Race realism grows -
Robert Henderson
Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppy, last night (19
Jan) called for a two year moratorium on asylum. Speaking on the Edwina
Currie BBC Radio 5 programme, Wyatt said that the whole asylum system
was in chaos and he could find no answer when constituents came to him
and said they were homeless or being housed far away from their local
area when asylum seekers were housed locally. Wyatt said that something
was fundamentally wrong when that happened.
Wyatt described the situation in one Kent town where the town's sole
hotel - around which much of the town's public social activity revolved
- was to be given to asylum seekers with the loss of amenity to the
locals. Wyatt said that there had been no consultation with the
residents and claimed that the owner of the hotel who was selling it had
been duped by the purchasers who had assured him it would remain as a
functioning hotel.
Wyatt also spoke of the general strain on the country's social resources
- especially the NHS and housing - of large numbers of immigrants.
Wyatt said that the would raise the matter in the Commons next week and
call for a two-year moratorium on asylum while the present backlog was
dealt with and the whole position reviewed.
Callers to the programme were overwhelmingly on Wyatt's side and many
expressed their resentment of asylum seekers very angrily, with the
comments "I feel no obligation to them" and "charity begins a home"
featuring largely. Again, as with many phone ins at the moment on the
subject, tale after tale of our own people being deserted by the social
services were told and set against the treatment of asylum seekers who
get a house and maintenance without trouble. The crime brought by
immigrants and the police's reluctance to deal with it was also a
running theme.
There was also the grandest of ironies on the programme, older
immigrants ringing up to complain about newer immigrants, for example an
Asian born and bred in Bradford who nonetheless, yes you've guessed it,
described himself as "Pakistani", complaining about Kurdish crime gangs
in his area. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Jon°
given financial support to those invading Britain under the guise of
asylum-seeking is because this totally Anti-English administration wishes to
destabilise the British nation.
Nu Labour want race riots, Nu labour are promoting race riots......Why?
because they wish to use continental police and military power to subjugate
these islands. When the time is right (soon now) they will call on their
other power crazed partners in Europe to help in quenching the ravaging mobs
that Nu Labour policies have encouraged to flood our streets in rivers of
blood.
Read the article shown below. Can there be any other explanation for this
unbelievably traitorous government to have allowed the invasion that has
been taking place right under its very socialist nose. Of course not, they
are creating a tinder-box so that they can destroy the United Kingdom.
Perhaps they even hope to achieve this whilst so many thousands of our
troops are in the middle east fighting a war which "real-politik" dictates
we should stand aside from.
The time has come for the Royal Family to show its raison d'être. The Queen
can dissolve parliament any time she wishes. If the Royal Family has any
modern point the Queen must now show it. We are threatened with our survival
as a nation. Blair and his cahoots are determined to settle this issue
before the next election.
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticleMore.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=231822&Page
=&ReturnUrl=
Al-Qaida's terror invasion
AL-QAIDA has penetrated the whole of Britain by infiltrating other terror
organisations, Britain's most senior policeman warned last night.
The chilling warning that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network has forged
links with other groups to bring mayhem to Britain was made by Metropolitan
Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, and comes just days after policeman
Stephen Oake was murdered as he interrogated suspected Algerian terrorists.
Sir John said: "We know these people are quite prepared to give their lives,
they are extremely ruthless and they are prepared to use weapons which
perhaps people who have been involved in domestic terrorism have not been
prepared to use, so therefore there is a need for us to up our game and we
are doing that."
The risks posed by Al-Qaida were underlined by Home Secretary David
Blunkett, who said he had ordered MI5 and Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist
Branch to step up the fight against it.
"I have authorised the security and intelligence service and our
Anti-Terrorist Branch to take whatever steps are necessary, controversial or
otherwise, without fear or favour, to take action to protect us," he said.
"They will be demonstrating that in the weeks ahead very clearly indeed."
His comments come amid mounting public concern following the discovery of
the poison ricin at a flat in north London and the stabbing to death of
Detective Constable Oake during an anti-terrorism operation in Manchester.
Sir John said the police, MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, were
all working closely together to monitor terrorist suspects.
He said Al-Qaida had demonstrated its ability to "lock in" to other
terrorist organisations and exploit their capabilities. "There's still a
large number of people we're watching, there's still a number of people who
still have to be arrested," he told the Sky News Sunday with Adam Boulton
programme. "We know that there's certain links with Al-Qaida and, of course,
the link with North Africa is proven with other groups as well.
"I think, very cleverly, what bin Laden and others have done is actually
lock into established terrorist groups to see if they can actually use their
potential to cause the problems that they are."
He said it was still not known if terrorist groups had managed to obtain
weapons of mass destruction but said that if they did, he had no doubt that
they would be willing to use them.
Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin warned that attempts to counter the
terrorist threat were being undermined by the weakness of the asylum system,
which had degenerated into a "chaotic shambles".
He said effective measures were needed to screen out entrants to Britain who
were "intent on blowing us up". "People are worried and they are right to be
worried," he told The World This Weekend.
"The immigration controls at our ports are inadequate, the system for
vetting for those coming into the country... and in particular the system
for security vetting of asylum seekers, are all put in jeopardy by the fact
that they are all in a state of chaos.
"The Immigration and Nationality Department is simply a chaotic shambles at
the moment."
Meanwhile, a lawyer representing a former Taliban fighter who fought against
British and American troops in Afghanistan said his client had been granted
asylum in the UK. Cardiff-based Hanif Bhamjee, who represented the unnamed
man, said he was given permission to remain in Britain because he feared for
his life under the new Western-backed government in Kabul. He admitted he no
longer knew the man's whereabouts.
The Home Office said it was unable to verify Mr Bhamjee's claims because he
had refused to disclose his client's identity.
20 January 2003
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FWyfvUAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Jon°" <jon_j...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y%NW9.1685$Am2.11...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> The time has come for the Royal Family to show its raison d'être. The
Queen
> can dissolve parliament any time she wishes. If the Royal Family has any
> modern point the Queen must now show it. We are threatened with our
survival
> as a nation. Blair and his cahoots are determined to settle this issue
> before the next election.
Prince Charles is to visit the Islamic Foundation in Leicestershire to speak
with Muslim leaders in an attempt to stem the rising tide of Muslim violence
among young men who feel alienated from British society. The Prince is also
critical of the way the asylum issue has been handled in the UK, and how
it's been allowed to get out of control.
A source said 'It has never been explained properly how and why numbers on
this scale are being let in, so it is natural that it has led to problems'.
(source: The Mail on Sunday)
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Steve Glynn
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FWyfvUAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> Jan) called for a two year moratorium on asylum. Speaking on the Edwina
> Currie BBC Radio 5 programme, Wyatt said that the whole asylum system
> was in chaos and he could find no answer when constituents came to him
> and said they were homeless or being housed far away from their local
> area when asylum seekers were housed locally. Wyatt said that something
> was fundamentally wrong when that happened.
>
What's wrong is that the statement is totally illogical and displays a lack
of knowledge of housing legislation understandable in most people but a bit
worrying in an MP,
By definition everyone lives locally to somewhere. What's happening is
that his constituents have (presumably) applied to the local council or
housing association (since we can hardly be talking about private rented
accommodation in this context) for housing in a particular area.
They're then aggreived that, as they see it, an asylum seeker is housed in
the area they've asked for. They might be less aggrieved if they realised
asylum seekers get housed where the National Asylum Support Service choose
to send them, and that's usually in private rented accommodation, much to
the disgust of many local councils who'd hoped to lease their 'hard to let'
properties to NASS. By law, of course, NASS can only pay housing benefit
rents to landlords.
The asylum seeker probably has no particular desire to live in Mr Wyatt's
constituency and would be perfectly happy to live somewhere else if that
would help out some of Mr Wyatt's constituents. He might even be
prepared -- even want -- to move in with a friend or relative already here.
And, before you ask, since my grandparents (and plenty of other people) were
prepared to put up refugees during WW2, and at one point my wife's parents
at one point had 10 assorted East Europeans who'd escaped the delights of
communism -- in addition to the three children and my wife's paternal
grandfather and maternal grandmother -- living with them temporarily in
quite a small house, yes, if the worst came to the worst, we've got a spare
room which we could hardly refuse someone, though we hope we don't have to.
Unfortunately, the firm but fair dispersal policy (introduced by one Jack
Straw -- Mr Wyatt may have heard of him -- when he was Home Secretary makes
this next to impossible.
Little known fact. Let us assume your old university friend Boris escapes
from some hideous regime in his native Ruritania (they had a coup after his
return there on completing his studies). Naturally, you'd be prepared to
put him up, no matter how inconvenient it might be, since you're a decent
chap and could hardly do otherwise. Unfortunately, unless you're in a
position to support him financially for at least the first six months of his
stay here, forget it. He can't work legally until six months after his
arrival and NASS won't help.
They would, of course, pay for a bedsit for him in Mr Wyatt's constituency
and give him 70% of income support (hardly a princely sum) while his claim
is being considered, and, yes, I know this denies the bedsit to one of Mr
Wyatt's constituents and means the taxpayer has to pay his rent, but if he
fails to comply with the firm but fair asylum policy for which I think Mr
Wyatt may have voted, he's in trouble.
We're talking about two separate housing stocks. There's absolutely
nothing to stop Mr Wyatt's constituents finding private rented accommodation
in their desired location (and applying for housing benefit if necessary).
However, whatever these asylum seekers are doing they are certainly not
taking council housing stock, since that would be illegal and has been
since, IIRC, the mid 1980's, and I'd be absolutely astonished if they were
in housing association stock, since I'm pretty sure that would be illegal
too.
Mr Wyatt's aggrieved constituents might also want to ensure -- maybe he
could do it on their behalf -- that they're actually comparing like with
like. After all, if a single man claims asylum he'll get put up in a
bedsit, which a family of four aggrieved constituents might consider too
small for their needs.
I know something about this, having worked for a housing association once.
We frequently got representations from councilors or the local MP on behalf
of constituents who were aggrieved we appeared to be taking our time housing
them. OK, I can understand people getting upset about not being housed
where they want immediately (though I could never, as I suggested earlier,
understand why they couldn't have a shot at renting privately if they were
that anxious to move), particularly when we had a property standing vacant
in the area to which they wanted to move.
However, what people don't often fully understand is that there are very
strict and frequently virtually incomprehensible rules imposed by government
on both local authority and housing association housing allocation.
Essentially who gets what depends on the size of the family (and, under
certain circumstances, the age of the children if any). So, for example,
you might think somewhere would be ideal for you, your wife, and two young
kiddies, but it's quite possible that various Housing Acts don't agree, and
that's when it all gets very difficult.
A related problem is that housing associations have been encouraged to take
over properties from charitable trusts if the charitable trust can no longer
afford to run it. Sensible idea, but the problem is that these properties
frequently come with unbreakable covenants. Thus (and this is a real
example) if some Victorian philanthropist left a property to his local
parish council to accommodate a couple who had been married for a certain
number of years, were both over 60, and had been resident in the parish for
so many years, these are the only people who can ever be accommodated there.
It drove us mad, since we ended up with a fair number of places with this
sort of restrictive covenant (when housing associations take over public
sector housing, the council tends to throw in these places as part of the
deal, just to get rid of them). We'd have loved to be able to let them,
both so as to help someone out (and get them out of our hair) and so as to
get some income out of the property, but until someone meeting the terms of
the late Alderman Sidebotham's (obit 1843) last will and testament turned up
we couldn't.
> Wyatt described the situation in one Kent town where the town's sole
> hotel - around which much of the town's public social activity revolved
> - was to be given to asylum seekers with the loss of amenity to the
> locals. Wyatt said that there had been no consultation with the
> residents and claimed that the owner of the hotel who was selling it had
> been duped by the purchasers who had assured him it would remain as a
> functioning hotel.
>
Ah. So what does Mr Wyatt think should have happened (other than that the
purchasers should have told the truth, of course)? The owner wanted to
put the place on the market and accepted an offer. He might well (of
course -- ho ho!) have turned the offer down if he knew what was going to
happen. Come on, Robert. You're a former IR investigator. You know
as well as I do that unless the man was insane he'd have sold the business
as a going concern and charged as much as he could for the goodwill in this
thriving social amenity of his. You also know that the purchasers
probably wouldn't have said to themselves 'we've just paid for the goodwill
on this thriving public social amenity but we intend to write that cost off
and turn the place into a hostel for asylum seekers just for the hell of
it'.
Translating Mr Wyatt's statement into English, I take it to mean that the
hotel bar was the only pub in town. Well, presumably social amenity
though it doubtless was, it wasn't doing particularly well. And no one
consulted the residents? Well, oh dear me. No one consulted me when
Threshers sold the off-licence just round the corner to someone who turned
it into a dress shop. Do you think I should have been consulted? After
all, my wife and I buy booze considerably more frequently than she buys
dresses, and it's certainly less convenient to go to the local supermarket,
which is now the nearest place to buy some wine, than it was to nip round
the corner.
What's he suggesting? That the local council should have stepped in to buy
the place and continue to run it as a hotel for the benefit of (and at the
expense of) the local council tax payers?
> Wyatt also spoke of the general strain on the country's social resources
> - especially the NHS and housing - of large numbers of immigrants.
>
Sounds a suitably meaningless statement for a rather dim New Labour MP to
come out with. I increased the strain on Warwickshire's NHS and housing
when I moved here from London. Admittedly I decreased the strain on
London's NHS provision and housing stock, which someone arriving here from
abroad wouldn't do, but that can't be much help to our hard pressed local
health care service ('Sorry, sir, you may have to wait a bit longer for an
appointment with your GP because Steve's just moved here, but that's all
right because he's freed up a space on Dr Singh's list in London, so you
could go there instead'). Oh, and I took a job which otherwise might have
gone to a local, but then I'm just horrible. And my God Anna was evil
enough to wait until we arrived in Warwickshire before failling serverely
ill and needing see a GP weekly, and consultants monthly.
Dear God! I've just realised I migrated here for economic reasons, since
someone was so rash as to offer me a job here which I wanted to take (from a
native of Warwickshire -- sole purpose of move) and it's considerably less
expensive here than it was in London.
> Wyatt said that he would raise the matter in the Commons next week and
> call for a two-year moratorium on asylum while the present backlog was
> dealt with and the whole position reviewed.
>
Translation: Wyatt said he'd received some not particularly well-informed
complaints from constituents, who were dim enough both to have voted for him
and to believe everything they read in the Sun, and would make a meaningless
gesture in the hope it would placate them enough for him to hang onto his
job next time round.
The present asylum system is shambolic, I agree. The main problems are
that applications do take time to process, precisely because you need to
investigate the bogus ones. Let us take a hypothetical example. Most
of us would agree that Robert Mugabe is not a very nice chap and that being
a member of the Movement for Democratic Change might turn out to be so risky
that one would have to leg it from Zim. It could, of course, be argued
that we should just tell such a fugitive to bugger off and go somewhere
else, but I'm honestly not sure how many of us would want to do that if we
really thought it through.
Now, how does the Asylum department of the Immigration Service go about
establishing if I'm actually a member of the MDC (which wouldn't in itself
be enough to get me asylum here but would certainly help)? Since I'm not
a lunatic and I know both that suspected members of the MDC get searched
rather thoroughly when trying to leave Zim and have rather serious problems
if it transpires they are, in fact, members of the MDC -- Robert Mugabe
doesn't want them over here any more than do some of the tabloids, though
for rather different reasons -- I wouldn't bring my membership card with me.
But how do we establish the validity of my aplication? A series of
interviews and a number of contacts made, necessarily, through rather
circuitous routes. And if I've had to have myself smuggled out of Iraq
certainly won't even have a passport with me, because those are a bit
difficult to get if Saddam doesn't like you.
The process is necessarily protracted, partly because, completely
understandably, the Immigration people want to ask you the same set of very
detailed questions several times at quite long intervals. Ask me, for
example, what primary school I attended and what my mother's maiden name was
and I'll have no difficulty in giving you the same answer in a year's time
as I would do now. If, however, I've tried to create a false identity for
myself, that's the sort of thing that's going to trip me up quite easily.
Believe me, I know how detailed the investigations are.
> Callers to the programme were overwhelmingly on Wyatt's side and many
> expressed their resentment of asylum seekers very angrily, with the
> comments "I feel no obligation to them" and "charity begins a home"
> featuring largely. Again, as with many phone ins at the moment on the
> subject, tale after tale of our own people being deserted by the social
> services were told and set against the treatment of asylum seekers who
> get a house and maintenance without trouble. The crime brought by
> immigrants and the police's reluctance to deal with it was also a
> running theme.
>
Ah. This is what we folk who know a bit about statistical sampling call 'a
self-selecting survey', which aren't usually thought very reliable. And,
actually, I don't believe many of the callers really meant it. They may
well have got themselves in a lather about what they read about these
demonic ravening hoards of asylum seekers in the Daily Mail but I bet if you
actually introduced them to someone who had been tortured by Colonel
Gadaffi's secret police (I'm thinking of a perfectly pleasant chap I know
who was crippled in the process since his legs got broken rather a lot and
didn't heal properly) or the wife of a friend of mine who was tortured by
General Pinochet's DINA -- I'm not going into details about that, since
there are things I wish I hadn't heard and I don't want to inflict them on
anyone else -- they would pretty certainly say 'of course you can stay'.
What we're getting isn't realism about race or anything else. It's
tabloid hysteria, which, as we all know, is an excellent basis for public
policy. Do I really have to rehearse a list of absolutely bloody stupid
pieces of legislation thus caused? Maybe I'm a nasty cynic, but it seems
to me one of the most dangerous things you can do is tell your MP you've
just read something in the Daily Mail and something must be done about it,
because there's a horrible possibility he'll actually do something about it
that we'll all live to regret. Dangerous Dogs' Breakfast Act? A very
well-intentioned Housing Act of (I think) 1967 that virtually wiped out the
private rental market for the next 20 or so years? There's plenty more I
can think, and I'm sure if UKPM put its collective head together we could
fill the Millenium Dome with them.
Some people clearly trust MPs and tabloid journalists rather more than do I,
but, then, some mothers proverbially do 'ave 'em.
> There was also the grandest of ironies on the programme, older
> immigrants ringing up to complain about newer immigrants, for example an
> Asian born and bred in Bradford who nonetheless, yes you've guessed it,
> described himself as "Pakistani", complaining about Kurdish crime gangs
> in his area. RH
That's priceless, I agree. Something that's always puzzled me is how
people are so good at knowing where these successions of marauding crime
gangs come from. I'm in a minority in that I actually know some Kurds,
though like most British people I don't speak a word of Kurdish. If I was
assaulted in the street by a criminally inclined Kurd I'd be able to tell
the police with some certainty that my assailant probably wasn't Norweigan
or Chinese or African, but much after that I'd have difficulties locating
his origin. I speak pretty good French, but nevertheless it takes me a
few seconds to tune in if I hear French spoken and I'm not expecting it, and
if the chap was Kurdish I'd have difficulty placing where he came from to
within a couple of thousand miles.
It also recalls a scare readers of the Evening Standard had a few years back
about how the Russian Mafia was about to take over the drugs and
prostitution business in North London. Living in King's Cross at the time
and having a job that took me to Russia quite frequently I found this news
particularly alarming. So alarming, in fact, that the next time I was in
St P I made some enquiries of people who would know about this sort of thing
if anyone would (you can't do business there without meeting some people you
wouldn't want to meet normally) so I would know whether or not to put the
flat on the market.
News to them. Possibly these baddies were driven out by the Poles, who
were in turn driven out by the Yardies, and so on. Still, I suppose we
should be grateful to the Kurds for scaring off those Albanians who were
terrifying us all a month or so ago. Strange how few of them ever get
arrested for anything. Still, it's the poor old North London villains I
feel sorry for. God knows how they manage to make ends meet nowadays.
Steve
Binky Dawkins
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b0h3b8$piejj$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
Snip
Did you type all that yourself ? I'm impressed.
Robert Henderson
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:FWyfvUAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppy, last night (19
>> Jan) called for a two year moratorium on asylum. Speaking on the Edwina
>> Currie BBC Radio 5 programme, Wyatt said that the whole asylum system
>> was in chaos and he could find no answer when constituents came to him
>> and said they were homeless or being housed far away from their local
>> area when asylum seekers were housed locally. Wyatt said that something
>> was fundamentally wrong when that happened.
>>
>
>What's wrong is that the statement is totally illogical and displays a lack
>of knowledge of housing legislation understandable in most people but a bit
>worrying in an MP,
>
>By definition everyone lives locally to somewhere. What's happening is
>that his constituents have (presumably) applied to the local council or
>housing association (since we can hardly be talking about private rented
>accommodation in this context
That does not follow. An English man or woman made homeless could well
be placed in private accommodation, especially if a child is involved.
RH
>) for housing in a particular area.
>
>They're then aggreived that, as they see it, an asylum seeker is housed in
>the area they've asked for.
And often in social housing. RH
> They might be less aggrieved
Why? The vast majority of the English do not want asylum seekers at all.
RH
>if they realised
>asylum seekers get housed where the National Asylum Support Service choose
>to send them, and that's usually in private rented accommodation, much to
>the disgust of many local councils who'd hoped to lease their 'hard to let'
>properties to NASS. By law, of course, NASS can only pay housing benefit
>rents to landlords.
--
Dr. Sunil
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> And often in social housing. RH
Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
RF
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b0h3b8$piejj$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
> news:FWyfvUAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppy, last night (19
> > Jan) called for a two year moratorium on asylum. Speaking on the Edwina
> > Currie BBC Radio 5 programme, Wyatt said that the whole asylum system
> > was in chaos and he could find no answer when constituents came to him
> > and said they were homeless or being housed far away from their local
> > area when asylum seekers were housed locally. Wyatt said that something
> > was fundamentally wrong when that happened.
> >
>
> What's wrong is that the statement is totally illogical and displays a
lack
> of knowledge of housing legislation understandable in most people but a
bit
> worrying in an MP,
<snip>
> They're then aggreived that, as they see it, an asylum seeker is housed in
> the area they've asked for. They might be less aggrieved if they
realised
> asylum seekers get housed where the National Asylum Support Service choose
> to send them,
What happened to all those supposedly empty properties up north, where
nobody appears to want to live?
> and that's usually in private rented accommodation, much to
> the disgust of many local councils who'd hoped to lease their 'hard to
let'
> properties to NASS. By law, of course, NASS can only pay housing
benefit
> rents to landlords.
<snip>
> Unfortunately, the firm but fair dispersal policy (introduced by one Jack
> Straw -- Mr Wyatt may have heard of him -- when he was Home Secretary
makes
> this next to impossible.
The Government makes the laws, the Government (read Bliar/Flunkedit) can
change them.
> Little known fact. Let us assume your old university friend Boris
escapes
> from some hideous regime in his native Ruritania (they had a coup after
his
> return there on completing his studies). Naturally, you'd be prepared
to
> put him up, no matter how inconvenient it might be, since you're a decent
> chap and could hardly do otherwise. Unfortunately, unless you're in a
> position to support him financially for at least the first six months of
his
> stay here, forget it. He can't work legally until six months after his
> arrival and NASS won't help.
Fallacious assumption. What % of those seeking asylum here are genuine? And
what % are economic migrants?
<snip>
> Mr Wyatt's aggrieved constituents might also want to ensure -- maybe he
> could do it on their behalf -- that they're actually comparing like with
> like. After all, if a single man claims asylum he'll get put up in a
> bedsit, which a family of four aggrieved constituents might consider too
> small for their needs.
>
> I know something about this, having worked for a housing association once.
> We frequently got representations from councilors or the local MP on
behalf
> of constituents who were aggrieved we appeared to be taking our time
housing
> them. OK, I can understand people getting upset about not being housed
> where they want immediately (though I could never, as I suggested earlier,
> understand why they couldn't have a shot at renting privately if they were
> that anxious to move), particularly when we had a property standing vacant
> in the area to which they wanted to move.
<snip>
> > Wyatt described the situation in one Kent town where the town's sole
> > hotel - around which much of the town's public social activity revolved
> > - was to be given to asylum seekers with the loss of amenity to the
> > locals. Wyatt said that there had been no consultation with the
> > residents and claimed that the owner of the hotel who was selling it had
> > been duped by the purchasers who had assured him it would remain as a
> > functioning hotel.
<snip>
A red herring. It's the Government that's obtaining these properties.
<snipped another red herring>
<snip>
> > Wyatt also spoke of the general strain on the country's social resources
> > - especially the NHS and housing - of large numbers of immigrants.
> >
>
> Sounds a suitably meaningless statement for a rather dim New Labour MP to
> come out with.
So immigrants (and I'm referring to illegal ones) don't get sick eh?
> I increased the strain on Warwickshire's NHS and housing
> when I moved here from London. Admittedly I decreased the strain on
> London's NHS provision and housing stock, which someone arriving here from
> abroad wouldn't do, but that can't be much help to our hard pressed local
> health care service ('Sorry, sir, you may have to wait a bit longer for an
> appointment with your GP because Steve's just moved here, but that's all
> right because he's freed up a space on Dr Singh's list in London, so you
> could go there instead'). Oh, and I took a job which otherwise might
have
> gone to a local, but then I'm just horrible. And my God Anna was evil
> enough to wait until we arrived in Warwickshire before failling serverely
> ill and needing see a GP weekly, and consultants monthly.
Your post oozes misleading information. Are you not a British citizen with
the right of abode in Britain? Have you not certain rights as a British
citizen? How is your movement around Britain directly comparable to somebody
coming from *outside* GB, under false pretenses?
> Dear God! I've just realised I migrated here for economic reasons, since
> someone was so rash as to offer me a job here which I wanted to take (from
a
> native of Warwickshire -- sole purpose of move) and it's considerably less
> expensive here than it was in London.
Completely irrelevant compared to illegal immigrants, unless you are one.
> > Wyatt said that he would raise the matter in the Commons next week and
> > call for a two-year moratorium on asylum while the present backlog was
> > dealt with and the whole position reviewed.
> >
>
> Translation: Wyatt said he'd received some not particularly
well-informed
> complaints from constituents, who were dim enough both to have voted for
him
You really are disingenuous. How do *you* know they ALL voted for him? Are
you only allowed to approach the MP for your area if you voted for him???
> and to believe everything they read in the Sun,
Ah, the Sun eh? What about the DM, hmmm?
> and would make a meaningless
> gesture in the hope it would placate them enough for him to hang onto his
> job next time round.
Or are we to believe everything we read of yours in the NGs?
> The present asylum system is shambolic, I agree. The main problems are
> that applications do take time to process, precisely because you need to
> investigate the bogus ones.
Haven't mentioned anything about immigrants coming here from another EU
country, have you??? Like the farce concerning Sangatte.
<snip>
> > Callers to the programme were overwhelmingly on Wyatt's side and many
> > expressed their resentment of asylum seekers very angrily, with the
> > comments "I feel no obligation to them" and "charity begins a home"
> > featuring largely. Again, as with many phone ins at the moment on the
> > subject, tale after tale of our own people being deserted by the social
> > services were told and set against the treatment of asylum seekers who
> > get a house and maintenance without trouble. The crime brought by
> > immigrants and the police's reluctance to deal with it was also a
> > running theme.
> >
>
> Ah. This is what we folk who know a bit about statistical sampling call
'a
> self-selecting survey', which aren't usually thought very reliable.
And,
> actually, I don't believe many of the callers really meant it.
With no proof to back up your opinion.
> They may
Or may not. Shows you don't know what you are talking about.
> well have got themselves in a lather about what they read about these
> demonic ravening hoards
*Your* words to make your weak position *appear* stronger.
<another red herring> What's the number of asylum seekers coming here from
Libya who don't pass through another EU country? Come on provide those
overwhelming numbers.
> What we're getting isn't realism about race or anything else. It's
> tabloid hysteria, which, as we all know, is an excellent basis for public
> policy. Do I really have to rehearse a list of absolutely bloody
stupid
> pieces of legislation thus caused? Maybe I'm a nasty cynic, but it
seems
> to me one of the most dangerous things you can do is tell your MP you've
> just read something in the Daily Mail and something must be done about it,
Is that what those people in Sittingbourne did, read it in the DM, or did
they first hear about it because they lived there and saw/heard what was
happening *before* it got into a newspaper?
<snip>
> > There was also the grandest of ironies on the programme, older
> > immigrants ringing up to complain about newer immigrants, for example an
> > Asian born and bred in Bradford who nonetheless, yes you've guessed it,
> > described himself as "Pakistani", complaining about Kurdish crime gangs
> > in his area. RH
>
<snipped pompous rambling>
RF
Steve Glynn
Indeed they could, and that's, AFAIK, what the local Social Services
department would do if they couldn't find anything else for them. What
would stop them (English man or woman) buying a copy of their local
newspaper, examining the 'property to let' bit of the small ads section or
consulting a local estate agent, finding something that met their
requirements and a landlord who was prepared to let to them, and applying
for housing benefit if necessary is beyond me.
I've had to do that a couple of times, given the sometimes chaotic state of
my finances, and while it's not a particularly pleasant experience, it ain't
too difficult. Liberal and socialistic leanings aside, I don't see why
people can't get off their arses and help themselves and, if they can't be
bothered so to do, they have to blame someone else.
It's been pouring down with rain here the last few days. Do you who do you
think we should blame for the inclement weather?
> >) for housing in a particular area.
> >
> >They're then aggreived that, as they see it, an asylum seeker is housed
in
> >the area they've asked for.
>
> And often in social housing. RH
>
In complete contravention of the law, in that case, Robert. This is
something of which I have some professional knowledge, and, frankly, I have
to say I do not believe that statement. If you have any evidence for your
assertion I'll be more than happy to help prosecute the people responsible.
> > They might be less aggrieved
>
> Why? The vast majority of the English do not want asylum seekers at all.
> RH
>
'Could do better if he tried', as they used to say on my old school reports.
The vast majority of the English don't want people tortured or murdered
either even if they happen to be the wrong colour or the wrong religion or
the wrong whatever, and, the vast majority of the English being decent
people, would not refuse to help someone in trouble. If that changes, I'm
emigrating (loud cries of "right, we'll become barbarous hooligans just to
get rid of Glynn" from the hooligan eliment at the back).
Steve
The Enlightenment
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> > And often in social housing. RH
>
> Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
Why don't you stop asking stupid questions?
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> And often in social housing. RH
>
>Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
>
Why should I do that? RH
Robert Henderson
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
> That does not follow. An English man or woman made homeless could well
>> be placed in private accommodation, especially if a child is involved.
>> RH
>>
>
>Indeed they could, and that's, AFAIK, what the local Social Services
>department would do if they couldn't find anything else for them. What
>would stop them (English man or woman) buying a copy of their local
>newspaper, examining the 'property to let' bit of the small ads section or
>consulting a local estate agent, finding something that met their
>requirements and a landlord who was prepared to let to them, and applying
>for housing benefit if necessary is beyond me.
>
The level of housing benefit is below the average private rental in many
areas of the country. Also many private landlords will not take housing
benefit tenants. RH
>I've had to do that a couple of times, given the sometimes chaotic state of
>my finances, and while it's not a particularly pleasant experience, it ain't
>too difficult. Liberal and socialistic leanings aside, I don't see why
>people can't get off their arses and help themselves and, if they can't be
>bothered so to do, they have to blame someone else.
>
>It's been pouring down with rain here the last few days. Do you who do you
>think we should blame for the inclement weather?
>
>
>> >) for housing in a particular area.
>> >
>> >They're then aggreived that, as they see it, an asylum seeker is housed
>in
>> >the area they've asked for.
>>
>> And often in social housing. RH
>>
>
>In complete contravention of the law, in that case, Robert.
Anyone who lives in council housing knows it happens all the time. I
have a family of Kurds living above me. And try this letter in my local
paper, the Camden New Journal:
Camden New Journal 16 1 03
Block made a ghetto
YOUR leader, Where is the care? (January 9) deals with 'vulnerable'
tenants.
But I believe that your question covers all tenants who live in Mary
Green Tower block in Abbey Road.
There is no tenants' association as the office bearers got fed up with
the council's lack of duty of care and resigned. The council
accommodated a large number of refugees in the block without any
special provision for additional 'duty of care'.
The tower block has been made a ghetto.
From August until December last year, the council installed a new
heating system. The tenants had to put up with a lot of inconvenience
for a long time. It is fair to say that the council considered paying
compensation for the disturbance and inconvenience but did not divulge
as to how the compensation would be calculated.
In addition, the council has allowed the common areas to get very dirty
as there are no watchdogs to challenge it. Therefore it is not only
the vulnerable but all other tenants who are also being deprived of
the duty of care.
Name and address supplied
One of the most widespread and persistent lies of liberal bigots
is that immigrants do no jump the council housing queue. As anyone
living in or near council housing knows this is monstrously untrue.
Housing more than any other issue raises racial tension in places like
London where people who have been born and bred in an area find newly
arrived immigrants given council housing before them. It is a form of
theft from our poor.
Next! RH
> This is
>something of which I have some professional knowledge, and, frankly, I have
>to say I do not believe that statement. If you have any evidence for your
>assertion I'll be more than happy to help prosecute the people responsible.
>
>> > They might be less aggrieved
>>
>> Why? The vast majority of the English do not want asylum seekers at all.
>> RH
>>
>
>'Could do better if he tried', as they used to say on my old school reports.
>The vast majority of the English don't want people tortured or murdered
>either even if they happen to be the wrong colour or the wrong religion or
>the wrong whatever,
I have news for you. The vast majority of the English don't concern
themselves with "abroad". They really could not care less what happens
there. You only have to look at the tiny amounts of charity - worked out
on a pro rata basis - that the English give to charities working
overseas. RH
> and, the vast majority of the English being decent
>people, would not refuse to help someone in trouble.
What a fantasy world you live in. RH
> If that changes, I'm
>emigrating (loud cries of "right, we'll become barbarous hooligans just to
>get rid of Glynn" from the hooligan eliment at the back).
>
>Steve
>
>
--
sean
> news:FWyfvUAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppy, last night (19
> > Jan) called for a two year moratorium on asylum. Speaking on the Edwina
> > Currie BBC Radio 5 programme, Wyatt said that the whole asylum system
> > was in chaos and he could find no answer when constituents came to him
> > and said they were homeless or being housed far away from their local
> > area when asylum seekers were housed locally. Wyatt said that something
> > was fundamentally wrong when that happened.
> >
>
> What's wrong is that the statement is totally illogical and displays a lack
> of knowledge of housing legislation understandable in most people but a bit
> worrying in an MP,
>
> By definition everyone lives locally to somewhere. What's happening is
> that his constituents have (presumably) applied to the local council or
> housing association (since we can hardly be talking about private rented
> accommodation in this context) for housing in a particular area.
>
The real problem is that under the Geneva Convention, we have made a
promise that we cannot keep, namely that anyone with a well-founded
fear of persecution can settle in this country. Forget the
distinction between economic migrants and asylum seekers; anybody who
lives in a Third World cesspit like Iraq, or Zimbabwe, or Nigeria has
a well-founded fear of persecution. Throw in additional groups like
homosexuals in countries where homosexuality is severely punished, or
women who are abused by their husbands in militantly Islamic states,
and you have literally hundreds of millions of people with a fairly
good case to settle here under the terms of the Geneva Convention.
Nobody worried about this when only a few thousand people a year
claimed asylum. Now it's 100,000 a year (including dependants) and
rising. The Third World has called our bluff over this issue.
Unless you consider that we have a moral obligation to take in an
unlimited number of people, for an indefinite period, and I do not,
then one must be prepared to face this issue honestly and say that
this promise can not be kept any longer, and to withdraw from the
Convention. Then we can work out who exactly, and how many, we are
prepared to admit.
Dr. Sunil
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1030120190835.31685E-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> And often in social housing. RH
> >
> >Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
> >
>
> Why should I do that? RH
Who would be more in need of Social Housing?
Dr. Sunil
Do stop asking STUPID Questions!
Robert Henderson
<sp...@ic.ac.uk> writes
to house a couple with children. hence, I can stay in my flat and the
family gets housed. I leave my flat, I don't get housed. RH
RF
"Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030121155051.26531C-100000@bccmsa...
Citizen AND taxpayer's home??? Are you mad?
RF
RF
> On 21 Jan 2003, The Enlightenment wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1030120190835.31685E-100000@biochem>...
> > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > And often in social housing. RH
> > >
> > > Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
RF
Dr. Sunil
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.1030121155051.26531C-100000@bccmsa>, Dr. Sunil
> <sp...@ic.ac.uk> writes
> >On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1030120190835.31685E-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> And often in social housing. RH
> >> >
> >> >Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why should I do that? RH
> >
> >Who would be more in need of Social Housing?
> >
> Me. A council has no obligation o house a single person but they do have
> to house a couple with children. hence, I can stay in my flat and the
> family gets housed. I leave my flat, I don't get housed. RH
But surely a family is in more need of a flat than a single person.
Why don't your children take you in?
Binky Dawkins
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> But surely a family is in more need of a flat than a single person.
> Why don't your children take you in?
When you have integrated more Dr Sunil, you will realise that the British,
unlike some other nationalities, don't breed a houseful as a private pension
scheme. Speaking for myself, I would rather seek asylum in Afghanistan than
live with my kids when the time comes.
Alan
They used to.
Neglecting ones elderly use to be a vice of the middle classes. Up
until the early 70s grannie would always be found a place in one of
the children's homes in working class families. It seems we have bred
for greed since then.
--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)
Steve Glynn
> In article <b0i0s0$peto3$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
> <steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
> > That does not follow. An English man or woman made homeless could well
> >> be placed in private accommodation, especially if a child is involved.
> >> RH
> >>
> >
> >Indeed they could, and that's, AFAIK, what the local Social Services
> >department would do if they couldn't find anything else for them.
What
> >would stop them (English man or woman) buying a copy of their local
> >newspaper, examining the 'property to let' bit of the small ads section
or
> >consulting a local estate agent, finding something that met their
> >requirements and a landlord who was prepared to let to them, and applying
> >for housing benefit if necessary is beyond me.
> >
>
> The level of housing benefit is below the average private rental in many
> areas of the country. Also many private landlords will not take housing
> benefit tenants. RH
>
Certainly, which might be why Mr Wyatt's aggrieved constituents may have
found it difficult to rent the accomodation they wanted. However, there's
a difference between that and being homeless. Clearly, moreover, there
are landlords in his constituency prepared to accept HB rates, since that's
all the National Asylum Support Service will be paying.
> >I've had to do that a couple of times, given the sometimes chaotic state
of
> >my finances, and while it's not a particularly pleasant experience, it
ain't
> >too difficult. Liberal and socialistic leanings aside, I don't see why
> >people can't get off their arses and help themselves and, if they can't
be
> >bothered so to do, they have to blame someone else.
> >
> >It's been pouring down with rain here the last few days. Do you who do
you
> >think we should blame for the inclement weather?
> >
> >
> >> >) for housing in a particular area.
> >> >
> >> >They're then aggreived that, as they see it, an asylum seeker is
housed
> >in
> >> >the area they've asked for.
> >>
> >> And often in social housing. RH
> >>
> >
> >In complete contravention of the law, in that case, Robert.
>
> Anyone who lives in council housing knows it happens all the time. I
> have a family of Kurds living above me. And try this letter in my local
> paper, the Camden New Journal:
>
>
In that case they aren't asylum seekers. They may well once have been
asylum seekers and then have been accepted as bona fide refugees, in which
case they get the same rights to council housing and so on as anyone else,
and they get it on the same basis. And, frankly, I don't see what other
way of doing it there is.
Sorry, but any argument about foreigners taking 'our' council housing could
just as well be deployed by a native Londoner against you -- I think you
once mentioned you are not originally from that part of the world. If I
were on the waiting list for a council house I wouldn't be that bothered if
the occupant of the house I wanted was from Birmingham or Baghdad -- I'd be
more interested in just getting the house.
At the housing association where I once worked we used to get this argument
taken to ludicrous levels at times. 'My mum's elderly so I want to live
near her', which is fair enough, 'and our family have always lived in
Sneinton so I should get priority over someone from Clifton' (two different
parts of Nottingham), which isn't. And beleive me, that's a genuine
quote.
> Camden New Journal 16 1 03
>
> Block made a ghetto
>
> YOUR leader, Where is the care? (January 9) deals with 'vulnerable'
> tenants.
>
> But I believe that your question covers all tenants who live in Mary
> Green Tower block in Abbey Road.
>
> There is no tenants' association as the office bearers got fed up with
> the council's lack of duty of care and resigned. The council
> accommodated a large number of refugees in the block without any
> special provision for additional 'duty of care'.
>
> The tower block has been made a ghetto.
>
> From August until December last year, the council installed a new
> heating system. The tenants had to put up with a lot of inconvenience
> for a long time. It is fair to say that the council considered paying
> compensation for the disturbance and inconvenience but did not divulge
> as to how the compensation would be calculated.
>
> In addition, the council has allowed the common areas to get very dirty
> as there are no watchdogs to challenge it. Therefore it is not only
> the vulnerable but all other tenants who are also being deprived of
> the duty of care.
> Name and address supplied
>
Sorry, but I don't see what Name and address supplied is actually on about
other than that he's fed up with the local council. He's had to put with
the inconvenience of having a new central heating system installed.
Well, he's probably glad that he's got it, but I agree that having the
builders in is a pain, and that it's usual for landlords to offer some
compensation or temporary rent reduction as compensation.
Oh, they have offered him compensation but haven't told him how it's
calculated (which I suspect translates as 'I'd have liked more', but that's
just my cynical mind). And they haven't cleaned the common areas.
And they've put some refugees in the block.
I don't, I fear, see how the various complaints are exactly connected.
The leaseholders in the rather expensive mansion block in Knightsbridge
where my wife's chum Vanda the Hun owns an apartment are engaged in some
epic dispute with the freeholder, the managing agents, and each other, about
the charges for fixing the roof and the lift (it's been going on for years,
quite literally) rather to Vanda's disgust since it means no one can afford
to put their apartment on the market and be shot of the whole nuisance.
Unlike Mr Name and address supplied, they have formed a residents'
association, which holds regular and acrimonious meetings, at which I'm sure
that Vanda has managed to annoy several people.
Several residents may well complain that she's very sarcastic when she's
annoyed and she's German and 'my dad fought against them in the war', all of
which are perfectly true but have nothing to do with the problems about
paying for repairs to the roof and the lift.
> One of the most widespread and persistent lies of liberal bigots
> is that immigrants do no jump the council housing queue. As anyone
> living in or near council housing knows this is monstrously untrue.
> Housing more than any other issue raises racial tension in places like
> London where people who have been born and bred in an area find newly
> arrived immigrants given council housing before them. It is a form of
> theft from our poor.
>
See above. Housing is a very emotive issue, but people do tend to fall
into post hoc ergo propter hoc when they're upset. Hackney used to be
notorious for corruption in the housing department and it doubtless helped
get a place if you were a friend or relative of a certain councillor, who
was West Indian. The same used to be true of Nottingham, where it
certainly helped in any manner of matters to be a friend or relative (or be
prepared to pay) a certain alderman, who was from Hull. Lambeth housing
department is a shambles.
The problem isn't with West Indians or people from Hull or Nottingham or
South London, though. It's with a combination of certain individuals
being corrupt and/or incompetent.
How do you say, other than by individual cases of bribery or doing a 'favour
for a friend', immigrants get preferential treatment when it comes to social
housing? There's a points system, with which I used to be familiar, and
being foreign didn't come into it.
I can see why someone might think 'well, I've been waiting for ages for a
council flat, and why the hell has that foreigner got one', but if that
foreigner is legally resident here, has a couple of young children, and is
homeless, there's a statutory duty to pull out all the stops to house her,
just as there would be were she from Manchester. It's based on housing
need, not nationality,
> Next! RH
>
> > This is
> >something of which I have some professional knowledge, and, frankly, I
have
> >to say I do not believe that statement. If you have any evidence for
your
> >assertion I'll be more than happy to help prosecute the people
responsible.
> >
> >> > They might be less aggrieved
> >>
> >> Why? The vast majority of the English do not want asylum seekers at
all.
> >> RH
> >>
> >
> >'Could do better if he tried', as they used to say on my old school
reports.
> >The vast majority of the English don't want people tortured or murdered
> >either even if they happen to be the wrong colour or the wrong religion
or
> >the wrong whatever,
>
>
> I have news for you. The vast majority of the English don't concern
> themselves with "abroad". They really could not care less what happens
> there. You only have to look at the tiny amounts of charity - worked out
> on a pro rata basis - that the English give to charities working
> overseas. RH
>
God help us! I hope for everyone's sake you were a bit more rigorous in
your reasoning as an IR investigator. The fact that someone donates
money to one charity rather than another doesn't mean he isn't bothered
about the causes any other charity supports. It means he has a limited
amount of money at his disposal, and usually donates it because of a
particular personal reason. My wife usually gives money to research into
heart disease (because that's what killed her father), cancer research
(because she's suffered from it, though thank God it seems to be in
permanent remission) and the RNLI because she used to work in the shipping
industry. It does not therefore follow, does it, that she is indifferent
to cruelty to children, however, does it?
Try to deduce public attitudes to things from charitable donations and
you'll end up with some very odd conclusions about our country. I don't
know the figures but it would be interesting to compare donations to the
Royal British Legion with those to the RSPCA. I wouldn't be surprised if
the latter gets more contributions but I would not conclude that, as a
nation, we are more concerned about animals than we are about ex-servicemen
and their families. Actually, while I don't know about you, the best way
to get a charitable donation out of me is to have the initiative to rattle a
collection box at me when I'm out shopping of a Saturday and hope I've got a
couple of quid spare change.
> > and, the vast majority of the English being decent
> >people, would not refuse to help someone in trouble.
>
> What a fantasy world you live in. RH
>
What a low opinion you hold of the English, Robert! I'm ashamed of you.
Most people I encounter seem fundamentally decent and prepared to help out
with a problem. Clearly I associate with a better class of person than do
you. Or could it be your aftershave?
Steve
Steve Glynn
"RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote in message
news:ZmZW9.2495$N6.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b0h3b8$piejj$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:FWyfvUAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppy, last night
(19
> > > Jan) called for a two year moratorium on asylum. Speaking on the
Edwina
> > > Currie BBC Radio 5 programme, Wyatt said that the whole asylum system
> > > was in chaos and he could find no answer when constituents came to
him
> > > and said they were homeless or being housed far away from their local
> > > area when asylum seekers were housed locally. Wyatt said that
something
> > > was fundamentally wrong when that happened.
> > >
> >
> > What's wrong is that the statement is totally illogical and displays a
> lack
> > of knowledge of housing legislation understandable in most people but a
> bit
> > worrying in an MP,
>
> <snip>
>
in
> > the area they've asked for. They might be less aggrieved if they
> realised
> > asylum seekers get housed where the National Asylum Support Service
choose
> > to send them,
>
> What happened to all those supposedly empty properties up north, where
> nobody appears to want to live?
>
Dunno. Ask the National Asylum Support Service. I know for a fact that
Coventry City Council is furious that not getting the contract from NASS,
since they had hoped to let out some of their hard to let properties that
way. Part of it's to do with the government's policy of spreading asylum
seekers out equally throughout the country, part of it's to do with the
financial problems involved in having to provide furnished accommodation,
and partly it's to do with the understandable policy requirement that the
accommodation has to be in striking distance of a bus route, a doctor's, and
some other basic amenities, since the people you put there won't have a car.
And before anyone complains that there's lot's of people in country areas
who don't have cars and don't have a decent bus service, remember that NASS
are telling people where they have to live. I used to live in a small
village and, to my regret and considerable inconvenience, left the place for
a town because village life was just too inconvenient and expensive. But
then, I had the choice of where to live.
> > and that's usually in private rented accommodation, much to
> > the disgust of many local councils who'd hoped to lease their 'hard to
> let'
> > properties to NASS. By law, of course, NASS can only pay housing
> benefit
> > rents to landlords.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Unfortunately, the firm but fair dispersal policy (introduced by one
Jack
> > Straw -- Mr Wyatt may have heard of him -- when he was Home Secretary
> makes
> > this next to impossible.
>
> The Government makes the laws, the Government (read Bliar/Flunkedit) can
> change them.
>
Indeed. Which is why I find it rather odd that Mr Wyatt should be
complaining about the foreseeable results (of which they were warned at the
time) of policies for which he presumably voted. We're having this
problem in my home county Nottinghamshire, in which the government is
threatening to put a reception centre for 750 asylum seekers. I know the
village where they're planning to put it, and it's a tiny place -- can't be
much more than 100 or 150 people living there, and the nearest towns (about
3 or 4 miles away) have only eight or nine thousand residents each.
Put 750 people, whether they're asylum seekers or old Etonians in a place
like that and you're obviously going to have complaints because you're
changing the place so radically and suddenly. Nottingham City Council
(Labour -- I think they only have 2 Conservative councillors) is pleading
with the Government to put the reception centre in the City, as they'll be
more than glad to have the asylum seekers, but for God's sake don't put it
in a tiny place like Newton, because you're just asking for trouble.
Not because the people in Newton are inhospitable, but because if someone
announced a proposal to build 50 'executive homes' there you'd have a lively
planning enquiry, to say the least.
Sometimes it seems HMG are just trying to make problems over asylum,
possibly so they can eventually announce there's so much public opposition
to asylum seekers (created by HMG) that they'll have to change the law, thus
keeping the Daily Mail and the Sun happy. I'm just cynical, you see,
knowing a bit about the black arts of spin (and whose late father was a
civil servant of not quite the rank of Sir Humphrey in 'Yes Minister' but
almost of that level, so I do know something of what 'advice to ministers'
can be). Strange how some people only notice manipulation of public
opinion when it's being manipulated towards a policy they don't like. I
usually spot it even when it's being manipulated towards something of which
I approve.
> > Little known fact. Let us assume your old university friend Boris
> escapes
> > from some hideous regime in his native Ruritania (they had a coup after
> his
> > return there on completing his studies). Naturally, you'd be
prepared
> to
> > put him up, no matter how inconvenient it might be, since you're a
decent
> > chap and could hardly do otherwise. Unfortunately, unless you're in
a
> > position to support him financially for at least the first six months of
> his
> > stay here, forget it. He can't work legally until six months after his
> > arrival and NASS won't help.
>
> Fallacious assumption. What % of those seeking asylum here are genuine?
And
> what % are economic migrants?
>
Buggered if I can remember offhand. You can find the figures on the Home
Office website, and if you really want I'll find them for you, though I'd
rather you took the trouble.
Couple of points here. First, contrary to what some people think, it's
bloody difficult to establish a claim for asylum. You might think it
would be sufficient to say 'I'm an Iraqi Kurd, and Saddam Hussein, not the
most pleasant of men, has a bit of a down on us, so I'm in genuine fear of
persecution' -- which would be perfectly true --but it won't get you asylum.
You've got to convince the Home Office that you, personally, have actually
been persecuted or been given good reason to fear you'll be persecuted, by
him, and HMG can hardly write to him and ask him to confirm your account.
Well it can, but he's not likely to reply.
Remember, if you're claiming asylum you're guilty of making an unfounded
claim until you can prove you aren't. It's a bit like the police telling
you 'we suspect you did that crime. Convince us you didn't'. Not easy.
IOW, being turned down for refugee status doesn't make your application
'bogus'. It makes it unsuccessful. I've applied for plenty of jobs that
I haven't got, but my application would only have been 'bogus' if I'd lied
about my qualifications and experience. We'll be bothering about the
number of 'bogus' driving test applicants next if we aren't careful.
However, there are countries we won't deport to for various reasons, so a
lot of people get 'temporary leave to remain' (usually for 4 years) in the
hope that things will get a bit better by then and then they can go back.
And, believe it or not, lots of asylum seekers would like nothing better
than to go back home if it were safe so to do. Some don't want to,
obviously, The place holds too many bad memories or they've established
new lives over here and don't want to up sticks again. But I promise
you, ask most of (for example) the Kurdish refugees I've ever met -- and I
bet I've met more of them than have you -- if they were given the option of
remaining here or going back to an independent Kurdistan, and most of them
would ask you to help them pack and give them a lift to the airport.
Second, this term 'economic migrant' is a bit confusing, for two reasons.
First, it's quite possible -- indeed, probable -- that we have a higher
standard of living here than they have in many countries from which asylum
seekers come. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that these
people may have been in genuine fear of pretty horrible things happening to
them.
Furthermore, I've never actually seen what's wrong with being an economic
migrant. Lots of Welsh and Yorkshire farmers are jacking it in because of
the horrendous problems farming is going through here, and heading of for
Canada. They're clearly migrating for economic reasons. Terrible
people, are they?
>
> > Mr Wyatt's aggrieved constituents might also want to ensure -- maybe he
> > could do it on their behalf -- that they're actually comparing like with
> > like. After all, if a single man claims asylum he'll get put up in a
> > bedsit, which a family of four aggrieved constituents might consider too
> > small for their needs.
> >
> > I know something about this, having worked for a housing association
once.
> > We frequently got representations from councillors or the local MP on
> behalf
> > of constituents who were aggrieved we appeared to be taking our time
> housing
> > them. OK, I can understand people getting upset about not being
housed
> > where they want immediately (though I could never, as I suggested
earlier,
> > understand why they couldn't have a shot at renting privately if they
were
> > that anxious to move), particularly when we had a property standing
vacant
> > in the area to which they wanted to move.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Wyatt described the situation in one Kent town where the town's sole
> > > hotel - around which much of the town's public social activity
revolved
> > > - was to be given to asylum seekers with the loss of amenity to the
> > > locals. Wyatt said that there had been no consultation with the
> > > residents and claimed that the owner of the hotel who was selling it
had
> > > been duped by the purchasers who had assured him it would remain as a
> > > functioning hotel.
>
> <snip>
>
> A red herring. It's the Government that's obtaining these properties.
>
Is it? My understanding was that the Government was seeking to rent these
properties from private landlords -- that's certainly what NASS do at the
moment. If I happen to own an hotel and decide to rent it to the
Government to use for some purpose, or sell it to them, are you going to
tell me what to do with my own property?
> <snipped another red herring>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Wyatt also spoke of the general strain on the country's social
resources
> > > - especially the NHS and housing - of large numbers of immigrants.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds a suitably meaningless statement for a rather dim New Labour MP
to
> > come out with.
>
> So immigrants (and I'm referring to illegal ones) don't get sick eh?
>
I'm sure they do. So what? Some people seem to be under the impression
that immigrants -- legal or illegal -- come here to take advantage of the
NHS, which seems highly improbable. If I were worried about that sort of
thing, I'd be far more bothered about the strain placed on my local NHS
facilities by the number of people moving to town to stay in retirement
homes, since obviously elderly people are likely to need medical treatment
quite frequently. Actually, according to my GP, they do have to have a
practice meeting whenever they learn a new retirement home is opening in
their catchment area because of the increased workload it's inevitably going
to cause.
Do you suggest I should campaign against oldies moving to Leamington Spa,
swamping us and making it more difficult for my wife to get an appointment
to see Dr Chan at a convenient time? I'm pretty sure they cause more of
a burden to the NHS than do illegal immigrants. Mind you, what with the
medical problems Anna's managed to collect, I'm pretty sure both our GP and
any illegal immigrants in the area when we lived in London were glad to see
the back of her.
> > I increased the strain on Warwickshire's NHS and housing
> > when I moved here from London. Admittedly I decreased the strain on
> > London's NHS provision and housing stock, which someone arriving here
from
> > abroad wouldn't do, but that can't be much help to our hard pressed
local
> > health care service ('Sorry, sir, you may have to wait a bit longer for
an
> > appointment with your GP because Steve's just moved here, but that's all
> > right because he's freed up a space on Dr Singh's list in London, so you
> > could go there instead'). Oh, and I took a job which otherwise might
> have
> > gone to a local, but then I'm just horrible. And my God Anna was evil
> > enough to wait until we arrived in Warwickshire before failing severely
> > ill and needing see a GP weekly, and consultants monthly.
>
> Your post oozes misleading information. Are you not a British citizen with
> the right of abode in Britain? Have you not certain rights as a British
> citizen? How is your movement around Britain directly comparable to
somebody
> coming from *outside* GB, under false pretences?
>
Me try to mislead people with information? Surely not. Yes, I am a
British citizen with the right of abode here. Yes, I have certain rights
as a British citizen. I have certain rights as a customer of the Halifax
bank, come to that.
The important question is what these rights are, is it not? It always
does to look at specifics.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with asylum or immigration. Give me
one good argument against someone coming here from abroad that could not
just as well be used against someone moving from Birmingham to London.
Freedom of movement might be quite fun to discuss, btw. I used to have to
go to a country quite frequently where it was very important for both
foreigners and citizens to have permission as to where and where not they
could go. It was the former USSR, and I really wasn't very impressed by
the system. Do you have a different view, Tovarich?
Illegal entry to the country is worth a comment, too. It is virtually
impossible to claim asylum here without entering the UK illegally, and for
very good reasons. There's no way you can ask a British embassy for a
visa to enter the country to seek asylum (or ask the embassy to process your
asylum claim locally). Such a visa does not exist and the embassy is not
empowered to consider your asylum claim. If you enter the country on a
tourist or business visa and then claim asylum, you've entered under false
pretences.
In most countries from which you would want to flee to claim asylum you're
not going to find it easy (or very safe) to get a passport, so you're going
to have to leave that country and enter this one illegally.
IOW, complaining an asylum seeker has entered the UK illegally is about as
sensible as complaining he's come here from abroad.
> > Dear God! I've just realised I migrated here for economic reasons,
since
> > someone was so rash as to offer me a job here which I wanted to take
(from
> a
> > native of Warwickshire -- sole purpose of move) and it's considerably
less
> > expensive here than it was in London.
>
> Completely irrelevant compared to illegal immigrants, unless you are one.
See above. It would be impossible to process asylum claims overseas, since
that would get loads of our embassies closed. It would complicate life no
end to admit anyone claiming asylum on arrival as anything other than an
illegal immigrant, since it would make it very difficult to deport him if
his claim is unfounded.
>
> > > Wyatt said that he would raise the matter in the Commons next week
and
> > > call for a two-year moratorium on asylum while the present backlog was
> > > dealt with and the whole position reviewed.
> > >
> >
> > Translation: Wyatt said he'd received some not particularly
> well-informed
> > complaints from constituents, who were dim enough both to have voted for
> him
>
> You really are disingenuous. How do *you* know they ALL voted for him? Are
> you only allowed to approach the MP for your area if you voted for him???
>
Sorry. What I should have said is that he'd received some not particularly
well-informed complaints from constituents, some of whom may have been dim
enough to have voted for him and some of whom may not have voted for him but
whom he hoped might be dim enough to vote for him next time.
Happy now?
> > and to believe everything they read in the Sun,
>
> Ah, the Sun eh? What about the DM, hmmm?
>
Not sure if you mean the Mail or the Mirror. Neither are topics I prepare
to contemplate.
> > and would make a meaningless
> > gesture in the hope it would placate them enough for him to hang onto
his
> > job next time round.
>
> Or are we to believe everything we read of yours in the NGs?
>
Yes. Of course. I would hardly post something I didn't wan't people to
believe, would I? I'm not a complete idiot.
> > The present asylum system is shambolic, I agree. The main problems are
> > that applications do take time to process, precisely because you need to
> > investigate the bogus ones.
>
> Haven't mentioned anything about immigrants coming here from another EU
> country, have you??? Like the farce concerning Sangatte.
>
Ah, I'm glad you asked me about that. Allow me to enlighten you about an
important Law Lords decision dating back to (IIRC) the mid 80's. There are
some very specific circumstances in which some EU countries, notably France
and Germany, are not regarded as 'safe third parties'. To oversimplify
rather a lot, our interpretation of our obligations under the asylum
conventions (to which, it is worth remembering, almost every country in the
world is a signatory) is that they cover people who are under threat not
only from their government but from non-governmental forces from whom the
local government is either unable or unwilling to protect them.
The French, and to a lesser extent the Germans, take the view that it's only
threats from governments that are covered. Thus, you and I might share
the common-sense view of the British courts that if you've got the
Provisional IRA after you, you have something to be very worried about.
The French and German courts would (again, oversimplifying rather) would
take the view that we had no cause to be worried, since HMG are clearly
opposed to PIRA going about murdering people, so what were we fussed about?
The French, who are basically cheating, have stuck a few more administrative
measures in to make it next to impossible to claim asylum there unless you
have family in France.
It's honestly not something I would want us to emulate, possibly because I'm
not French.
What it boils down to in practice, and it is always best to think in
specifics rather than generalities, is you end up (genuine example, again)
with a perfectly pleasant young chap, who was perfectly happy studying
architecture back in Algeria until he ran foul of the Islamic Salvation
Front (F.I.S), who are a bunch of bastards who make the PIRA look positively
amiable, and had to leg it. He didn't want to, since he was quite happy
studying architecture at university in his own country and looking forward
to continuing a comfortable life (he's hardly an economic migrant) following
a profession he looked forward to in his own country.
Unfortunately the poor bugger managed to offend the FIS by expressing views
on the undesirability of religious fundamentalism that you and I would both
take for granted, and found himself having to run for it, after having told
the wrong person about something he'd heard about a terrorist attack that
they were planning.
Now, I'd think twice about upsetting PIRA, but at least they don't usually
chop off your genitalia (sorry to be blunt, but facts is facts) and stick
them in your mouth before, eventually, putting you out of your misery.
Standard practice for FIS.
The French are of the opinion he has nothing whatsoever to worry about,
since the Algerian government are fighting FIS as hard as they can, so he
could just go back home to Algeria and stop worrying. Somehow he wasn't
reassured, and made it over here, on the assumption that Brits are more
civilised than the French.
He's now trying to fight deportation back to France, since HMG are of the
opinion that France is a safe third country, a view which, unaccountably, he
doesn't share. He'd origninally claimed asylum there, you see, since he
speaks French and has relatives there, and it took him a few weeks to
realise he'd made a bit of a mistake. And you'll be pleased to know he's
banged up in a detention centre while he conducts his appeal.
Sorry, but this really is the sort of thing that goes on.
> <snip>
>
> > > Callers to the programme were overwhelmingly on Wyatt's side and many
> > > expressed their resentment of asylum seekers very angrily, with the
> > > comments "I feel no obligation to them" and "charity begins a home"
> > > featuring largely. Again, as with many phone ins at the moment on the
> > > subject, tale after tale of our own people being deserted by the
social
> > > services were told and set against the treatment of asylum seekers who
> > > get a house and maintenance without trouble. The crime brought by
> > > immigrants and the police's reluctance to deal with it was also a
> > > running theme.
> > >
> >
> > Ah. This is what we folk who know a bit about statistical sampling
call
> 'a
> > self-selecting survey', which aren't usually thought very reliable.
> And,
> > actually, I don't believe many of the callers really meant it.
>
> With no proof to back up your opinion.
>
Right, let's have a phone in on 'If you think people are about to be
tortured and murdered by a vile dictator, do you think we should leave him
to get on with it or try to help them out?'. Wanna bet on what the
results will be?
And if you really want me to post you some further and better particulars of
self-selecting surveys aren't very reliable I will, but it really is rather
obvious.
> > They may
>
> Or may not. Shows you don't know what you are talking about.
>
Indeed. That's why I hold to the opinion that things may or may not be the
case until I know one way or the other. Your policy on this?
> > well have got themselves in a lather about what they read about these
> > demonic ravening hoards
>
> *Your* words to make your weak position *appear* stronger.
>
Of course I use my own words and try to present a case as forcefully as I
can. What do you do?
> <another red herring> What's the number of asylum seekers coming here from
> Libya who don't pass through another EU country? Come on provide those
> overwhelming numbers.
>
See above. I'll give you the number of asylum seekers from Libya arriving
here year on year, but that should hardly be necessary since you clearly
know it this knowledge is what's got you worried. I can't, I'm afraid,
tell you how many arrive direct by air or direct by sea, or who qualify
under the English common law for asylum here but not in France. I don't
think those figures are available. I can certainly, though, give you the
gross figure of how many asylum seekers from Libya have arrived here and
what the results of their applications have been, but you clearly know that
already and will enlighten us all.
> > What we're getting isn't realism about race or anything else. It's
> > tabloid hysteria, which, as we all know, is an excellent basis for
public
> > policy. Do I really have to rehearse a list of absolutely bloody
> stupid
> > pieces of legislation thus caused? Maybe I'm a nasty cynic, but it
> seems
> > to me one of the most dangerous things you can do is tell your MP you've
> > just read something in the Daily Mail and something must be done about
it,
>
> Is that what those people in Sittingbourne did, read it in the DM, or did
> they first hear about it because they lived there and saw/heard what was
> happening *before* it got into a newspaper?
>
I very much suspect that was the precise sequence of events. You start
with a genuine worry -- which may or may not be particularly justified, as
in I don't want to be trampled by a rogue elephant but it's not something
I'll worry about too much in Warwickshire but I am worried with reason about
the number of cars that go off the road on the blind corner just by my
house -- and then, if you're not too bright, you get an explanation for
whatever worrying phenomenon it might be, so that's all right.
Look, obviously I am worried about the number of burglaries in my area, not
least because I don't want one to happen to me. The number of burglaries
is an ascertainable fact. The question of to what we attribute them,
however, is more difficult. Sentencing policy? Asylum Seekers?
Shortage of police? Police tactics? Gun control laws? More likely,
some combination of the above?
Buggered if I know, buggered if the local police know, and absolutely
astonished if either the editor of a national newspaper or the editor of the
local newspaper (who presumably knows the area better than does the editor
of one of the nationals) knows either.
Steve
Robert Henderson
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>> The level of housing benefit is below the average private rental in many
>> areas of the country. Also many private landlords will not take housing
>> benefit tenants. RH
>>
>
>Certainly, which might be why Mr Wyatt's aggrieved constituents may have
>found it difficult to rent the accomodation they wanted. However, there's
>a difference between that and being homeless. Clearly, moreover, there
>are landlords in his constituency prepared to accept HB rates, since that's
>all the National Asylum Support Service will be paying.
>
Don't bank on it. These new contracts for asylum centres are outside
the rules. RH
>> >I've had to do that a couple of times, given the sometimes chaotic state
>of
>> >my finances, and while it's not a particularly pleasant experience, it
>ain't
>> >too difficult. Liberal and socialistic leanings aside, I don't see why
>> >people can't get off their arses and help themselves and, if they can't
>be
>> >bothered so to do, they have to blame someone else.
>> >
>> >It's been pouring down with rain here the last few days. Do you who do
>you
>> >think we should blame for the inclement weather?
>> >
>> >
>> >> >) for housing in a particular area.
>> >> >
>> >> >They're then aggreived that, as they see it, an asylum seeker is
>housed
>> >in
>> >> >the area they've asked for.
>> >>
>> >> And often in social housing. RH
>> >>
>> >
>> >In complete contravention of the law, in that case, Robert.
>>
>> Anyone who lives in council housing knows it happens all the time. I
>> have a family of Kurds living above me. And try this letter in my local
>> paper, the Camden New Journal:
>>
>>
>
>In that case they aren't asylum seekers.
Simply wrong. I know that from my direct experience. RH
>They may well once have been
>asylum seekers and then have been accepted as bona fide refugees, in which
>case they get the same rights to council housing and so on as anyone else,
No they do not. They get in practice a better deal. Half of the flats in
my block are occupied by people who have come here as adult immigrants.
At the same time, Camden has a waiting list of nearly 10,000 largely
composed of people born and bred here. If you think that is acceptable,
you are really out of touch with reality. RH
>and they get it on the same basis. And, frankly, I don't see what other
>way of doing it there is.
>
Don't accept any asylum seekers. Refuse social housing to anyone not a
British subject by birth. RH
>Sorry, but any argument about foreigners taking 'our' council housing could
>just as well be deployed by a native Londoner against you -- I think you
>once mentioned you are not originally from that part of the world.
Typical liberal bigot fantasy. The nation is one thing, abroad another.
I would add that I have lived in London since 1965. RH
> If I
>were on the waiting list for a council house I wouldn't be that bothered if
>the occupant of the house I wanted was from Birmingham or Baghdad -- I'd be
>more interested in just getting the house.
>
You would be concerned if housing was constantly being given to
immigrants instead of you. RH
>At the housing association where I once worked we used to get this argument
>taken to ludicrous levels at times. 'My mum's elderly so I want to live
>near her', which is fair enough, 'and our family have always lived in
>Sneinton so I should get priority over someone from Clifton' (two different
>parts of Nottingham), which isn't.
A perfectly reasonable criterion if the other criteia are me. RH
They are on about the placing of immigrants in their block and the mess
it makes of it. HB
>> One of the most widespread and persistent lies of liberal bigots
>> is that immigrants do no jump the council housing queue. As anyone
>> living in or near council housing knows this is monstrously untrue.
>> Housing more than any other issue raises racial tension in places like
>> London where people who have been born and bred in an area find newly
>> arrived immigrants given council housing before them. It is a form of
>> theft from our poor.
>>
>
>See above. Housing is a very emotive issue, but people do tend to fall
>into post hoc ergo propter hoc when they're upset. Hackney used to be
>notorious for corruption in the housing department and it doubtless helped
>get a place if you were a friend or relative of a certain councillor, who
>was West Indian.
The whole housing department was riddled corruption. It employed many
illegal immigrants who "sold" properties to other illegal immigrants.
RH
> The same used to be true of Nottingham, where it
>certainly helped in any manner of matters to be a friend or relative (or be
>prepared to pay) a certain alderman, who was from Hull. Lambeth housing
>department is a shambles.
>
>The problem isn't with West Indians or people from Hull or Nottingham or
>South London, though.
Tell that to the marines. RH
> It's with a combination of certain individuals
>being corrupt and/or incompetent.
>
>How do you say, other than by individual cases of bribery or doing a 'favour
>for a friend', immigrants get preferential treatment when it comes to social
>housing? There's a points system, with which I used to be familiar, and
>being foreign didn't come into it.
>
>I can see why someone might think 'well, I've been waiting for ages for a
>council flat, and why the hell has that foreigner got one', but if that
>foreigner is legally resident here, has a couple of young children, and is
>homeless, there's a statutory duty to pull out all the stops to house her,
>just as there would be were she from Manchester. It's based on housing
>need, not nationality,
>
Which it should not be. Social housing should be restricted to British
citizens by birth. RH
The only true caring is practical. Crocodile tears count for nothing. RH
> It means he has a limited
>amount of money at his disposal, and usually donates it because of a
>particular personal reason. My wife usually gives money to research into
>heart disease (because that's what killed her father), cancer research
>(because she's suffered from it, though thank God it seems to be in
>permanent remission) and the RNLI because she used to work in the shipping
>industry. It does not therefore follow, does it, that she is indifferent
>to cruelty to children, however, does it?
>
>Try to deduce public attitudes to things from charitable donations and
>you'll end up with some very odd conclusions about our country. I don't
>know the figures but it would be interesting to compare donations to the
>Royal British Legion with those to the RSPCA. I wouldn't be surprised if
>the latter gets more contributions but I would not conclude that, as a
>nation, we are more concerned about animals than we are about ex-servicemen
>and their families. Actually, while I don't know about you, the best way
>to get a charitable donation out of me is to have the initiative to rattle a
>collection box at me when I'm out shopping of a Saturday and hope I've got a
>couple of quid spare change.
>
>
>> > and, the vast majority of the English being decent
>> >people, would not refuse to help someone in trouble.
>>
>> What a fantasy world you live in. RH
>>
>
>What a low opinion you hold of the English, Robert!
No, I have a realistic view of human nature. RH
> I'm ashamed of you.
>Most people I encounter seem fundamentally decent and prepared to help out
>with a problem. Clearly I associate with a better class of person than do
>you. Or could it be your aftershave?
>
>Steve
>
>
--
hognoxious
>
> Furthermore, I've never actually seen what's wrong with being an economic
> migrant. Lots of Welsh and Yorkshire farmers are jacking it in because
of
> the horrendous problems farming is going through here, and heading of for
> Canada. They're clearly migrating for economic reasons. Terrible
> people, are they?
I'm assuming that they don't tell the Canadian government a pack of lies to
get in (or that if they do, the Canucks don't believe them).
I have been an economic migrant, but I got my visa via the proper legal
channels, based on my credentials and qualifications. I never claimed *not*
to be an economic migrant.
Dr. Sunil
No, I said a family.
Dr. Sunil
I don't occupy any Social Housing.
Dr. Sunil
I'm just bamboozled as to why RH, in his condition, hasn't been taken in
by any of his family (he has severe angina).
BTW Just my parents, my brother and I in this country - Binky!
And - I didn't know you cared so little about YOUR Parents! Maybe if
Britons took greater care of their elders, you wouldn't get these horror
stories on the lines of "Mrs. Smith aged 80 found dead in her freezing
cold bedsit after three weeks".
Rant over - "And relax."
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030121191104.5113C-100000@bccmsa...
Hmmm..the above little spat surely illustrates how tight housing is in
London and why we must clamp down on asylum.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
> In article <b0knv9$qvh14$3...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
> <steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >
> >found it difficult to rent the accomodation they wanted. However,
there's
> >a difference between that and being homeless. Clearly, moreover,
there
> >are landlords in his constituency prepared to accept HB rates, since
that's
> >all the National Asylum Support Service will be paying.
> >
>
> Don't bank on it. These new contracts for asylum centres are outside
> the rules. RH
The truth now, Steve. I heard someone who is in housing say that the DSS
(or whoever pays it) will stump up the full cost of whatever a private
landlord asks if he rents a property to asylum-seekers, whereas a Brit in
the same circumstances has to pay the shortfall themselves because there's a
ceiling on how much housing benefit is allowed.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Dr. Sunil
Why should country folk like you give a monkeys about London?
(I'm only being ironic by the way!)
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> Couple of points here. First, contrary to what some people think, it's
> bloody difficult to establish a claim for asylum.
I can see that would be a major problem for asylum seekers if they were
actually deported. As it is - if their application fails they just
disappear.
> And, believe it or not, lots of asylum seekers would like nothing better
> than to go back home if it were safe so to do.
Are there any figures available for asylum seekers who have voluntarily gone
home?
>
> Second, this term 'economic migrant' is a bit confusing, for two reasons.
> First, it's quite possible -- indeed, probable -- that we have a higher
> standard of living here than they have in many countries from which asylum
> seekers come. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that these
> people may have been in genuine fear of pretty horrible things happening
to
> them.
Sad, but unfortunately we can't take in everybody from everywhere - it's
physically impossible.
>
> Furthermore, I've never actually seen what's wrong with being an economic
> migrant. Lots of Welsh and Yorkshire farmers are jacking it in because
of
> the horrendous problems farming is going through here, and heading of for
> Canada. They're clearly migrating for economic reasons. Terrible
> people, are they?
Are they smuggling themselves in the back of lorries to claim asylum, free
housing, free medical care and state handouts? I somehow doubt it. There's
nothing wrong with emigrating if you go there with the intention of
contributing to the country's wellbeing and economy. Too many who come here
are contributing zilch.
>
> Some people seem to be under the impression
> that immigrants -- legal or illegal -- come here to take advantage of the
> NHS, which seems highly improbable. If I were worried about that sort
of
> thing, I'd be far more bothered about the strain placed on my local NHS
> facilities by the number of people moving to town to stay in retirement
> homes, since obviously elderly people are likely to need medical treatment
> quite frequently.
Yes, but those elderly people have paid into the pot all their lives and
it's a mark of a civilised country how well we take care of our old.
Judging by the recent case of the old lady booted off her doctors list to
make way for asylum-seekers, we've failed that test too.
>
> Do you suggest I should campaign against oldies moving to Leamington Spa,
> swamping us and making it more difficult for my wife to get an appointment
> to see Dr Chan at a convenient time? I'm pretty sure they cause more
of
> a burden to the NHS than do illegal immigrants.
This their country in which they have lived and supported all their lives.
Besides, as you said elsewhere, by moving, they are freeing up space at some
other doctors surgery. A mass influx of refugees doesn't do that - it just
puts strain on resources.
> Mind you, what with the
> medical problems Anna's managed to collect, I'm pretty sure both our GP
and
> any illegal immigrants in the area when we lived in London were glad to
see
> the back of her.
Steve..with respect, you are a doughnut.
<kiss>
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
RF
RF
RF
British subject and taxpayer.
RF
Dr. Sunil
>
> "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030122164814.29326Q-100000@bccmsa...
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, RF wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030121155051.26531C-100000@bccmsa...
> > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1030120190835.31685E-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> > > > > Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> And often in social housing. RH
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why should I do that? RH
> > > >
> > > > Who would be more in need of Social Housing?
> > > What, an economic migrant/illegal immigrant should take over a British
> > > Citizen AND taxpayer's home??? Are you mad?
> >
> > No, I said a family.
> Clearly you are quite clueless regarding the rights and benefits of a
> British subject and taxpayer.
A British family then.
btw. I am a British subject and taxpayer.
Alan
Poor bugger.
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> Why should country folk like you give a monkeys about London?
>
> (I'm only being ironic by the way!)
Hah! ;) My mother recently came over to London for a few days (she retired
abroad - had enough of this place), and said she'd never go back there
again. It's falling apart at the seams, which is a great shame for someone
like me who was born and bred there.
For a major capital city, London's an embarrassment now.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
RF
>
> "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote in message
> news:ZmZW9.2495$N6.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> > "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:b0h3b8$piejj$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
> > What happened to all those supposedly empty properties up north, where
> > nobody appears to want to live?
> >
>
> Dunno. Ask the National Asylum Support Service. I know for a fact
that
> Coventry City Council is furious that not getting the contract from NASS,
> since they had hoped to let out some of their hard to let properties that
> way. Part of it's to do with the government's policy of spreading
asylum
> seekers out equally throughout the country, part of it's to do with the
> financial problems involved in having to provide furnished accommodation,
> and partly it's to do with the understandable policy requirement that the
> accommodation has to be in striking distance of a bus route, a doctor's,
and
> some other basic amenities, since the people you put there won't have a
car.
>
> And before anyone complains that there's lot's of people in country areas
> who don't have cars and don't have a decent bus service, remember that
NASS
> are telling people where they have to live. I used to live in a small
> village and, to my regret and considerable inconvenience, left the place
for
> a town because village life was just too inconvenient and expensive. But
> then, I had the choice of where to live.
But then, you are a British citizen, therefore your argument counts for
nought.
> > The Government makes the laws, the Government (read Bliar/Flunkedit) can
> > change them.
> >
>
> Indeed. Which is why I find it rather odd that Mr Wyatt should be
> complaining about the foreseeable results (of which they were warned at
the
> time) of policies for which he presumably voted.
Presumably? Not every Labour MP agrees with Bliar or what certain Government
Departments are doing.
> We're having this
> problem in my home county Nottinghamshire, in which the government is
> threatening to put a reception centre for 750 asylum seekers. I know
the
> village where they're planning to put it, and it's a tiny place -- can't
be
> much more than 100 or 150 people living there, and the nearest towns
(about
> 3 or 4 miles away) have only eight or nine thousand residents each.
>
> Put 750 people, whether they're asylum seekers or old Etonians in a place
> like that and you're obviously going to have complaints because you're
> changing the place so radically and suddenly. Nottingham City Council
> (Labour -- I think they only have 2 Conservative councillors) is pleading
> with the Government to put the reception centre in the City, as they'll be
> more than glad to have the asylum seekers, but for God's sake don't put it
> in a tiny place like Newton, because you're just asking for trouble.
And that's one of the reasons why the public is so angry about this stupid,
arrogant Government.
> Not because the people in Newton are inhospitable, but because if someone
> announced a proposal to build 50 'executive homes' there you'd have a
lively
> planning enquiry, to say the least.
>
> Sometimes it seems HMG are just trying to make problems over asylum,
> possibly so they can eventually announce there's so much public opposition
> to asylum seekers (created by HMG) that they'll have to change the law,
thus
> keeping the Daily Mail and the Sun happy.
I don't agree. There's only one answer that makes sense and that it is a
*deliberate* Government policy. I think the real answer is this:
“We have the chance in this century to achieve an open world, an open
economy, and an open global society with unprecedented opportunities for
people and business.” Tony Bliar, Davos, January 2000
> I'm just cynical, you see, knowing a bit about the black arts of spin
Quite, and it shows.
<snip>
> > Fallacious assumption. What % of those seeking asylum here are genuine?
> > And what % are economic migrants?
>
> Buggered if I can remember offhand. You can find the figures on the
Home
> Office website, and if you really want I'll find them for you, though I'd
> rather you took the trouble.
I'll take this Government's figures as always underestimating the problem.
"Initial decisions reached a record 119,015 in 2001, 9% higher than in 2000.
Asylum
was granted in 9% of cases and exceptional leave to remain (ELR) in 17% of
cases.
74% were refused." http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb902.pdf Page
1.
And that of course is just from the ones that *applied* for asylum.
> Couple of points here. First, contrary to what some people think, it's
> bloody difficult to establish a claim for asylum.
Hey, that stops them coming here right?
> You might think it
> would be sufficient to say 'I'm an Iraqi Kurd, and Saddam Hussein, not the
> most pleasant of men, has a bit of a down on us, so I'm in genuine fear of
> persecution' -- which would be perfectly true --but it won't get you
asylum.
> You've got to convince the Home Office that you, personally, have actually
> been persecuted or been given good reason to fear you'll be persecuted, by
> him, and HMG can hardly write to him and ask him to confirm your account.
> Well it can, but he's not likely to reply.
>
> Remember, if you're claiming asylum you're guilty of making an unfounded
> claim until you can prove you aren't. It's a bit like the police telling
> you 'we suspect you did that crime. Convince us you didn't'. Not
easy.
Depends on the quality of the staff employed, and what Government guidelines
they follow, if any.
But then, let the figures speak for themselves, rather than opinions or
guesses:
"Asylum removals (including voluntary departures) rose slightly in 2001 to
9,285." Same source.
Which means, that 78 786 remained. That is just over 10% successfully
deported, which is absolutely shocking. How long do you think this country
would last if everybody did just 10% of the work they're supposed to do???
The Home Secretary and the Senior Civil Servants are hopelessly incompetent,
or rather downright criminal. And Bliar sits on top of this. Where's the
accountability???
> IOW, being turned down for refugee status doesn't make your application
> 'bogus'. It makes it unsuccessful. I've applied for plenty of jobs
that
> I haven't got, but my application would only have been 'bogus' if I'd lied
> about my qualifications and experience. We'll be bothering about the
> number of 'bogus' driving test applicants next if we aren't careful.
>
> However, there are countries we won't deport to for various reasons, so a
> lot of people get 'temporary leave to remain' (usually for 4 years) in the
> hope that things will get a bit better by then and then they can go back.
> And, believe it or not, lots of asylum seekers would like nothing better
> than to go back home if it were safe so to do. Some don't want to,
> obviously, The place holds too many bad memories or they've established
> new lives over here and don't want to up sticks again. But I promise
> you, ask most of (for example) the Kurdish refugees I've ever met -- and I
> bet I've met more of them than have you -- if they were given the option
of
> remaining here or going back to an independent Kurdistan, and most of them
> would ask you to help them pack and give them a lift to the airport.
Irrelevant if they've come through another EU country, as most have, right?
Ever wondered why Kurds don't find refuge in Arab countries? Most Kurds are
Sunnite Muslims, so why don't their Sunnite brothers give them refuge in
those countries? Like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Pakistan can
have them all.
> Second, this term 'economic migrant' is a bit confusing, for two reasons.
> First, it's quite possible -- indeed, probable -- that we have a higher
> standard of living here than they have in many countries from which asylum
> seekers come.
Straw man.
> However, this has nothing to do with the fact that these
> people may have been in genuine fear of pretty horrible things happening
to
> them.
Please produce the proof and show the relevance to them coming here through
other EU countries.
> Furthermore, I've never actually seen what's wrong with being an economic
migrant.
I can't believe you're so obtuse, so are you being devious? Do *we* as
citizens of this country have NO say??? You're one of those lefty liberals,
so how many are *you* directly supporting?
> Lots of Welsh and Yorkshire farmers are jacking it in because of
> the horrendous problems farming is going through here, and heading of for
> Canada. They're clearly migrating for economic reasons. Terrible
> people, are they?
Clearly you can't stop talking rubbish, can you? If they *apply* and are
*accepted* by the Canadian Governmernt, bearing in mind that Canada is
something like 30+ greater than GB, then that is acceptable. This is *not*
comparable with what is happening in *this* country.
> > <snip>
> > > > Wyatt described the situation in one Kent town where the town's
sole
> > > > hotel - around which much of the town's public social activity
> revolved
> > > > - was to be given to asylum seekers with the loss of amenity to the
> > > > locals. Wyatt said that there had been no consultation with the
> > > > residents and claimed that the owner of the hotel who was selling it
> had
> > > > been duped by the purchasers who had assured him it would remain as
a
> > > > functioning hotel.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > A red herring. It's the Government that's obtaining these properties.
> >
>
> Is it? My understanding was that the Government was
As I said, duh.
> seeking to rent these
> properties from private landlords -- that's certainly what NASS do at the
> moment. If I happen to own an hotel and decide to rent it to the
> Government to use for some purpose, or sell it to them, are you going to
> tell me what to do with my own property?
Still can't get it right, can you? I'm *not* talking about what the hotel
owner does, but what the *Government* does!
> > <snipped another red herring>
> >
> > <snip>
> > So immigrants (and I'm referring to illegal ones) don't get sick eh?
> >
>
> I'm sure they do. So what?
So what? Guess who pays!
> Some people seem to be under the impression
> that immigrants -- legal or illegal -- come here to take advantage of the
> NHS, which seems highly improbable.
You are either naive or very stupid. If a person had say AIDS, and had heard
that if he or she could get to GB, they would get treatment (at say £30
000pa), wouldn't you think they'd try???
> If I were worried about that sort of
> thing, I'd be far more bothered about the strain placed on my local NHS
> facilities by the number of people moving to town to stay in retirement
> homes, since obviously elderly people are likely to need medical treatment
> quite frequently.
You *still* can't differentiate between a British citizen and taxpayer in
this country receiving treatment here because of it, and taking in
immigrants on false pretenses?
> Actually, according to my GP, they do have to have a
> practice meeting whenever they learn a new retirement home is opening in
> their catchment area because of the increased workload it's inevitably
going
> to cause.
>
> Do you suggest I should campaign against oldies moving to Leamington Spa,
> swamping us and making it more difficult for my wife to get an appointment
> to see Dr Chan at a convenient time?
Are you stupid? I suggest you campaign Bliar obviously. Amother useless red
herring. Pathetic.
> I'm pretty sure they cause more of a burden to the NHS than do illegal
immigrants.
Another trite statement. You haven't got a clue have you?
> Mind you, what with the
> medical problems Anna's managed to collect, I'm pretty sure both our GP
and
> any illegal immigrants in the area when we lived in London were glad to
see
> the back of her.
So who cares what *illegal* immigrants think.
<snip>
> > Your post oozes misleading information. Are you not a British citizen
with
> > the right of abode in Britain? Have you not certain rights as a British
> > citizen? How is your movement around Britain directly comparable to
> > somebody coming from *outside* GB, under false pretences?
>
> Me try to mislead people with information? Surely not.
No? Disinformation? Misinformation? Or just general left wing cluelessness?
> Yes, I am a
> British citizen with the right of abode here. Yes, I have certain
rights
> as a British citizen. I have certain rights as a customer of the
Halifax
> bank, come to that.
What's the connection between the 2 and illegal immigrants?
> The important question is what these rights are, is it not? It always
> does to look at specifics.
>
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with asylum or immigration. Give me
> one good argument against someone coming here from abroad that could not
> just as well be used against someone moving from Birmingham to London.
Haven't I given you enough, or are you just beyond understanding it? Are you
so thick that you don't know the difference between a British citizen and
one who is not, even worse one who comes here lying, under false pretences
or fraud?
<snipped irrelevance>
> Illegal entry to the country is worth a comment, too. It is virtually
> impossible to claim asylum here without entering the UK illegally, and for
> very good reasons. There's no way you can ask a British embassy for a
> visa to enter the country to seek asylum (or ask the embassy to process
your
> asylum claim locally). Such a visa does not exist and the embassy is not
> empowered to consider your asylum claim. If you enter the country on a
> tourist or business visa and then claim asylum, you've entered under false
> pretences.
>
> In most countries from which you would want to flee to claim asylum you're
> not going to find it easy (or very safe) to get a passport, so you're
going
> to have to leave that country and enter this one illegally.
>
> IOW, complaining an asylum seeker has entered the UK illegally is about as
> sensible as complaining he's come here from abroad.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with those coming through another EU
country. If a person is here illegally, he should be evicted.
> > > Dear God! I've just realised I migrated here for economic reasons,
> since
> > > someone was so rash as to offer me a job here which I wanted to take
> (from
> > a
> > > native of Warwickshire -- sole purpose of move) and it's considerably
> less
> > > expensive here than it was in London.
> >
> > Completely irrelevant compared to illegal immigrants, unless you are
one.
>
> See above. It would be impossible to process asylum claims overseas,
since
> that would get loads of our embassies closed. It would complicate life
no
> end to admit anyone claiming asylum on arrival as anything other than an
> illegal immigrant, since it would make it very difficult to deport him if
> his claim is unfounded.
Depends on the country and what agreement there is between the 2. And there
is always the method of entry. Taking France as an example, Bliar has got
absolutely no backbone compared to the French, that is assuming you believe
Bliar's not allowing it deliberately.
> > > > Wyatt said that he would raise the matter in the Commons next week
> and
> > > > call for a two-year moratorium on asylum while the present backlog
was
> > > > dealt with and the whole position reviewed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Translation: Wyatt said he'd received some not particularly
> > well-informed
> > > complaints from constituents, who were dim enough both to have voted
for
> > him
> >
> > You really are disingenuous. How do *you* know they ALL voted for him?
Are
> > you only allowed to approach the MP for your area if you voted for
him???
> >
>
> Sorry. What I should have said is that he'd received some not
particularly
> well-informed complaints from constituents,
How do you know?
> some of whom may have been dim enough
> to have voted for him and some of whom may not have voted for him but
> whom he hoped might be dim enough to vote for him next time.
So exactly what is wrong with this MP?
> Happy now?
No, answer the question above.
> > > and to believe everything they read in the Sun,
> >
> > Ah, the Sun eh? What about the DM, hmmm?
> >
>
> Not sure if you mean the Mail or the Mirror.
Mail, you mentioned it.
> Neither are topics I prepare to contemplate.
>
> > > and would make a meaningless
> > > gesture in the hope it would placate them enough for him to hang onto
> his
> > > job next time round.
> >
> > Or are we to believe everything we read of yours in the NGs?
> >
>
> Yes. Of course. I would hardly post something I didn't wan't people to
> believe, would I? I'm not a complete idiot.
Depends if you are cognizant of what you wrote...
> > > The present asylum system is shambolic, I agree. The main problems
are
> > > that applications do take time to process, precisely because you need
to
> > > investigate the bogus ones.
> >
> > Haven't mentioned anything about immigrants coming here from another EU
> > country, have you??? Like the farce concerning Sangatte.
> >
>
> Ah, I'm glad you asked me about that. Allow me to enlighten you about
an
> important Law Lords decision dating back to (IIRC) the mid 80's. There
are
> some very specific circumstances in which some EU countries, notably
France
> and Germany, are not regarded as 'safe third parties'.
Please do give the number of asylum seekers who were admitted into this
country based on the above; to be followed up by explaining how this refers
to the balance of 88 071 who had their application rejected in 2001.
<snipped to reduce size of post>
So you will now give facts relating to the number of *Algerians* who have
been murdered by the FIS in France, and the number who claimed asylum in
this country based on what you just wrote.
> > <snip>
> > > Ah. This is what we folk who know a bit about statistical sampling
> call
> > 'a
> > > self-selecting survey', which aren't usually thought very reliable.
> > And,
> > > actually, I don't believe many of the callers really meant it.
> >
> > With no proof to back up your opinion.
> >
>
> Right, let's have a phone in on 'If you think people are about to be
> tortured and murdered by a vile dictator, do you think we should leave him
> to get on with it or try to help them out?'. Wanna bet on what the
> results will be?
So come on, give me the % who come into this category, with sources.
> > > And, actually, I don't believe many of the callers really meant it.
With no proof to back up your opinion.
> And if you really want me to post you some further and better particulars
of
> self-selecting surveys aren't very reliable I will, but it really is
rather
> obvious.
No, just based on the topic being discussed.
> > > They may
> >
> > Or may not. Shows you don't know what you are talking about.
> >
>
> Indeed. That's why I hold to the opinion that things may or may not be
the
> case until I know one way or the other. Your policy on this?
In which case you would desist until you knew what the facts were.
> > > well have got themselves in a lather about what they read about these
> > > demonic ravening hoards
> >
> > *Your* words to make your weak position *appear* stronger.
> >
>
> Of course I use my own words and try to present a case as forcefully as I
> can. What do you do?
Use facts, not emotional fluff.
> > <another red herring> What's the number of asylum seekers coming here
from
> > Libya who don't pass through another EU country? Come on provide those
> > overwhelming numbers.
> >
>
> See above. I'll give you the number of asylum seekers from Libya
arriving
> here year on year, but that should hardly be necessary since you clearly
> know it this knowledge is what's got you worried.
HAHAHA. You've lost your marbles. According to
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?PageId=88 Libya doesn't even
come into the TOP 35 countries which generate the largest number of asylum
applications in the UK. Got that?
> I can't, I'm afraid,
> tell you how many arrive direct by air or direct by sea, or who qualify
> under the English common law for asylum here but not in France. I don't
> think those figures are available.
According to HMG's figures, 1095 arrived from the following countries:
Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
Now come on, tell me how many came from Libya. We're talking about 1%
max...or maybe 10% of 1%.
> I can certainly,
Do so then.
> though, give you the
> gross figure of how many asylum seekers from Libya have arrived here and
> what the results of their applications have been, but you clearly know
that
> already and will enlighten us all.
No, I'll leave that for you to do, since you've just stated you *know* those
figures.
> > > What we're getting isn't realism about race or anything else. It's
> > > tabloid hysteria, which, as we all know, is an excellent basis for
> public
> > > policy. Do I really have to rehearse a list of absolutely bloody
> > stupid
> > > pieces of legislation thus caused? Maybe I'm a nasty cynic, but it
> > seems
> > > to me one of the most dangerous things you can do is tell your MP
you've
> > > just read something in the Daily Mail and something must be done about
> it,
> >
> > Is that what those people in Sittingbourne did, read it in the DM, or
did
> > they first hear about it because they lived there and saw/heard what was
> > happening *before* it got into a newspaper?
<snipped more totally irrelevant and inane rambling>
> Buggered if I know, buggered if the local police know, and absolutely
> astonished if either the editor of a national newspaper or the editor of
the
> local newspaper (who presumably knows the area better than does the editor
> of one of the nationals) knows either.
So you admit you don't know...some people are so clueless...talk about a
massive rout.
RF
RF
RF
RF
"Baroness Edwina Frogbucket" <edwina.f...@void.com> wrote in message
news:b0namp$r9tdq$1...@ID-58798.news.dfncis.de...
RF
Dr. Sunil
Wasn't it Maggie who sold off a vast swathe of Social Housing?
Steve Glynn
"hognoxious" <hognoxio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e2ea0e9$0$5655$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
And good for you. My point, however, was that in the febrile athmosphere
of current debate, 'economic migrant' seems to be used in some quarters as
an equivalent to 'plague bearer'.
To my mind anyone who decides to jack in a job as, for example, an engineer
and spend between $2000 and $5000 on a lengthy and extremely unpleasant
journey to the UK, where he is highly unlikely to gain any sort of
equivalent job, has some distinctly odd ideas about economics, but according
to the papers it happens all the time.
Mind you, apparently when people defected from the Soviet Union, they only
ever did it for financial reasons, at least according to Soviet newspapers
at the time.
Steve
Steve Glynn
>
> "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b0knvc$qvh14$4...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Couple of points here. First, contrary to what some people think,
it's
> > bloody difficult to establish a claim for asylum.
>
> I can see that would be a major problem for asylum seekers if they were
> actually deported. As it is - if their application fails they just
> disappear.
>
Ah, one of these facts that everyone knows. In my experience, what usually
happens is that they get called in for an interview to discuss their appeal
against their unsucessful application, and then get told they're being taken
into deportation pending deportation.
Happened to an Algerian lad I know personally (his English girlfriend is
distraught), who's now in the hands of the French, who will more than likely
send him back to Algeria. If the French do this, it's a bit like sending
someone who'd been ordered out of Northern Ireland by the Republican
Movement back to South Armagh.
> > And, believe it or not, lots of asylum seekers would like nothing better
> > than to go back home if it were safe so to do.
>
> Are there any figures available for asylum seekers who have voluntarily
gone
> home?
Dunno, offhand. If there are, they will probably be on the UNHCR website,
which is such a pain to navigate that I can't be bothered to look them up
unless you really want me to. Depends what country of return you're
talking about, of course. If it's somewhere in the former Yugoslavia it's
a fair old number. If it's Afghanistan, it's a lot more than the UNHCR
would like, since most of the country is flattened by 20-odd years of war,
and it's easier to look after them somewhere that isn't full of landmines
and where most of the buildings are still standing ('Good to be back home,
or, rather, at the pile of rubble where home used to be. Wonder what I'll
do for a job, since the garage where I used to work is a pile of rubble,
too. And don't play on the grass!!! BOOM!!!! Oops, too late').
Depends on circumstances, too. My wife's grandfather, had he survived
until Latvia managed to liberate itself from Soviet occupation, certainly
would have gone home even if he had to live in a tiny bedsit in Riga rather
back in the family farmhouse. As it was, his ashes had to be smuggled back
in a biscuit box, since his final wish was to have them scattered on one of
the lakes on the family's estate he particularly loved.
In a touch of black comedy, btw, the Soviet customs officers who inspected
the biscuit box insisted on sampling some of the biscuits (Arnoldjs --
anyone with a knowledge of Latvian nationalist history will now be able to
work out who my wife is, btw -- was occupying the bottom layer), so there is
some part of a member of the Soviet Border Police that is forever occupied
by some of the remains of an offical 'Enemy of the Soviet Union', as Rupert
Brooke almost said.
Anna's dad wouldn't have. He'd married an English girl, had a career here,
raised three kids, and would have been coming up to retirement when the
Baltics became free.
And, of course, if you've had terrible experiences somewhere and lost all
your family you've got nothing to go back to and probably wouldn't want to.
There's a Rwandan girl my godmother's church (godmother is herself the sole
survivor of an Austrian Jewish family who'd converted to Catholicism, not
that it saved her parents or her little brother) helps look after. You'll
recall the horrific massacres of the Hutus there, so I won't go into the
(literally) gory details, but I can't imagine she'll ever set foot in the
place again, since the memories associated with it cannot be pleasant.
> >
> > Second, this term 'economic migrant' is a bit confusing, for two
reasons.
> > First, it's quite possible -- indeed, probable -- that we have a higher
> > standard of living here than they have in many countries from which
asylum
> > seekers come. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that
these
> > people may have been in genuine fear of pretty horrible things happening
> to
> > them.
>
> Sad, but unfortunately we can't take in everybody from everywhere - it's
> physically impossible.
Well obviously, but it's a silly argument. If the whole population of
London took it into its collective head to have a dirty weekend in Brighton,
or everyone from Birmingham decided to move to London -- and London is a far
more pleasant place with much higher average salaries -- we'd have some
problems, too. Shall we therefore worry about Londoners having holidays
in Brighton or about Brummies moving to London?
> >
> > Furthermore, I've never actually seen what's wrong with being an
economic
> > migrant. Lots of Welsh and Yorkshire farmers are jacking it in
because
> of
> > the horrendous problems farming is going through here, and heading of
for
> > Canada. They're clearly migrating for economic reasons. Terrible
> > people, are they?
>
> Are they smuggling themselves in the back of lorries to claim asylum, free
> housing, free medical care and state handouts? I somehow doubt it.
There's
> nothing wrong with emigrating if you go there with the intention of
> contributing to the country's wellbeing and economy. Too many who come
here
> are contributing zilch.
Edwina, you are an intelligent woman, so please stop recycling very old
tripe. First, it's effectively impossible to leave any country from
which one would wish to flee other than on the back of a lorry. You can't
just phone up your travel agent in Baghdad or whereever and ask for a ticket
to London, you know. It's slightly more difficult than booking a package
holiday.
Second, it's illegal for anyone claiming asylum to work here for the first
six months. Consequently, there doesn't seem much alternative to housing
them (where NASS tell them to go) and feeding them at public expense (at
70% of income support) unless you have any better idea. As you know, I do
some voluntary work with asylum seekers, and I can assure you that I spend a
great deal of my time getting the IN96 papers -- that's what you're issued
with when you claim asylum -- endorsed for people who're still waiting for
their claim to be decided with 'No objection to seeking employment'.
They're desperate to get off benefits, as have I been whenever I've been out
of a job.
> >
> > Some people seem to be under the impression
> > that immigrants -- legal or illegal -- come here to take advantage of
the
> > NHS, which seems highly improbable. If I were worried about that sort
> of
> > thing, I'd be far more bothered about the strain placed on my local NHS
> > facilities by the number of people moving to town to stay in retirement
> > homes, since obviously elderly people are likely to need medical
treatment
> > quite frequently.
>
> Yes, but those elderly people have paid into the pot all their lives and
> it's a mark of a civilised country how well we take care of our old.
> Judging by the recent case of the old lady booted off her doctors list to
> make way for asylum-seekers, we've failed that test too.
Someone mentioned that old lady in this or another thread. I asked for
further and better particulars, and I've yet to see them. Where did the
story appear, because quite frankly I am sceptical of it, just as I'm
sceptical of many claims that 'I didn't get that job because I'm black, or
white, or whatever'? More to some things than meets the eye, you know.
And, you need to be sure what line of argument you're trying to advance.
Is it that you think some people should be denied medical care? Or is it
that you're worried about the strain placed on your local NHS services, in
which case I'm pretty sure that proprietors of proprietors of retirement
homes (at least where I live), which, remember, they run for their own
profit, place a hell of a lot more strain on the resources of the local NHS
than do asylum seekers.
> >
> > Do you suggest I should campaign against oldies moving to Leamington
Spa,
> > swamping us and making it more difficult for my wife to get an
appointment
> > to see Dr Chan at a convenient time? I'm pretty sure they cause
more
> of
> > a burden to the NHS than do illegal immigrants.
>
> This their country in which they have lived and supported all their lives.
> Besides, as you said elsewhere, by moving, they are freeing up space at
some
> other doctors surgery. A mass influx of refugees doesn't do that - it
just
> puts strain on resources.
>
Doesn't do me much good if I want to see my doctor and I'm told that I'll
have to wait but there's a space freed up in Manchester, does it? Don't
much care if the person taking the appointment I want is part of a mass
influx from Kabul or Kingston on Hull.
Anyway, does anyone know what strain on the resources of this mass influx
(funny how influxes are always mass) actually comprises? I don't know,
and I've got no idea how I'd find out. I mean, I see my GP maybe a
couple of times a year, which can't be a huge strain on the practice, and I
don't think many asylum seekers are much more unhealthy than am I. My
wife places a far more considerable drain on the NHS's resources, including
on that of the time of a consultant at our local hospital who is, as it
happens, a refugee from Rumania.
But anyway, everyone seems so worried about this massive drain on NHS
resources caused by asylum seekers, so let's have the figures from someone.
Of all the things any doctor I know complains about -- and believe you me,
most GPs and hospital doctors ain't happy bunnies at the moment -- asylum
seekers doesn't feature in the list of problems.
Steve
<snip>
Steve Glynn
> In article <b0knv9$qvh14$3...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
> <steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >
> >> The level of housing benefit is below the average private rental in
many
> >> areas of the country. Also many private landlords will not take
housing
> >> benefit tenants. RH
> >>
> >
> >Certainly, which might be why Mr Wyatt's aggrieved constituents may have
> >found it difficult to rent the accomodation they wanted. However,
there's
> >a difference between that and being homeless. Clearly, moreover,
there
> >are landlords in his constituency prepared to accept HB rates, since
that's
> >all the National Asylum Support Service will be paying.
> >
>
> Don't bank on it. These new contracts for asylum centres are outside
> the rules. RH
Obviously, since they're not private rented accomodation any more than an
army camp or a university hall of residence is. No idea what the costings
on those are (though I suspect they're going to end up more expensive than
the present system). I can assure you, though, that if you form a company
to offer accomodation to NASS (they don't deal with individual landlords,
since the admin costs would be prohibitative) you'll get offered HB rents
plus a management fee.
In that case, Camden are breaking the law. Are you certain your
neighbours are asylum seekers or could they be refugees? Makes a huge
difference. (I've got a horrible feeling you're going to go upstairs and
add to their woes and ask them).
Conceivably, Camden could have taken your neighbours' flat out of the
housing stock and leased it to NASS, in which case they would occupy it on a
very different basis from that upon which you occuply yours, but I think
it's very unlikely, based on what I know of NASS policy.
As I said, if they have been granted refugee status or temporary leave to
remain they can apply for council housing on the same basis as could I, but
I promise you that, as a matter of law, an asylum seeker (i.e. someone who's
waiting for his claim to be processed) cannot legally be a council tenant.
>
> >They may well once have been
> >asylum seekers and then have been accepted as bona fide refugees, in
which
> >case they get the same rights to council housing and so on as anyone
else,
>
>
> No they do not. They get in practice a better deal. Half of the flats in
> my block are occupied by people who have come here as adult immigrants.
> At the same time, Camden has a waiting list of nearly 10,000 largely
> composed of people born and bred here. If you think that is acceptable,
> you are really out of touch with reality. RH
>
Quite how you know where these nearly 10,000 were born and bred is a mystery
I wait for you to explain. Furthermore, I'd like to know the circumstances
of these people on the waiting list -- which obviously you can't supply and
I'm not asking you to. However, for example, any of these 10,000 people
who is a single man is going to have a long wait no matter where he was
born, since the way the allocation system operates is going to give priority
to, e.g., a couple with two young children. Depends, too, on the family
circs of these people. If Camden has a one bedroom flat, they can't
realistically offer it to a family of five, any more than they can offer a
two bedroom house to a single person (which would almost certainly be
illegal).
People have to understand that there's a difference between the way public
and private sector housing operate. If I want to rent privately, then the
only question is how much I'm prepared to pay. I can rent a house on The
Bishop's Avenue if I can afford it. If I'm renting public sector housing,
however, there's a plethora of rules about what I can and can't have and how
my position on the waiting list is determined.
> >and they get it on the same basis. And, frankly, I don't see what
other
> >way of doing it there is.
> >
>
> Don't accept any asylum seekers. Refuse social housing to anyone not a
> British subject by birth. RH
>
One way of doing it, I suppose, though I know several tower blocks in
Coventry the city council would love to rent out to asylum seekers or anyone
else. Ditto a fair bit of the Bransholm estate in Hull (one of the
biggest council estates in Europe, btw). Quite why you should restrict it
to someone who's not a British subject by birth is a bit of another matter,
since you could deploy exactly the same argument to say social housing in
Camden should be restricted to natives of Camden.
> >Sorry, but any argument about foreigners taking 'our' council housing
could
> >just as well be deployed by a native Londoner against you -- I think you
> >once mentioned you are not originally from that part of the world.
>
> Typical liberal bigot fantasy. The nation is one thing, abroad another.
> I would add that I have lived in London since 1965. RH
>
See above. Let's restrict social housing in Camden to people who've lived
in the borough since 1964, then, shall we?
Besides, once you get into the real world, things get a lot more messy. I
won't go into the full saga, but essentially the father of my godson had to
bring his elderly mother (Spanish) over from Barcelona when her health broke
down -- I do know the details, and believe me there was absolutely no
alternative. His flat is tiny, and when his wife became pregnant it was
clear that the situation would become absolutely impossible after the baby
was born. Because of her deteriorating health, however, he needed to find
her somewhere on the ground floor in the immediate area. He was perfectly
happy to pay her rent -- though, obviously, there was a limit to what he
could afford -- and really wasn't interested in if it was public or private
housing.
Islington were eventually able to come up with a ground floor bedsit very
close, which of course they took. Had it been a private let within his
budget he'd have taken that for her, too.
What do you say is wrong with this?
> > If I
> >were on the waiting list for a council house I wouldn't be that bothered
if
> >the occupant of the house I wanted was from Birmingham or Baghdad -- I'd
be
> >more interested in just getting the house.
> >
> You would be concerned if housing was constantly being given to
> immigrants instead of you. RH
>
I think I see the mistake you're falling into here. What I'd be concerned
about is that I couldn't get the housing I needed. Now, if the council
gave the house to Mr and Mrs Smith, I might speculate about why they'd got
this place I wanted. Possibly it was because they'd bribed someone,
possibly it was because Mr Smith's a freemason, possibly it was because
they'd been on the waiting list longer than I'd been. No way for me to
know for sure.
If Mr Smith was black, however, I might (if I was foolish) jump to the
conclusion that must be why he got the place, and I think you're jumping to
a similar conclusion.
> >At the housing association where I once worked we used to get this
argument
> >taken to ludicrous levels at times. 'My mum's elderly so I want to live
> >near her', which is fair enough, 'and our family have always lived in
> >Sneinton so I should get priority over someone from Clifton' (two
different
> >parts of Nottingham), which isn't.
>
> A perfectly reasonable criterion if the other criteia are me. RH
>
Try telling that to someone whose family have always lived in Camden and
would have liked your flat.
No, he's complaining about the disruption and unsatisfactory compensation
regarding some refurbishment, the council's failure to clean the common
areas (assuming that's part of the rental agreement) and the fact they stuck
some immigrants in the block. The three aren't connected, except possibly
in his general irritation.
In the example you snipped about my wife's chum Vanda, I mentioned the
ongoing sage of the roof and the lift. The residents of her block
certainly have a justifiable complaint about their freeholder and his
managing agent. Some of them may well have a justifiable complaint about
Vanda, since she can be very sarcastic. Some of them might dislike the
fact she's German, which isn't so justifiable (the complaint, not the fact
she's a Kraut).
However, the fact she's German has nothing to do with her behaviour at
residents' meetings, and neither have anything to do with the state of the
roof and the lift.
Furthermore, it would be foolish to take against either Germans or natives
of Hanover or women just because Vanda's upset you or plays her stereo too
loud.
> >> One of the most widespread and persistent lies of liberal bigots
> >> is that immigrants do no jump the council housing queue. As anyone
> >> living in or near council housing knows this is monstrously untrue.
> >> Housing more than any other issue raises racial tension in places like
> >> London where people who have been born and bred in an area find newly
> >> arrived immigrants given council housing before them. It is a form of
> >> theft from our poor.
> >>
> >
> >See above. Housing is a very emotive issue, but people do tend to fall
> >into post hoc ergo propter hoc when they're upset. Hackney used to be
> >notorious for corruption in the housing department and it doubtless
helped
> >get a place if you were a friend or relative of a certain councillor, who
> >was West Indian.
>
> The whole housing department was riddled corruption. It employed many
> illegal immigrants who "sold" properties to other illegal immigrants.
> RH
No argument there. Things went very badly wrong in the Hackney housing
department.
>
>
> > The same used to be true of Nottingham, where it
> >certainly helped in any manner of matters to be a friend or relative (or
be
> >prepared to pay) a certain alderman, who was from Hull. Lambeth
housing
> >department is a shambles.
> >
> >The problem isn't with West Indians or people from Hull or Nottingham or
> >South London, though.
>
> Tell that to the marines. RH
What? Do you suggest that either Anna or I are either incompetents or
crooks? Either of us might be (though we aren't), but that would hardly be
caused by the place whence we came, would it? Careful, Robert, or
people might start blaming you for things Tony Blair gets up to.
I don't think you do, Robert. In my experience most people have a far more
realistic ('cos it's mine) view than do you. People are capable of any
amount of evil -- not because they're evil monsters, but because that's the
way we humans are made. Most people realise this. They also realise
that 'Man is a political animal'. If you reread the Politics you'll see
that by this Aristotle meant it is natural for men to live in cities (more
properly 'comunities'), just as it's natural for some species of fish to
live in shoals and some creatures to live alone. Most people also realise
that, in order to enjoy the advantages of living in a polis there have to be
codes of behaviour, precisely because of how nasty people can get, and I
really don't think most people think that, when it comes down to it, these
codes apply only to members of their polis.
Come on. If you were strolling down the Grand Union Canal and saw someone
who'd fallen in shouting for help, you wouldn't ask to see his passport or
know his immigration status before trying to fish him out, would you?
Steve
Dr. Sunil
>
> "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030122164844.29326R-100000@bccmsa...
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, RF wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030121155720.26531E-100000@bccmsa...
> > > > On 21 Jan 2003, The Enlightenment wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1030120190835.31685E-100000@biochem>...
> > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And often in social housing. RH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
> > > Why don't *you*?
> > > RF
> >
> > I don't occupy any Social Housing.
> That's no excuse. Do you think the asylum seeker is going to object?
> RF
You know house prices in London - he'll have to stump up *at least* 150K
for our terraced suburban!
Robert Henderson
"Plus the management fee" says it all. RH
There no legal status of refugee. Nobody who is not a British citizen
has a right to settle hear without an asylum appeal being underway, a
work permit, patrial re-union or marriage or other conditional grounds
such as marriage to a British national. RH
> Makes a huge
>difference. (I've got a horrible feeling you're going to go upstairs and
>add to their woes and ask them).
I don't need to . I already know. RH
>
>Conceivably, Camden could have taken your neighbours' flat out of the
>housing stock and leased it to NASS, in which case they would occupy it on a
>very different basis from that upon which you occuply yours, but I think
>it's very unlikely, based on what I know of NASS policy.
>
>As I said, if they have been granted refugee status or temporary leave to
>remain they can apply for council housing on the same basis as could I,
Which is quite wrong. RH
What a pathetic reason for accepting immigrants: you need o rent out
council blocks. If you have too much council housing in an area, sell it
if you can or demolish it if it is beyond selling. RH
> Ditto a fair bit of the Bransholm estate in Hull (one of the
>biggest council estates in Europe, btw). Quite why you should restrict it
>to someone who's not a British subject by birth is a bit of another matter,
>since you could deploy exactly the same argument to say social housing in
>Camden should be restricted to natives of Camden.
>
>
>> >Sorry, but any argument about foreigners taking 'our' council housing
>could
>> >just as well be deployed by a native Londoner against you -- I think you
>> >once mentioned you are not originally from that part of the world.
>>
>> Typical liberal bigot fantasy. The nation is one thing, abroad another.
>> I would add that I have lived in London since 1965. RH
>>
>
>See above. Let's restrict social housing in Camden to people who've lived
>in the borough since 1964, then, shall we?
Those local to the area should be given priority. RH
>
>Besides, once you get into the real world, things get a lot more messy. I
>won't go into the full saga, but essentially the father of my godson had to
>bring his elderly mother (Spanish) over from Barcelona when her health broke
>down -- I do know the details, and believe me there was absolutely no
>alternative. His flat is tiny, and when his wife became pregnant it was
>clear that the situation would become absolutely impossible after the baby
>was born. Because of her deteriorating health, however, he needed to find
>her somewhere on the ground floor in the immediate area. He was perfectly
>happy to pay her rent -- though, obviously, there was a limit to what he
>could afford -- and really wasn't interested in if it was public or private
>housing.
>
>Islington were eventually able to come up with a ground floor bedsit very
>close, which of course they took.
So, a foreigner takes a flat from one of our own. Brilliant. RH
> Had it been a private let within his
>budget he'd have taken that for her, too.
>
>What do you say is wrong with this?
>
>
>> > If I
>> >were on the waiting list for a council house I wouldn't be that bothered
>if
>> >the occupant of the house I wanted was from Birmingham or Baghdad -- I'd
>be
>> >more interested in just getting the house.
>> >
>> You would be concerned if housing was constantly being given to
>> immigrants instead of you. RH
>>
>
>I think I see the mistake you're falling into here.
There is no mistake. Immigrants getting any housing before the natives
is wrong. End of story . RH
> What I'd be concerned
>about is that I couldn't get the housing I needed. Now, if the council
>gave the house to Mr and Mrs Smith, I might speculate about why they'd got
>this place I wanted. Possibly it was because they'd bribed someone,
>possibly it was because Mr Smith's a freemason, possibly it was because
>they'd been on the waiting list longer than I'd been. No way for me to
>know for sure.
>
>If Mr Smith was black, however, I might (if I was foolish) jump to the
>conclusion that must be why he got the place, and I think you're jumping to
>a similar conclusion.
>
>
Eh? RH
If you believe ha you will believe anything. RH
Sorry, Seve, this is getting too long. I will have to leave the rest.
>
snip rest
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
>
> "Baroness Edwina Frogbucket" <edwina.f...@void.com> wrote in message
> news:b0mmkh$rg9uo$1...@ID-58798.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:b0knvc$qvh14$4...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
> > Are there any figures available for asylum seekers who have voluntarily
> > gone home?
Provisionally 980 for 2001 under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by
the International Organisation for Migration.
<snip>
> > Sad, but unfortunately we can't take in everybody from everywhere - it's
> > physically impossible.
>
> Well obviously, but it's a silly argument. If the whole population of
> London took it into its collective head to have a dirty weekend in
Brighton,
> or everyone from Birmingham decided to move to London -- and London is a
far
> more pleasant place with much higher average salaries -- we'd have some
> problems, too. Shall we therefore worry about Londoners having holidays
> in Brighton or about Brummies moving to London?
Quite, your argument is very silly. Before most people can move, they'd have
to sell their home, wouldn't they? Since if most people (and saying everyone
obviously shows you are trying to exaggerate your argument again because it
is so pathetically weak), in Brum decided to move, they'd turn it into a
buyer's market there thus depressing prices, and the lower that went would
cause the movers to further be unable to afford the price of homes in
London. Also, it would be practically impossible for there to be enough
homes, since more homes would not be built due to the lack of money coming
from the Brummies.
<snip>
> > Are they smuggling themselves in the back of lorries to claim asylum,
free
> > housing, free medical care and state handouts? I somehow doubt it.
> There's
> > nothing wrong with emigrating if you go there with the intention of
> > contributing to the country's wellbeing and economy. Too many who come
> here
> > are contributing zilch.
>
> Edwina, you are an intelligent woman,
Far more so than you on this.
> so please stop recycling very old tripe.
Speak for yourself.
> First, it's effectively impossible to leave any country from
> which one would wish to flee other than on the back of a lorry. You
can't
> just phone up your travel agent in Baghdad or whereever and ask for a
ticket
> to London, you know. It's slightly more difficult than booking a
package
> holiday.
Too bad you haven't heard of the criminals assisting the ASs.
> Second, it's illegal for anyone claiming asylum to work here for the first
> six months.
Gosh! Really? Who would have guessed!
> Consequently, there doesn't seem much alternative to housing
> them (where NASS tell them to go) and feeding them at public expense (at
> 70% of income support) unless you have any better idea. As you know, I
do
> some voluntary work with asylum seekers, and I can assure you that I spend
a
> great deal of my time getting the IN96 papers -- that's what you're issued
> with when you claim asylum -- endorsed for people who're still waiting for
> their claim to be decided with 'No objection to seeking employment'.
Isn't that because they're trying to determine whether they are genuine?
Since about 90% are given marching orders, it makes sense to deny them
employment. Clearly there is a fault with the way they are handled, they
should be fast tracked at the entry point and booted out ASAP when found to
be chancers.
> They're desperate to get off benefits, as have I been whenever I've been
out
> of a job.
Duh, about 90% of them shouldn't be here in the first place. Don't try that
emotional sop.
<snip>
> > Yes, but those elderly people have paid into the pot all their lives and
> > it's a mark of a civilised country how well we take care of our old.
> > Judging by the recent case of the old lady booted off her doctors list
to
> > make way for asylum-seekers, we've failed that test too.
>
> Someone mentioned that old lady in this or another thread. I asked for
> further and better particulars, and I've yet to see them. Where did the
> story appear, because quite frankly I am sceptical of it, just as I'm
> sceptical of many claims that 'I didn't get that job because I'm black, or
> white, or whatever'? More to some things than meets the eye, you know.
So you are saying it doesn't happen *at_all*?
> And, you need to be sure what line of argument you're trying to advance.
> Is it that you think some people should be denied medical care?
Well duh, I would think if a British citizen gets kicked off the list then
that could be denying that person medical attention from her former doctor,
and worse, that she is replaced by an immigrant who hasn't contributed a
penny in taxes. If you think that is moral, then you are mad.
> Or is it
> that you're worried about the strain placed on your local NHS services, in
> which case I'm pretty sure that proprietors of proprietors of retirement
> homes (at least where I live), which, remember, they run for their own
> profit, place a hell of a lot more strain on the resources of the local
NHS
> than do asylum seekers.
Two separate problems, trust you to try and fudge it.
<snip>
> Doesn't do me much good if I want to see my doctor and I'm told that I'll
> have to wait but there's a space freed up in Manchester, does it? Don't
> much care if the person taking the appointment I want is part of a mass
> influx from Kabul or Kingston on Hull.
Duh, did you fail arithmetic at school? Only if there are a like or better
ratio of similarly qualified doctors in the asylum seekers as exists in GB
would that maintain or improve the present situation, else it detrimentally
affects the NHS particularly for British Citizens and taxpayers.
> Anyway, does anyone know what strain on the resources of this mass influx
> (funny how influxes are always mass) actually comprises? I don't know,
> and I've got no idea how I'd find out. I mean, I see my GP maybe a
> couple of times a year, which can't be a huge strain on the practice, and
I
> don't think many asylum seekers are much more unhealthy than am I. My
> wife places a far more considerable drain on the NHS's resources,
including
> on that of the time of a consultant at our local hospital who is, as it
> happens, a refugee from Rumania.
So? she's entitled to do so, isn't she?
> But anyway, everyone seems so worried about this massive drain on NHS
> resources caused by asylum seekers, so let's have the figures from
someone.
All it needs is for asylum seekers to cause British citizens and taxpayers
to wait longer for treatment, suffering in the process and some actually
dying.
> Of all the things any doctor I know complains about -- and believe you me,
> most GPs and hospital doctors ain't happy bunnies at the moment -- asylum
> seekers doesn't feature in the list of problems.
Maybe they think it ain't PC to talk about it.
RF
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> Doesn't do me much good if I want to see my doctor and I'm told that I'll
> have to wait but there's a space freed up in Manchester, does it? Don't
> much care if the person taking the appointment I want is part of a mass
> influx from Kabul or Kingston on Hull.
The point you seem to be missing is that people within a country will move
round, so it's swings and roundabouts, i.e I moved from London to the West
Country and the woman who used to live in my house moved from the West
Country to London. The problem with an undending stream of asylum seekers
coming into the UK is they upset this balance.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Dr. Sunil
I'm asking you.
Dr. Sunil
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, RF wrote:
>
> "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030123152045.10831V-100000@bccmsa...
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, RF wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030122164844.29326R-100000@bccmsa...
> > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, RF wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030121155720.26531E-100000@bccmsa...
> > > > > > On 21 Jan 2003, The Enlightenment wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1030120190835.31685E-100000@biochem>...
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And often in social housing. RH
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why don't you give your flat up to a homeless family, Robert?
> > > > > Why don't *you*?
> > > > > RF
> > > >
> > > > I don't occupy any Social Housing.
> > > That's no excuse. Do you think the asylum seeker is going to object?
> > > RF
> >
> > You know house prices in London - he'll have to stump up *at least* 150K
> > for our terraced suburban!
> Really? For the Government, that's no problem.
> RF
But what right would the govt. got to by private housing?
hognoxious
Steve Glynn
> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
>
Sorry for the delay in replying.
Quite possibly you did hear someone say this, Edwina. They misinformed
you (you'd be astonished at the strange things people I meet in pubs
sometimes tell me a friend of theirs told them).
I can guarantee you that NASS (not the DSS, who have nothing to do with
housing, be it for for asylum seekers, Brits, or anyone else) are not
allowed to pay more than HB rates for accomodation, plus a management fee.
There are various adjustments to take into account the fact that HB (paid by
the local council) is normally based on the unfurnished rental value of the
property while accomodation for asylum seekers has to be furnished, for
obvious reasons, and the landlord is going to want something for normal wear
and tear on the furnishings. Similarly, the landlord will get something
for providing gas/electricity, which HB doesn't cover. This is because
most power companies don't take vouchers (which is what asylum seekers get
for their support, rather than cash) and is one of the reasons why support
for asylum seekers is calculated at 70% of income support.
Trust me on this, Edwina. It is something I know a bit about, and I can
assure you that there is absolutely no economic advantage to a landlord in
renting his property to NASS rather than to someone in receipt of HB. In
fact, given the hassle involved in dealing with NASS, it's probably the
least favourite option.
Steve
Robert Henderson
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Trust me on this,
Mmm...just what Mr Velveteen is always saying. RH
Steve Glynn
> In article <b1baus$11acvk$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
> <steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >Trust me on this,
>
> Mmm...just what Mr Velveteen is always saying. RH
>
But the difference is that I'm talking about verifiable facts, which the
People's Saint doesn't always go in for.
Steve
Robert Henderson
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:$fTB98AV...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b1baus$11acvk$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>> >Trust me on this,
>>
>> Mmm...just what Mr Velveteen is always saying. RH
>>
>
>But the difference is that I'm talking about verifiable facts,
Such as the "fact" that asylum seekers don't get social housing? RH
> which the
>People's Saint doesn't always go in for.
>
>Steve
>
>
--