Honestly the most concerning part for me was what would have happened after the surgery. I would think the people have some power to set up him up with a new identity or some documents but there is always the risk that he may have revealed this whole criminal plot which would suggest to me that either the person would have gone into modern slavery or have been silenced by other means. Which is a wider concern if this is something that the two have done more than once in general
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
You seem to be conflating people who relocate out of choice and people who relocate under desperate circumstances where their life is at threat.
If you read it says another person involved set up medicals in Nigeria I think he himself got a kidney , how would these people know who to contact for a human organ? It all seems very underhand to me he could just have easily disappeared like many undocumented children.
---
I’m not conflicting anything some people pay thousands to come for a better life some owe thousands and pay with their life.
They’re both trafficked no matter what way you term them.
It’s a stereotype for a reason though. Muslim men are the most sexist and misogynistic group of men on the planet and that’s what I’ve experienced living in a very racially diverse area and from my female Muslim friends as well. And it’s even worse than men like Andrew Tate or incels because you can’t call them out otherwise you’re termed a bigot. So they are protected and able to continue to get away with this behaviour.
I’m so confused on the relevance to asylum claimants here. Are you basically trying to imply that asylum claimants should not be able to claim asylum based on human trafficking or that they’re just a slightly more vulnerable form of economic migrants?
But being trafficked isn't unique to foreigners. People can be trafficked from London to Manchester. And not all traffickers take payment. I'm just wondering why this is being mentioned in relation to refugees.
*"This" being the story of a politician using his influence to exploit a poor person.
The country is at breaking point - the NHS is on its knees, the is a cost of living crisis, a social care crisis, a massive lack of affordable housing.
Why are we letting asylum seekers in? Apart from it being ‘the right thing to do’, it’s evident we are coping as a country and we don’t have the right infrastructure to look after them properly.
Why are we letting asylum seekers in? Apart from it being ‘the right thing to do’, it’s evident we are coping as a country and we don’t have the right infrastructure to look after them properly.
It was a child trafficked by a rich couple under the pretence of a better life in the UK are you saying he wasn’t vulnerable ?
---
I thought they were British citizens? Didn’t they want him to pretend to be a cousin so he could get a visa ?
I did say he was vulnerable, hence the question on whether you’re trying to imply that asylum claimants are a more vulnerable form of economic migrants/trafficked victims/whatever you want to call it
conversations would be far easier if you stopped dancing around the point and simply explained what the relevance to this thread is
Not a warning but let's ALL move on from the petty bickering - Please read our rules and why they're important
He's a Nigerian senator and after a bit of research, it seems the daughter studied in the UK. Seeing as he's a politician I assume he's a citizen of Nigeria so likely has dual citizenship, which might be why they wanted to use that story.
Then why didn't you just say that initially when asked? Instead of baiting someone into a back and forth where you can eventually accuse them of labelling you as something that they didn't?
I personally wasn't of the thought that you were being racist. I just used logic to assume a Nigerian politician wouldn't solely be a citizen of the UK.
Yes. What's the alternative?
Of course, the process for claiming asylum has more than one stage. There's an initial screening which might happen on the day you arrive or within the next 5 days after which it is decided if you are eligible to apply for asylum. If your application is accepted there is a main interview after which your claim will be decided. The government website says that the decision will normally be made within 6 months but we know it is usually taking a lot longer than that.
I can't find anything in the government regulations to suggest that such claims will be automatically rejected. There is an argument that people might be eligible for asylum if the situation changes in their country after their first claim was rejected. I don't know how often this happens. In any case my previous answer applies, if someone arrives in the UK what alternative do we have but to support them until their situation is resolved?
Well I still don't really know who you classify as people 'taking advantage'. I thought we weren't talking about asylum seekers but as you've reintroduced them I assume you mean people who you don't think should be allowed to claim asylum or perhaps people that shouldn't be given it. Of course I could be wrong so it would be helpful if you could clarify who you mean.
Okay. So what do you suggest instead?
You can also add homophobia to that list too.
It has been reported today that the Taliban have been exploiting the situation in the Channel by sending their people across posing as desperate souls in need.
They have been seen on sites such as Tiktok, posing with the Taliban hand signals to let others know they have arrived.
The current situation does not allow us to know who exactly is coming in, what their intentions are, or little power to kick them out if known.
I for one DO NOT want large numbers of terrorists making their way into this country. Some people are clearly happy for the situation to continue until they are questioned as to why, when terrorist attack of the week starts to occur on the streets of the UK.
The more intolerants of western customs you import, the more likely the risk will occur.
As for the ECHR. If they didn't meddle in a country's right to get rid of who they wish, then there would be no calls to leave. However, as they do, the calls to do so are of their own making.
Some people also clearly do not believe in sensibilities in regards to numbers and control.
I think those people will find that many people (including myself) would be a bit more sympathetic if the numbers were controlled and we swifty booted out those with no legal right to be here, or have been found guilty of commiting crimes. Not allow them to meander around unchallenged.
It is not for the UK to providing housing or money for people with no legal right to be here. Nor have to tolerate those that have arrived in the UK to carry out crime.
Last edited:
The UK is a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 Protocol. 148 other countries are also parties to one or both. The Convention and Protocol define the term ‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of refugees, as well as the legal obligations of countries to protect them. The core principle is 'non-refoulement', which says that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law. The main countries that are not party to either are India, Indonesia, Saudi-Arabia and Libya although this does not mean that they don't accept refugees.
Some people think that we should withdraw from the 1951 Convention so that we can refuse to take any asylum seekers. We would probably also have to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights as article 3 also has an obligation on 'non-refoulment'. Of course even that wouldn't necessarily stop people arriving in the UK and asking for protection. So the question is what do we do with those people if we are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
How do you feel about other immigrants that come to the country under work, study or family visas etc? There are about 70 times more of them than people granted asylum.
---
That's interesting. Where was it reported?
Last edited:
Even terrorists?
I think only women and children should be housed in hotels , especially if they’re in a community setting, and a limit to how many each country can take if their infrastructure is under pressure.
---
NY giving them a bus pass, said they’re unable to cope with the volume of people arriving.
'Surprise' in Canada as NYC buses migrants to border
New York City's mayor confirms the city is giving migrants free bus tickets to the Canadian border.
www.bbc.com
I wonder what impact it will have on the tourist trade (with hotel’s full of young men claiming asylum) especially in towns where the council rely on that income to top up the meagre funds from the gov, public services are bound to be affected, you’ll have the do gooders out in force crying their street lights aren’t being fixed , streets cleaned etc
Last edited:
From Care4Calais, I’m assuming using their own internal data/estimates as I’m too lazy to double check whether official figures exist
As I would understand ARAP refers to the Afghan resettlement scheme
That should let them know if they can’t find accommodation for these people where are they going to find it for those coming behind? How many one bedroom flats/ houses are in existence? Will they move a single person into a two/three bed property and pay bedroom tax for the extra rooms?
I'm pretty certain that the Government has no actual plan for those who came under settlement schemes and that's why they have not introduced a mechanism to reunite families (including children without their parents here) and the scheme itself is not as effective as it could be
When asylum claimants are successful they get told to find their own housing. Having a moving asylum process would ideally mean that you constantly have people being rotated out and accommodation being made available, but the problem is that asylum claims are taking up to two years to process and Afghans/Ukrainians are taking up some of those spaces also
Even those that are free to find accommodation can’t find any ,the Ukrainians are stuck because there is no accommodation not because they can’t work, as far as I know it’s up to every individual council to find housing for them when the waiting lists are already years long from their own constituents.
Thank you for that, I didn’t know about the Convention and Protocol.
So is it also a legal obligation, I mean would a country be fined if they refused?
That’s what the new immigration bill covers the UK want to make changes a lot of other countries are ignoring the convention and protocols too .