceptions about which people have no choice e.g. homosexuality.
Would we offer it to prisoners on Death Row in the US because we don't have the death penalty? Of course not.
If you wilfully make your bed, you lie in it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It was quite unsafe at a couple of points in the 1990s, so I wouldn't say that it was always safe. 1997 was quite a rough year, and it's a surprise that it didn't end up much worse than it did.
However, since roughly August 1997, it's been safe. The blood feuds are just pathetic, and we shouldn't be encouraging them by offering asylum to anyone taking part in such stupidity.
I don't believe asylum should be offered to people as a means of protecting them from the relevant laws if they have broken the law of that country, with a small number of exceptions about which people have no choice e.g. homosexuality.
Would we offer it to prisoners on Death Row in the US because we don't have the death penalty? Of course not.
It's quite clear you have no idea what case I'm talking about. Which is the danger of blanket statements like "they're from a safe country". Each asylum claim must be evaluated on its own merits.
Have a quick Google for T. J. Joseph and what happened to him in a "safe country".
The landmark ruling, issued March 25, 2020 in the case of Elgizouli v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, requires British authorities to withhold from the United States any evidence that the United States could use to prosecute Shafee El Sheikh and Alexander Kotey—two British Islamic State detainees accused of murdering U.S. and British captives—because U.S. officials had refused to rule out pursuit of the death penalty in their cases. “No further assistance should be given for the purpose of any proceedings” against El Sheikh and Kotey “in the United States of America,” Lord Brian Kerr wrote for the Court, “without the appropriate death penalty assurances.”
There can be genuine asylum claims from "safe" countries. As an example, India is a safe country - unless you happen to insult Islam and end up having to go into hiding (and ending up getting your hand chopped off).
Apologies for the typo in my last post. Yes, there are attacks by and on just about all communities. You've mentioned an attack by Muslims on a Christian. The Mumbai massacre was Muslims (from outside India) on, Hindus and westerners. Hindus have set fire to train loads of Muslims. Sikhs have been misdirected by Hindus. It's a mess. But it's still very much a Hindu country, especially under Modi, so it's not the best example of a place where Muslim extremism is a problem.
Which was 12 years ago, and an attack that was gratefully pounced upon by Modi and the hard-right Hindu nationalists.
Your underlying point is very much correct, but given the increasingly hard-line nature of Modi and the Hindu nationalists it's an interesting example to choose.
And the Sikhs are also not averse to a bit of good old fashioned terrorism either.
Your underlying point is very much correct, but given the increasingly hard-line nature of Modi and the Hindu nationalists it's an interesting example to choose.
It's an example specifically chosen to make the point that every case needs to be judged on its own merits - the fact that a country is generally safe for a specific ethnic/religious/gender/etc group doesn't mean that a specific person cannot be in fear of their life if they remain in the country.
It's an example specifically chosen to make the point that every case needs to be judged on its own merits - the fact that a country is generally safe for a specific ethnic/religious/gender/etc group doesn't mean that a specific person cannot be in fear of their life if they remain in the country.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
