Refugee Refuses High Rise Flat - Takes Council To Court - Can't Speak Any English

First topic message reminder :

7th March 2014

Who gave this non-English-speaking REFUGEE the idea that she can take the council to court???

Due to give birth too - how timely.

A refugee took a council to the High Court when she turned down their offer of a high rise council house claiming she was scared of heights. Somalian Naima Mohamoud, who does not speak any English, claims she is separated from her husband and said she was thrown out of friend's house when she told them she was due to give birth. She applied for council accommodation and signed a form agreeing that if she refused an offer of a home she would not get another. Ms Mahamoud was given the chance to move into a tower block, by Birmingham City Council.


http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/#sthash.01Mhvqns.dpuf

Raggamuffin wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Never claimed there was, but that he himself is a racist, as I know who the poster is, yes he is an angry ex BNP supporter buying into bullshit just like you do Andy, with your idiotic claims to murders by names as being foreign. There has always been disgruntled people, normally those who hold prejudice views thinking only of themselves.

The fact is you started this thread based off you thinking this refugee was wrong to ask for alternative accommodation because she was not born to this country, when there is nothing unreasonable about doing so, only though to people who hold prejudice views of course

You did claim that his post was racist.

Look we all know who you are twatti a homophobic racist low life proven by the above post,

didge does not like people noticing his cock-ups Ragga.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You did claim that his post was racist.

didge does not like people noticing his cock-ups Ragga.

I'll try not to notice them in future then.   

lol is that your evidence to me claiming his post was racist, or was it proven the fact he was a twatti?

You see you really need to engage your brain love if you think you are being smart when clearly you have as much sense as Catman

PhilDidge wrote:lol is that your evidence to me claiming his post was racist, or was it proven the fact he was a twatti?

You see you really need to engage your brain love if you think you are being smart when clearly you have as much sense as Catman

Look we all know who you are twatti a homophobic racist low life proven by the above post,

So you can't even understand your own posts now? No surprise there really.   

PhilDidge wrote:lol is that your evidence to me claiming his post was racist, or was it proven the fact he was a twatti?

You see you really need to engage your brain love if you think you are being smart when clearly you have as much sense as Catman

Reply with quote

Re: The "PM" Underground.......

Post by PhilDidge Yesterday at 11:39 am

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Bless, I do not deny getting annoyed sometimes and to throwing abuse sometimes, but you do it daily and again abuse Tess, when she was not even posting on this, showing you have some warped obsession with her.


No obsession at all.
You and Tess the dog frequently jump on me on threads, bring up my name.
So stop whinging wanker. Razz




No all we do is comment when you are abusive, which is daily from you, I guess you have made an early start on Johnny Daniels this morning


PhilDidge
Deputy Speaker

Posts: 4508
Join date: 2013-11-10
Age: 43
Location: Kingdom of Kent

......A wanker and a fucking liar.

Hilarious again you highlight the word that is important to you to make your claim, ignoring the others, showing again how very inept you are, to the point this all such a prejudice little idiot as yourself now has to debate with, when you got spanked yesterday on your views ha ha

No answers to my post, just smears it seems.

Tommy Monk wrote:No answers to my post, just smears it seems.

Lol did you answer Irn then?

No.

So the reality is you have no idea how this woman got here, ignore there is nothing unreasonable about asking to have alternative accommodation due to a fear of heights and now going off tangent whether many asylum seekers go through other nations and the vast majority are out to scam based on only your own hearsay

Utterly pathetic

It is not up to me to prove asylum seekers did pass through other safe countries, it is up to them to prove that they didn't, which should be easy if arrived by direct flight or ship as they will show up on passenger records and our own passport control records.


The fact that 75% of asylum claims are rejected as Sassy said in her post, proves my point that they majority are bogus.

But most of these are never deported either.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is not up to me to prove asylum seekers did pass through other safe countries, it is up to them to prove that they didn't, which should be easy if arrived by direct flight or ship as they will show up on passenger records and our own passport control records.


The fact that 75% of asylum claims are rejected as Sassy said in her post, proves my point that they majority are bogus.

But most of these are never deported either.

I always hated that story about Amy Houston, who was run over and left in the street to die by an asylum seeker who had been rejected. He went to prison, but they let him stay anyway because he had two children after they failed to deport him. I feel so sorry for Amy's father.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is not up to me to prove asylum seekers did pass through other safe countries, it is up to them to prove that they didn't, which should be easy if arrived by direct flight or ship as they will show up on passenger records and our own passport control records.


The fact that 75% of asylum claims are rejected as Sassy said in her post, proves my point that they majority are bogus.

But most of these are never deported either.

75% rejected.

None deported.

It doesn't matter how many countries they go through Tommy - that is irrelevant to the country they reach. Most can't be investigated - how do you investigate a Somalian woman who says she was raped?

That is the point. They can make up any old story and the idiots here believe them.

Rape is a terrible thing, but not grounds for asylum here by someone from half way round the world.

How many asylum seekers have raped and killed British people whilst here?

Tommy Monk wrote:It is not up to me to prove asylum seekers did pass through other safe countries, it is up to them to prove that they didn't, which should be easy if arrived by direct flight or ship as they will show up on passenger records and our own passport control records.


The fact that 75% of asylum claims are rejected as Sassy said in her post, proves my point that they majority are bogus.

But most of these are never deported either.

So again you have no evidence.


Does it really show they are bogus or just fail the high criteria set by Britain, which is a massive difference because to other nations they would not fail their tests.
So what you think is bogus may in fact not be bogus at all, but just does not meet British requirements, so again it is you coming out with the bull really

While appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 4th December 2012, John Vine, the UK's chief selector of immigration confirmed that only 104 of 764 asylum seekers who were refused leave to remain in the UK between April 2011 and February 2012 were removed from the country.

Steve McCabe MP asked Mr Vine whether the UKBA had given Mr Vine any explanation for this failure.

Mr Vine said that 'there wasn't any explanation as such' but said that he thought that the organisation was organised in 'silos'.

He said, 'The enforcement arm is not part of the same directorate as the asylum section' and added 'More should be done to ensure that these cases are treated as a priority by local immigration teams'.

Do you all remember the backlog from Labour:


So far 403,500 applications from the backlog have been fully processed. Of those, only 38,000 were rejected compared with 161,000 who were given permission to remain.

The latter was "such a large proportion that it amounts in effect to an amnesty", the MPs said.

Of the remaining 205,500 applications, 40,500 were effectively shelved simply because "the applicants cannot be found and it is unknown whether they are in the UK, have left the country or are dead" - an outcome MPs said was "indefensible".

BigAndy9 wrote:While appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 4th December 2012, John Vine, the UK's chief selector of immigration confirmed that only 104 of 764 asylum seekers who were refused leave to remain in the UK between April 2011 and February 2012 were removed from the country.

Steve McCabe MP asked Mr Vine whether the UKBA had given Mr Vine any explanation for this failure.

Mr Vine said that 'there wasn't any explanation as such' but said that he thought that the organisation was organised in 'silos'.

He said, 'The enforcement arm is not part of the same directorate as the asylum section' and added 'More should be done to ensure that these cases are treated as a priority by local immigration teams'.

December 10, 2012 • 1:01 pm


“Refugees ‘are forced into destitution’ in Britain because they cannot be sent back”

The Independent, 10th December 2012

In 2011/12, 64% of those seeking asylum had their applications rejected. While the Government has maintained that it has prioritised the removal of failed asylum seekers, a report by the Refugee Council warns that many asylum seekers are not able to return home, even if they would like to.

It may be too dangerous for them to return to their country of birth or they may be refused permission. According to the Refugee Council, this means that many of them are forced into a life of “street homelessness, begging and sex work”.

The Refugee Council’s research is focused on five countries from where a large number of the UK’s asylum seekers arrive: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

The Independent notes, “Most [failed asylum seekers] do not qualify for state support or housing once their asylum applications have been rejected unless they can demonstrate they are planning to leave”.

So they manage to travel thousands of miles and sneak through countless quite high security borders, but can't sneak back in to their borderless shit holes?


Rubbish!


What happens is that they claim to have no documents/passport etc to make it difficult returning them.


Just more lying, cheating and stealing.....

Tommy Monk wrote:So they manage to travel thousands of miles and sneak through countless quite high security borders, but can't sneak back in to their borderless shit holes?


Rubbish!


What happens is that they claim to have no documents/passport etc to make it difficult returning them.


Just more lying, cheating and stealing.....

Dear me quite comical your rants, i think peoplem involved daily understanding asylum know far more than an idiot such as yourself

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:While appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 4th December 2012, John Vine, the UK's chief selector of immigration confirmed that only 104 of 764 asylum seekers who were refused leave to remain in the UK between April 2011 and February 2012 were removed from the country.

Steve McCabe MP asked Mr Vine whether the UKBA had given Mr Vine any explanation for this failure.

Mr Vine said that 'there wasn't any explanation as such' but said that he thought that the organisation was organised in 'silos'.

He said, 'The enforcement arm is not part of the same directorate as the asylum section' and added 'More should be done to ensure that these cases are treated as a priority by local immigration teams'.

December 10, 2012 • 1:01 pm
 

“Refugees ‘are forced into destitution’ in Britain because they cannot be sent back”

The Independent, 10th December 2012

In 2011/12, 64% of those seeking asylum had their applications rejected. While the Government has maintained that it has prioritised the removal of failed asylum seekers, a report by the Refugee Council warns that many asylum seekers are not able to return home, even if they would like to.

It may be too dangerous for them to return to their country of birth or they may be refused permission. According to the Refugee Council, this means that many of them are forced into a life of “street homelessness, begging and sex work”.

The Refugee Council’s research is focused on five countries from where a large number of the UK’s asylum seekers arrive: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

The Independent notes, “Most [failed asylum seekers] do not qualify for state support or housing once their asylum applications have been rejected unless they can demonstrate they are planning to leave”.

Unless they can demonstrate they are planning to leave? There's always a catch. I wonder what "planning to leave" means.

Number of asylum seekers refused has halved because more have been granted under our increasingly lax system.

Tommy Monk wrote:Number of asylum seekers refused has halved because more have been granted under our increasingly lax system.

More gobbledygook, based on no evidence

PhilDidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Number of asylum seekers refused has halved because more have been granted under our increasingly lax system.

More gobbledygook, based on no evidence

JKust because the numbers have halved Didge doesn't mean we still don't have problems. The cheek of this woman makes that quite clear.

kevins58 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


More gobbledygook, based on no evidence

JKust because the numbers have halved Didge doesn't mean we still don't have problems. The cheek of this woman makes that quite clear.

What cheek, don't be so pathetic, you are saying now it is unreasonable to ask for alternative accommodation, which many people do already and if they have a condition?

Don't be silly and again your post is on the problem of some where the stigma as seen by the countless idiotic posts is on all of them.

Numbers refused you say has halved, what about number of total claims? Has that halved too?
I'll bet it is rapidly increasing.

There is no such thing as an‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international
law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951
Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in
the first country they reach.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to
use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is
no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.
(United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
The major source countries of refugees in the UK in 2012 (Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka) all have poor human rights records or ongoing conflict. Asylum
seekers are fleeing from these conflicts and abuses, looking for safety.
(UNHCR (The UN Refugee Agency) Global Trends 2012)
In 2012 21,300 children applied for asylum having arrived in the country of refuge
alone, with no parent or guardian. 1,168 of these applications were made in the UK.
Many of them come from Afghanistan, which was described by UNICEF in 2010 as
“the world’s most dangerous place to be a child”.
Many refugees and asylum seekers hope to return home at some point in the
future if the situation in their country has improved.
The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum.
It has saved millions of lives. No country has ever withdrawn from it.




https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0002/8644/Tell_it_like_it_is_Refugee_Council_2013.pdf

PhilDidge wrote:

kevins58 wrote:
JKust because the numbers have halved Didge doesn't mean we still don't have problems. The cheek of this woman makes that quite clear.

What cheek, don't be so pathetic, you are saying now it is unreasonable to ask for alternative accommodation, which many people do already and if they have a condition?

Don't be silly and again your post is on the problem of some where the stigma as seen by the countless idiotic posts is on all of them.

A roof over ones head is a roof. When homeless a roof is still a roof but probably looks much better than if not homeless.

"Case owners must also take the applicant’s behaviour into account. For example, their claim may be harmed if they delayed claiming asylum without good reason, or if they have been convicted of a criminal offence such as using false travel documentation, or if they did not claim asylum in the first safe country they reached after leaving their own country (known as a ‘safe third country’)."


http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/the-asylum-process-made-simple/

And what about the overall numbers arriving and claiming?

Have they halved too?

Or risen as I said?

gerber wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

What cheek, don't be so pathetic, you are saying now it is unreasonable to ask for alternative accommodation, which many people do already and if they have a condition?

Don't be silly and again your post is on the problem of some where the stigma as seen by the countless idiotic posts is on all of them.

A roof over ones head is a roof.  When homeless a roof is still a roof but probably looks much better than if not homeless.  

Right lets put this into perspective Gerber, are you telling me you would be grateful of something that would cause you great distress?
Of course not, you too would ask for alternative accommodation and if anyone claims otherwise then sorry you would be telling porkies.
Again it is not an unreasonable request to ask for something different, as I though in this country we were human after all

Tommy Monk wrote:And what about the overall numbers arriving and claiming?

Have they halved too?

Or risen as I said?

Why does it matter so much to you unless you have issue and prejudice against people, as we are talking about people seeking asylum?
That is very obvious from your answers how you stigmatize all of them, as if you do not believe any are refugees, which I have to say is yet again utterly pathetic

Did she have any proof of her alleged acute acrophobia?
Or was it just another thing we have to just believe her about....?

Tommy Monk wrote:Did she have any proof of her alleged acute acrophobia?
Or was it just another thing we have to just believe her about....?

How do you prove it?
Again looking at any attempt to discredit her because your real issue is you hate people coming to these shores and will argue the toss against it because you are an intolerant individual, so again you have no case here, the fact you ignore the reality that most asylum seekers get shit holes the council would not even set up benefit claimants in shows you how out of touch with reality you are

PhilDidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And what about the overall numbers arriving and claiming?
Have they halved too?
Or risen as I said?

Why does it matter so much to you unless you have issue and prejudice against people, as we are talking about people seeking asylum?
That is very obvious from your answers how you stigmatize all of them, as if you do not believe any are refugees, which I have to say is yet again utterly pathetic

You brought up the fact that asylum refusals had halved, which says to me that more have been allowed, not that the overall numbers had gone down.
So how about telling us the overall numbers?
Have they gone up or down?
Have more been allowed or not?
Or doesn't it suit your argument...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:
Why does it matter so much to you unless you have issue and prejudice against people, as we are talking about people seeking asylum?
That is very obvious from your answers how you stigmatize all of them, as if you do not believe any are refugees, which I have to say is yet again utterly pathetic

You brought up the fact that asylum refusals had halved, which says to me that more have been allowed, not that the overall numbers had gone down.
So how about telling us the overall numbers?
Have they gone up or down?
Have more been allowed or not?
Or doesn't it suit your argument...?

Good I am glad we have allowed more in if they are seeking refuge from persecution, because that is the human thing to do, so I could care less on numbers really as that point is very irrelevant really is it not?
All that matters is that we process the claims and then make the right decisions.
The question is what relevance does your point on numbers have, none unless you are prejudice, it is as simple as that, if you want to find out the numbers do it yourself as it has no relevance to me or any bearing on this debate

And as far as the places being offered being shit holes, that they wouldn't offer to others, that is just bullshit.
The whole housing stock is controlled by housing associations and must bets to a good basic reasonable standard before let, same for everyone.

Tommy Monk wrote:And as far as the places being offered being shit holes, that they wouldn't offer to others, that is just bullshit.
Really based on what your own paranoid bullshit, which you have nothing to say otherwise, behave, you are embarrassing yourself now.
The whole housing stock is controlled by housing associations and must bets to a good basic reasonable standard before let, same for everyone.

ASYLUM SEEKERS DO NOT GET
LARGE HANDOUTS FROM THE STATE Asylum seekers do not come to the UK to claim benefits. In fact, most know
nothing about welfare benefits before they arrive and had no expectation that
they would receive financial support. (Refugee Council, Chance or Choice?
Understanding why asylum seekers come to the UK, 2010)
Many asylum seekers live in poverty and many families are not able to pay
for the basics such as clothing, powdered milk and nappies.
(The Children’s Society Briefing highlighting the gap between asylum support and
mainstream benefits 2012)
Almost all asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are forced to rely on
state support – this can be as little as £5 a day to live on.
Asylum seekers are not entitled to council housing. The accommodation
allocated to them is not paid for by the local council.
Some asylum seekers, and those who have been refused asylum, are not entitled
to any form of financial support and are forced into homelessness. This includes
heavily pregnant women.
Asylum seeking women who are destitute are vulnerable to violence in the UK.
More than a fifth of the women accessing our therapeutic services had
experienced sexual violence in this country.
(Refugee Council, The experiences of refugee women in the UK, 2012)

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0002/8644/Tell_it_like_it_is_Refugee_Council_2013.pdf

Asylum seekers are being crammed into overcrowded and substandard accommodation by G4S and Serco, according to a watchdog.

The companies could have to pay the government between £3m and £4m in rebates for “poor performance”.

The Home Office outsourced accommodation to the two private companies among others in 2012 as part of spending cuts of £140million over seven years.

A National Audit Office report found that despite improvements by other contracted firms, Serco and G4S were failing to meet targets of property standards and waiting times.

The chief executive of the Refugee Council, Maurice Wren, said the COMPASS contracts are responsible for housing some of the “most vulnerable in society”.

He added: “Asylum seekers are often people who have fled horrifying experiences in their own countries and have lost everything.

“They do not get a choice where they live and are totally reliant on the contractors to ensure that their properties are safe for them and their families to live in.”

But some asylum seekers were also being granted housing that they were not entitled to because of high salaries, according to the findings.

Investigators found poor quality housing with some “major defects” because homes taken from previous suppliers were not properly checked.

Some of the properties were unsuitable and the companies “lacked understanding” of people from different faiths and cultures, the report said.

Basic furniture was not always provided, action on complaints was slow and some staff were letting themselves into asylum seekers homes unannounced.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/g4s-and-serco-face-4million-penalty-over-substandard-accommodation-for-asylum-seekers-9051174.html


Would you like any more proof?

PhilDidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
You brought up the fact that asylum refusals had halved, which says to me that more have been allowed, not that the overall numbers had gone down.
So how about telling us the overall numbers?
Have they gone up or down?
Have more been allowed or not?
Or doesn't it suit your argument...?

Good I am glad we have allowed more in if they are seeking refuge from persecution, because that is the human thing to do, so I could care less on numbers really as that point is very irrelevant really is it not?
All that matters is that we process the claims and then make the right decisions.
The question is what relevance does your point on numbers have, none unless you are prejudice, it is as simple as that, if you want to find out the numbers do it yourself as it has no relevance to me or any bearing on this debate

So now you don't want to talk about numbers, which we all know have been on the rise, and you are happy to accept the bullshit stories they pop up here with to abuse our good nature with. And happy for us to pay for it all.
Mud hut in Mogadishu for telling the truth or a mansion in maida vale after a bit of bullshit.... that is what is going on and if you can't see that you are the twatti!

The thing is - most end up with a British passport and therefore are British, according to some.

Make everybody British as soon as possible - it hides a multitude of problems - "from them RACISTS!"

Tommy Monk wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:
Good I am glad we have allowed more in if they are seeking refuge from persecution, because that is the human thing to do, so I could care less on numbers really as that point is very irrelevant really is it not?
All that matters is that we process the claims and then make the right decisions.
The question is what relevance does your point on numbers have, none unless you are prejudice, it is as simple as that, if you want to find out the numbers do it yourself as it has no relevance to me or any bearing on this debate

So now you don't want to talk about numbers, which we all know have been on the rise, and you are happy to accept the bullshit stories they pop up here with to abuse our good nature with. And happy for us to pay for it all.
Mud hut in Mogadishu for telling the truth or a mansion in maida vale after a bit of bullshit.... that is what is going on and if you can't see that you are the twatti!

I really do not care if they have been on the rise, as again what relevance does that have?
None
The fact is are they countless conflicts and persecutions going on in the world, if these rise, then it is simple logic that so will those seeking refuge away from this.

Thank you for proving my point though on how you poorly stereotype asylum seekers as if they are now all living in Mansions which is of course showing again how you failed to see the evidence showing otherwise how many are living in shit holes.

Also what a racist stereotype view as if now all Somalians in Mogadishu live in mud huts, and people were asking for evidence of racism, there in a nutshell.

The fact is you have no evidence to support your claims you only have extreme exceptions where the case is where people have been housed in something over the top and you base your idiotic stereotype on these extreme and rare times from stories in the news, that shows how prejudice you really are

Tommy Monk wrote:

Sassy wrote:Are there classes you can join to become a real human being, possessing things like empathy etc that most of us take for granted?

No answer to the questions I see.


There are laws in place regarding asylum seekers, primarily that they are required to claim it in the nearest/first safe country available. Not travel across many without claiming, to then claim in their preferred country of choice on arrival. And then only because of the perception of chosen destination being the one that may provide the best standard of living re housing and benefits etc.


I have empathy all right, not for piss taking foreigners bending the law and abusing our systems and good nature to get here and trying to stay for their own benefit. But for the British people who have had enough of paying for it and of being taken the piss out of!!


It's all very well to appear charitable and to want to allow people to come in and live off of us, but how many beggars could you afford to put up and feed and clothe in your house before you then became overcrowded, poor and needy yourself?


You don't make other countries better by allowing masses of their people to come and live here, you just make our country worse off, both financially and generally for our people, and in a less able position overall to help anyone.


A race to the bottom is the ideal of the left.


You don't help success by adding failure, you help failure by adding success.

Not quite.

'anyone is allowed to claim asylum anywhere, but states may lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there'

'There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state'.

'The immigration rules state, however, that the secretary of state will only remove an asylum seeker to a safe third country if there is clear evidence that the country concerned will admit the person. This will be so if the person has arrived in the UK via another safe country and had an opportunity at the border of or within that country to claim asylum. The mere fact that the person has passed through another country does not necessarily mean there was an opportunity to claim asylum; if an agent planned the journey and the person was hidden in a vehicle for the duration of it, for example, there is unlikely to have been any realistic opportunity for the person to approach the authorities'.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position

It seems to me it's all a matter of what you believe in this case.

It seems that those who dislike the idea of immigrants and/or asylum seekers, do not believe this woman either suffered from vertigo or deserved the accommodation in the first instance.

Those who have no problem with immigration, have no problem with this lady being given alternative accommodation.

If she was genuinely distressed by living so high up, (and remember, where she lived before may not have had tall buildings?), then I can't see the problem with moving her.
You can't leave a person to live in genuine distress.

In all honesty I think the main problem here is in the title of the thread:

"Can't Speak Any English"

Didn't understand the process, didn't understand that this was her only alternative at the time and clearly thought she had choices to make  

Lord knows that there is much wrong with our management of immigration but a heavily pregnant woman, alone with no understanding of how things work?  

We have so much bigger fish to fry

PhilDidge wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:the biggest question is how many safe countries did she pass through to get here....along with WHY did she pass through them

Actually morally when you think about it, that question has to be the daftest, as who cares if they have gone through nations, if they find and think of a better a place where in this country they find sanctuary? You see you and many others are not concerned if they are of genuine flight from oppression but how they got here? Why should it matter really? Sadly it does but again there is such an invention called the boat, of which many sail from Somalian ports.

You wanna know why also people would chose a nation and even think to pass through others, because of a reality of its own invention, in this case British colonialism. With Britain being  part of its history, the Cultures and attractions of Britain will be foremost in the minds of people fleeing persecution where Britain has left its mark. What you could also add to this is that being as most immigrants fro outside the EU come from former parts of the British Empire, is that would many of these people have even contemplated Britain as a new life with no connection to them? If Britain had not controlled many of these nations, would many immigrants or refugees seek to come here?

That is what you need to ask yourself and in that Britain created its own attraction of drawing many people to its nation through former policies

MORE liberalist appeasement....So its now OK to ignore law (international law at that) when it suits,
Clearly the liberalists morals are a bit turbid

"Decisions often depend on whether the case owner finds the person’s account to be believable. There are a number of ways that an applicant’s credibility may be damaged, for example, if they have given inaccurate or inconsistent information. Case owners must also take the applicant’s behaviour into account. For example, their claim may be harmed if they delayed claiming asylum without good reason, or if they have been convicted of a criminal offence such as using false travel documentation, or if they did not claim asylum in the first safe country they reached after leaving their own country (known as a ‘safe third country’)."

http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/the-asylum-process-made-simple/

So basically, asylum claims are decided on whether they are 'believed' or not, little to do with proof, but come down to being judged on how good their story might be or how convincing they are as story tellers.

The other factors listed include criminal entry into the country by using false travel documentation or by other means, or whether the asylum seeker passed through other safe countries without making their claim there first.

Nobody in their right mind believes that anyone genuinely fleeing for their lives, could or would arrive in the UK from somewhere 3,000 or so miles away in the back of a lorry, non stop, with no chance of getting out at an earlier opportunity, or being discovered hiding along the way while passing through numerous other countries and borders, to then just drive straight through Europe and into Britain and again unchecked at our own border controls!!!

My comparison between mud hut and mansion is metaphorical but exactly how these people arriving see it, to them this is their big opportunity, and they will say and do anything to achieve it!!!

Similar to offering the chance of a lifetime expenses paid luxury apartment in Monaco to an unemployed bod living in a flea ridden bed sit in Solihull!!!

All they got to do is get to Monaco and then give a good bullshit story (no proof needed!) about how they are fleeing persecution (maybe getting a cat might help too!!)!!!!

As I said before, it is human nature for people to want better for themselves, and when given an opportunity, people will take it. For many, this is even if it means lying to achieve it!

If you can't see this, and can't see the opportunism behind most of the peoples reasons for wanting to get into the UK, then you are quite simply deluded and completely detached from reality.

I'm sure the case handlers who listen to the story and decide whether they believe it or not are ruthless investigators, expert inquisitors and true patriots - taking cost and numbers in to account.

Or are they hired on compassion show at the daft competency based interview?

Tommy Monk wrote:"Decisions often depend on whether the case owner finds the person’s account to be believable. There are a number of ways that an applicant’s credibility may be damaged, for example, if they have given inaccurate or inconsistent information. Case owners must also take the applicant’s behaviour into account. For example, their claim may be harmed if they delayed claiming asylum without good reason, or if they have been convicted of a criminal offence such as using false travel documentation, or if they did not claim asylum in the first safe country they reached after leaving their own country (known as a ‘safe third country’)."

http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/the-asylum-process-made-simple/

So basically, asylum claims are decided on whether they are 'believed' or not, little to do with proof, but come down to being judged on how good their story might be or how convincing they are as story tellers.

The other factors listed include criminal entry into the country by using false travel documentation or by other means, or whether the asylum seeker passed through other safe countries without making their claim there first.

Nobody in their right mind believes that anyone genuinely fleeing for their lives, could or would arrive in the UK from somewhere 3,000 or so miles away in the back of a lorry, non stop, with no chance of getting out at an earlier opportunity, or being discovered hiding along the way while passing through numerous other countries and borders, to then just drive straight through Europe and into Britain and again unchecked at our own border controls!!!

My comparison between mud hut and mansion is metaphorical but exactly how these people arriving see it, to them this is their big opportunity, and they will say and do anything to achieve it!!!

Similar to offering the chance of a lifetime expenses paid luxury apartment in Monaco to an unemployed bod living in a flea ridden bed sit in Solihull!!!

All they got to do is get to Monaco and then give a good bullshit story (no proof needed!) about how they are fleeing persecution (maybe getting a cat might help too!!)!!!!

As I said before, it is human nature for people to want better for themselves, and when given an opportunity, people will take it. For many, this is even if it means lying to achieve it!

If you can't see this, and can't see the opportunism behind most of the peoples reasons for wanting to get into the UK, then you are quite simply deluded and completely detached from reality.

Tommy, you still haven't come up with any real credible evidence that the majority of asylum seekers are lying cheating and thieving scumbags, have you?
As far as traveling to this country to claim asylum is concerned, Greece is considered to be the man hub for trafficking people to this country by the gangs and Greece isn't really considered a safe country so they move on from there into the wider EU community so many just have to get to there and then make their way here one way or another across borders that are not really that secure.

From the link you provided earlier...

Although some asylum seekers might enter the UK illegally, once they have applied for asylum they are no longer ‘illegal’. Anyone seeking protection is entitled to stay in the UK while awaiting a decision on their asylum claim.

It's not that long ago that we bombed Libya and we almost did the same in Syria but as soon as there is any mention about those that may have been affected by the bombing may be trying to come here to seek asylum the hands go up in horror shouting that they really have a cheek wanting to come here - why us?. Same in Afghanistan and Iraq and of course people were also shouting the odds about Malala and her family coming here from Pakistan when she got shot for standing up to the Taliban which is what we've been encouraging people to do all along.
The asylum process does recognize that that there may be a good reason why people would want to claim asylum here whether it be because they have links to the Commonwealth or they have some family already in this country.
You really need to try thinking out of the box on this instead of just ranting away that the majority are all scumbag lying stealing cheats from the streets of wogadishu. or whatever other silly name you can come up with.

victorismyhero wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Actually morally when you think about it, that question has to be the daftest, as who cares if they have gone through nations, if they find and think of a better a place where in this country they find sanctuary? You see you and many others are not concerned if they are of genuine flight from oppression but how they got here? Why should it matter really? Sadly it does but again there is such an invention called the boat, of which many sail from Somalian ports.

You wanna know why also people would chose a nation and even think to pass through others, because of a reality of its own invention, in this case British colonialism. With Britain being  part of its history, the Cultures and attractions of Britain will be foremost in the minds of people fleeing persecution where Britain has left its mark. What you could also add to this is that being as most immigrants fro outside the EU come from former parts of the British Empire, is that would many of these people have even contemplated Britain as a new life with no connection to them? If Britain had not controlled many of these nations, would many immigrants or refugees seek to come here?

That is what you need to ask yourself and in that Britain created its own attraction of drawing many people to its nation through former policies

MORE liberalist appeasement....So its now OK to ignore law (international law at that) when it suits,
Clearly the liberalists morals are a bit turbid

Ignoring what law you nationalistic wally?
You have no idea on what is morally right only your only selfish wants and needs, let me know when you have something of intelligence to back or show anywhere what international law is being broken, because none have been, as all you are doing is once again showing how prejudice you can be.

PhilDidge wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

MORE liberalist appeasement....So its now OK to ignore law (international law at that) when it suits,
Clearly the liberalists morals are a bit turbid

Ignoring what law you nationalistic wally?
You have no idea on what is morally right only your only selfish wants and needs, let me know when you have something of intelligence to back or show anywhere what international law is being broken, because none have been, as all you are doing is once again showing how prejudice you can be.

This in a nutshell, there is no such law.

'There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state'.