Should the British Government be responsible for housing and feeding ex-pats returning from Thailand?

[geriatrickid]

On 10/2/2017 at 8:59 PM, darksidedog said:

The individual in this story doesn't exactly cover himself in glory in his efforts, but it does raise the bigger question of those returning who have paid many, many years of Taxes and N.I. but for whom life overseas, for whatever reason has ended. As a UK citizen, you would like to think you would be offered at least the same benefits as recently arrived immigrants.

 

Stay with this particular file and do not  change over to a hypothetical  case that supports your position. This man is the cause of his own problems. He wants handouts and refuses to take responsibility for his own life. He also made no contribution to the  benefits funds for 15 years.  You offer a an unrelated scenario which is a rarity, and when it does occur, almost always has a different outcome. People who contribute to the tax base can  draw down on that contribution, often receiving more than they pay in as is the case with the majority of benefit recipients today. This  huy has burnt everyone  he has touched and anyone who tried to help him. His emotional weaknesses and behavior pattern were in place long before he went to Thailand.

 

On 10/2/2017 at 9:10 PM, johnray said:

There are no jobs in the UK because they outsource everything by choice.  So we have reached a point where government support is the only option for a lot of people in society.  This is simple mathematics.  If you have 10 people and 10 jobs. And than you give your company to China and loose 8 jobs.  You now have 8 people that need government support.  I don't really see the difference if he has been to a bar in Thailand or not.

 

It doesn't really matter if he's paid taxes because social security comes from general taxation.

 

The UK has a labour shortage as does most of the  developed world. Unemployment is running at 4.5%.  This is why the chap was  able to get a job  on a construction site so easily. There are literally thousands of jobs like that in the UK that are unfilled.

The outsourcing you dismiss is the result of consumer pressure. Customers want low cost, but expanded service. One of the reasons why some activity was outsourced was to satisfy the consumer market. Look at the people who shop at Ikea or Walmart. they are not looking for craftsmanship or quality: They want cheap, cheap, cheap.

 

General taxation still requires  general taxpayers. The commercial sector which is the source of much of the tax revenue requires workers and consumers. If those consumers are not earning a wage, i.e. generating VAT and income tax,  the  commercial  enterprise has no customers. The only people who should be receiving government support are those who are mentally or physically incapable of contributing to society either through work or through volunteer ism, or who have satisfied their retirement or workplace injury pension requirements. Able bodied people who choose not to work deserve nothing and this  man has chosen not to work. He chose to be an irresponsible selfish pr*ck betraying everyone who helped him. And no his drunkeness is not an excuse. I've known a few alcoholics who were pretty bad, but all of them, every one of them,  never  did what this guy has done. A kind and decent person who is a drunk is still a decent and kind person The subject was rotten to begin with. Nasty rotten people who are drunks are  even more nasty and rotten.

 

 

 

 

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

23 hours ago, nausea said:

The Roma used to call it the land of milk and honey. OK, many have a hard life at home, and maybe the streets of the UK aren't so paved with gold as they think, but no point in denying the basic motivation.

 

From my own point of view 3 months doesn't seem so bad; at least it gives you a basis on which to plan, should push come to shove.

 

I have some sympathy for elderly, maybe sick, guys, perhaps without home contacts, who through some unfortunate cocatenation of circumstances find themselves forced to leave all they love behind and return to the UK, a land which may now be strange and unfamiliar to them, and throw themselves on the mercies of the system.

 

As for the subject of the thread, it's hard to empathise with an able-bodied male. Having said that, I have to admit that I, personally, would've been even more ruined than I am already had I come here as a young man, and I suspect that this is what has happened to this guy, Mark. As the novelist Conrad so aptly put it over a century ago, talking about the expats of his own time, the soft spot of decay develops and ambition becomes nothing more than a desire to loaf through life.

 

 

 

Sad that you think coming to Thailand as a younger man would have caused a breakdown in your zest for life and descended into decadent sloth like the subject "Mark".

I would have thought a person with intellect like yourself might have been very successful.

I got the best work opportunity here in my late 30s that I had ever had. Not so much money but job satisfaction.

It depends on the character of the person to make it work, not the temptations you can succumb to.

This guy is weak. I've seen many like him over the years.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kim1950]

27 pages and still torturing is guy. He's already torturing himself. Is this a thing with the British. Things are most likely too close to home. Got into your head. Drop it. You are in a sick-o loop. And, when you old asses get your sorry asses back to UK, no connections, lost dreams, and no money, expect the same sympathy. You will get much less in Thailand. Oh, but not me, heard that before.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Kim1950

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Some questions for the three of you, and anyone else who has made this point.

 

During the time you lived in the UK and paid tax, did you ever:-

• Travel on a public road?
• Use public transport?
• Have you rubbish collected by the local council?
• Send your children, if any, to school (even if you educated them privately, who do you think paid for their teachers' training)?
• Use the NHS, whether it be a hospital, GP or other service?
• Ever have cause to call on one of the emergency services; police, ambulance, fire service? Hopefully not, but they were all there had you needed them.

I could go on; the list of services paid for out of tax revenue, whether it be income tax, VAT, council tax etc., is long.

 

You all no doubt also paid NICs. Even if you have never claimed a contribution based benefit, the contributions you've already paid (provided you paid in for at least 10 years) will be returned to you in the form of your state pension when you reach the required age.

 

Yes, there are people who have never paid into the system directly who do receive state benefits; more of whom are British citizens born here, many of whom can, like George FmplesdaCosteed, trace their UK ancestry back generations, than refugees. Lazy Britain uncovered: How FOUR MILLION adults have never worked in their lives. 

Of course, that figure includes disabled people who are unable to work due to the nature of their disability; but the majority are not disabled at all.

 

Should they be denied state aid?

 

Of course, even those living off state aid, refugee, immigrant or British, pay tax; VAT on their clothes, heating etc.
 

So, what is your point?

Illegal immigrants and "refugees" should be top of the housing and benefits list?

Or not?

 

 

[sanemax]

5 hours ago, MrPatrickThai said:

There are basically 3 options for a real alcoholic

1. Covered up

2. Locked up

3. Sobered up

 

It is a 3-faceted disease, which 99% of the population don't understand.

- a physical allergy to alcohol(causing craving to have more)

- a mental obsession(that this time it will be different)

 - a spiritual malady.

Its really not a disease, its selfish people who like to drink and have no regard about themselves, others or the consequences .

     Posted from someone who is still drinking at 5 AM and admits its because its I want to do and I dont blame a disease or anyone else

[nontabury]

12 hours ago, MrPatrickThai said:

You missed the point - he suffers from a disease called alcoholism - its not something that one decides to get! 

Maybe not, but it is a self inflicted illness. The same can be said for drug addiction and gambling. I am myself am a sex addict, should I expect the government to finance me in my illness.

Edited October 8, 2017 by nontabury

[MrPatrickThai]

9 hours ago, sanemax said:

Its really not a disease, its selfish people who like to drink and have no regard about themselves, others or the consequences .

     Posted from someone who is still drinking at 5 AM and admits its because its I want to do and I dont blame a disease or anyone else

What do you mean? It is either a disease or not. The experts say it is, you say it isn't. 

 

Drinking is not a disease. Alcoholism is. 

 

You obviously don't know the difference.

[MrPatrickThai]

6 hours ago, nontabury said:

Maybe not, but it is a self inflicted illness. The same can be said for drug addiction and gambling. I am myself am a sex addict, should I expect the government to finance me in my illness.

Ridiculous thing to say.

 

Have you thought of seeking help for your addiction? 

 

Sex addiction is a disease and many have been cured.

 

I have known many men here in Thailand to abandon their kids and spend money on hookers.

 

Take a test if you really are an addict and not just trying to get some cheap "like"

 

https://www.recoveryzone.com/tests/sex-addiction/SAST/index.php

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by MrPatrickThai

[7by7]

11 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

So, what is your point?

Illegal immigrants and "refugees" should be top of the housing and benefits list?

Or not?

 

 

My primary point being that access to non contribution based public funds in the UK is mainly based upon residence and need; not how much tax an ex pat paid 20 years ago.

 

My secondary point being that while living in the UK and paying tax, ex pats had access to, and used many of, all the services paid for out of tax revenue. In other words yes they paid in, but at the same time they took out.

 

How you could possibly infer that I think illegal immigrants and refugees should be top of the housing and benefits list from the post you quoted, or any other post of mine, only you know!

 

Illegal immigrants, of course, receive no public funds at all; they are in the UK illegally and any attempt to claim such would bring them and their illegal status to the notice of the authorities.

 

Refugees seeking asylum are not allowed to work and so are, as I explained earlier, given a small weekly allowance with which to buy food and clothes; less than half that an unemployed returning ex pat would receive. They are also given somewhere to live; such as a bed and breakfast, asylum hostel or immigration detention centre.

 

Would you prefer that they be homeless on the streets to beg and build ramshackle camps like those around Calais?

 

I am not surprised at your lack of knowledge over the availability of public funds to immigrants, all immigrants. Most British people are the same; until they become personally involved due to, for example, marrying a foreigner. If you want the facts rather than tabloid hysteria, I recommend a thorough reading of the Home Office guidance Public Funds.

Edited October 8, 2017 by 7by7

[mommysboy]

18 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Stay with this particular file and do not  change over to a hypothetical  case that supports your position. This man is the cause of his own problems. He wants handouts and refuses to take responsibility for his own life. He also made no contribution to the  benefits funds for 15 years.  You offer a an unrelated scenario which is a rarity, and when it does occur, almost always has a different outcome. People who contribute to the tax base can  draw down on that contribution, often receiving more than they pay in as is the case with the majority of benefit recipients today. This  huy has burnt everyone  he has touched and anyone who tried to help him. His emotional weaknesses and behavior pattern were in place long before he went to Thailand.

 

 

 

You are of course quite right to emphasise the importance of personal responsibility in life.  I think it is a quality that tends to develop with age. 

 

But where you are wrong imo is in not acknowlwdging that serious alcoholism is, or strongly mimics, a disease.  There are two powerful elements it seems: genetic disposition, and physical changes in the brain, albeit only after years of reckless exposure to alcohol.

 

Sadly, I think there comes a point when issues of personal responsibility can be declared moot.  To balance the argument, is it not also important that we emphasise society's role in all of this; alcohol is allowed to be freely available, and there is also the role of advertising in targeting and seducing its often young audience.

 

I don't think the matter is at all as clear cut as you would like to present.

 

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

11 hours ago, 7by7 said:

My primary point being that access to non contribution based public funds in the UK is mainly based upon residence and need; not how much tax an ex pat paid 20 years ago.

 

My secondary point being that while living in the UK and paying tax, ex pats had access to, and used many of, all the services paid for out of tax revenue. In other words yes they paid in, but at the same time they took out.

 

How you could possibly infer that I think illegal immigrants and refugees should be top of the housing and benefits list from the post you quoted, or any other post of mine, only you know!

 

Illegal immigrants, of course, receive no public funds at all; they are in the UK illegally and any attempt to claim such would bring them and their illegal status to the notice of the authorities.

 

Refugees seeking asylum are not allowed to work and so are, as I explained earlier, given a small weekly allowance with which to buy food and clothes; less than half that an unemployed returning ex pat would receive. They are also given somewhere to live; such as a bed and breakfast, asylum hostel or immigration detention centre.

 

Would you prefer that they be homeless on the streets to beg and build ramshackle camps like those around Calais?

 

I am not surprised at your lack of knowledge over the availability of public funds to immigrants, all immigrants. Most British people are the same; until they become personally involved due to, for example, marrying a foreigner. If you want the facts rather than tabloid hysteria, I recommend a thorough reading of the Home Office guidance Public Funds.

 

This "Mark" character, if he is real, is a sad case. Does he not qualify for any help though?

Whatever, on your reply:

My supposed lack of knowledge is equal  your lack to thought and understanding for the long term.

Why was there a "Jungle" in Calais?

Why don't so many of these people apply for residence where they land,  as the EU law demands?

 

My friend you are missing the point!

Public funds you say, who pays for the accommodation, legal representation, health care, food and clothes they get while waiting for a decision as to if they can stay?

If they get acceptance, then the extended family are next to arrive after a year or so and bigger housing is needed.

 

Sorry, that doesn't make an argument when you say I accused you of condoning immigrants get priority for housing.

They do! Maybe not day one, but they are.

I think you should look up some details on the "Ghettos" of immigrants in UK towns and cities and ask why don't they integrate?

 

I have lived and worked here for many years and try my best to fit in, paid tax and pay for health care etc etc.

I live in an almost exclusively Thai area of Bangkok. I am polite and speak in Thai as well as I can.

 

4x2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by George FmplesdaCosteedback

[SheungWan]

10 hours ago, mommysboy said:

You are of course quite right to emphasise the importance of personal responsibility in life.  I think it is a quality that tends to develop with age. 

 

But where you are wrong imo is in not acknowlwdging that serious alcoholism is, or strongly mimics, a disease.  There are two powerful elements it seems: genetic disposition, and physical changes in the brain, albeit only after years of reckless exposure to alcohol.

 

Sadly, I think there comes a point when issues of personal responsibility can be declared moot.  To balance the argument, is it not also important that we emphasise society's role in all of this; alcohol is allowed to be freely available, and there is also the role of advertising in targeting and seducing its often young audience.

 

I don't think the matter is at all as clear cut as you would like to present.

 

 

Yes! Its society's fault!

[hawker9000]

12 hours ago, mommysboy said:

You are of course quite right to emphasise the importance of personal responsibility in life.  I think it is a quality that tends to develop with age. 

 

But where you are wrong imo is in not acknowlwdging that serious alcoholism is, or strongly mimics, a disease.  There are two powerful elements it seems: genetic disposition, and physical changes in the brain, albeit only after years of reckless exposure to alcohol.

 

Sadly, I think there comes a point when issues of personal responsibility can be declared moot.  To balance the argument, is it not also important that we emphasise society's role in all of this; alcohol is allowed to be freely available, and there is also the role of advertising in targeting and seducing its often young audience.

 

I don't think the matter is at all as clear cut as you would like to present.

 

 

"Sadly, I think there comes a point when issues of personal responsibility can be declared moot.  To balance the argument, is it not also important that we emphasise society's role in all of this; alcohol is allowed to be freely available, and there is also the role of advertising in targeting and seducing its often young audience."

 

Oh please.  Blaming a wasted life like this on "society's role".  It's called LIFE.  Do you really want "society" locking you up in a dark room somewhere so you won't be exposed to anything?   'Telling you what you can and cannot do?  'Deciding what is and isn't going to be "available"?  Must everyone's liberties and opportunities be abolished because of the few who refuse to accept responsibility for their own well-being such as this character?  Nanny states doing more than enough of that already, thank-you very much.   What's sad is people too dim to see the tyranny in setting out to dictate to everyone because of the failures of these relative few.   If you want to live in a box by all means go do it and leave the rest of us be.

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by hawker9000

[MaeJoMTB]

On 10/3/2017 at 7:48 AM, JAG said:

Given that this character is 41, and has spent the last 15 years in Thailand, he can't have paid little in the way of National Insurance contributions.

 

 

And yet the UK is happy to take in many Muslim families and look after them and their descendants forever. Not to mention, Polish, Romanian, et al. If your country is going to have welfare, it should be given to  their own citizens first. Why is it everyone in the world has a 'homeland' apart from white males? If this had happened to an English woman, she would have received everything she needed for the rest of her life, and everything any children she brought back needed for the rest of their lives.

Funny old world where white men don't matter.

Edited October 9, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[bkk6060]

19 hours ago, MrPatrickThai said:

Ridiculous thing to say.

 

Have you thought of seeking help for your addiction? 

 

Sex addiction is a disease and many have been cured.

 

I have known many men here in Thailand to abandon their kids and spend money on hookers.

 

Take a test if you really are an addict and not just trying to get some cheap "like"

 

https://www.recoveryzone.com/tests/sex-addiction/SAST/index.php

 

HA.   I don't know about him but:  I for one do not want to be cured!

[mommysboy]

8 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

"Sadly, I think there comes a point when issues of personal responsibility can be declared moot.  To balance the argument, is it not also important that we emphasise society's role in all of this; alcohol is allowed to be freely available, and there is also the role of advertising in targeting and seducing its often young audience."

 

Oh please.  Blaming a wasted life like this on "society's role".  It's called LIFE.  Do you really want "society" locking you up in a dark room somewhere so you won't be exposed to anything?   'Telling you what you can and cannot do?  'Deciding what is and isn't going to be "available"?  Must everyone's liberties and opportunities be abolished because of the few who refuse to accept responsibility for their own well-being such as this character?  Nanny states doing more than enough of that already, thank-you very much.   What's sad is people too dim to see the tyranny in setting out to dictate to everyone because of the failures of these relative few.   If you want to live in a box by all means go do it and leave the rest of us be.

 

I merely said that society plays a part: can you seriously argue it doesn't?  It does in all our lives.

 

Did I say anything about curbing liberties?

 

Did I say anything about telling people what they can and can't do?

 

Ah, I see, I'm dim.

 

A rant.

 

[7by7]

11 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

This "Mark" character, if he is real, is a sad case. Does he not qualify for any help though?

 He does qualify for help, and has received it; not just from friends but also from the government.

 

I do wonder where his family is in all this, though; perhaps they are all dead, or do they want nothing to do with him.

 

11 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

My supposed lack of knowledge is equal  your lack to thought and understanding for the long term.

Why was there a "Jungle" in Calais?

Why don't so many of these people apply for residence where they land,  as the EU law demands?

Based upon what you have posted so far, there is nothing 'supposed' about your lack of knowledge! Did you read the public funds document i linked to?

 

There was, and still are, camps around Calais and other Channel ports because some, by no means all or even the majority, of the refugees in Europe want, for a variety of reasons, to claim asylum in the UK. It may be because they have family here, it may be because they have fallen, as you have obviously done, for the myth that they will be given bags of cash and free luxury housing once in the UK!

 

12 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

My friend you are missing the point!

Public funds you say, who pays for the accommodation, legal representation, health care, food and clothes they get while waiting for a decision as to if they can stay?

If they get acceptance, then the extended family are next to arrive after a year or so and bigger housing is needed.

Please do not refer to me as your friend; I would not wish for anyone to think that may be the case.

 

Of course, what little public aid asylum seekers receive in the UK is paid for by the taxpayer. Various charities also provide aid.

 But as you have ignored the question, I will ask it again; would you prefer that they be dumped on the streets to beg?

 

If their application for asylum is accepted, and remember that, as previously shown, most are not, then they can apply for family members to join them. But, again, you display your lack of knowledge. They cannot apply for their extended family; they can only apply for their spouse or partner and any children under the age of 18. See Settlement: refugee or humanitarian protection, 6. Family reunion.

 

The rest of your post is absolute rubbish, gleaned from propaganda sites and the likes of Stephen Lennon.

 

Yes, first generation immigrants do tend to congregate in one area. Usually because of the availability of cheap housing; provided in the main by private landlords. There is an area where I live and grew up which when I was a boy was almost exclusively occupied by Italian immigrants. As they prospered, they moved out and first generation immigrants from Pakistan moved in. Now this group are prospering and moving out and immigrants from Poland and Romania are moving in.

 

'Twas ever thus. Chinese ghettos in East London in the 19th century, West Indian ones in the mid 20th being just two more examples.

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

And yet the UK is happy to take in many Muslim families and look after them and their descendants forever. Not to mention, Polish, Romanian, et al. If your country is going to have welfare, it should be given to  their own citizens first. Why is it everyone in the world has a 'homeland' apart from white males? If this had happened to an English woman, she would have received everything she needed for the rest of her life, and everything any children she brought back needed for the rest of their lives.

Funny old world where white men don't matter.

 

You obviously have no idea about who is eligible for public funds in the UK and who is not.

 

If you want to educate yourself, read the many links I have posted previously.

[MaeJoMTB]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

If you want to educate yourself, read the many links I have posted previously.

 

Too old, too little interest, would only go back if the alternative was death ......... and would probably choose death to living in the UK.

[nontabury]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

If their application for asylum is accepted, and remember that, as previously shown, most are not, then they can apply for family members to join them. But, again, you display your lack of knowledge. They cannot apply for their extended family; they can only apply for their spouse or partner and any children under the age of 18. See Settlement: refugee or humanitarian protection, 6. Family reunion.

 

You state that most application for asylum are refused. 

Do you Know the actual numbers over the last 10yrs, who have been refused? And how many of those failed applicants,have actually been deported? I do recall reading of instances of failed Asylum seekers, still remaining in the UK, more than 10yrs after their failed application. Maybe something to do with the flourishing appeals, orchestrated by business minded Lawyers, and financed by the tax payer.

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by nontabury

[BangkokNicky]

did anybody up north notice the fco were doing a outreach last week in Chaing Mai it seem all they did was come for a photo  for there status quo  with local gov anyway after all they are a waste of space ..

 

 

https://twitter.com/ukinthailand/status/915406198198886400

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 He does qualify for help, and has received it; not just from friends but also from the government.

 

I do wonder where his family is in all this, though; perhaps they are all dead, or do they want nothing to do with him.

 

Based upon what you have posted so far, there is nothing 'supposed' about your lack of knowledge! Did you read the public funds document i linked to?

 

There was, and still are, camps around Calais and other Channel ports because some, by no means all or even the majority, of the refugees in Europe want, for a variety of reasons, to claim asylum in the UK. It may be because they have family here, it may be because they have fallen, as you have obviously done, for the myth that they will be given bags of cash and free luxury housing once in the UK!

 

Please do not refer to me as your friend; I would not wish for anyone to think that may be the case.

 

Of course, what little public aid asylum seekers receive in the UK is paid for by the taxpayer. Various charities also provide aid.

 But as you have ignored the question, I will ask it again; would you prefer that they be dumped on the streets to beg?

 

If their application for asylum is accepted, and remember that, as previously shown, most are not, then they can apply for family members to join them. But, again, you display your lack of knowledge. They cannot apply for their extended family; they can only apply for their spouse or partner and any children under the age of 18. See Settlement: refugee or humanitarian protection, 6. Family reunion.

 

The rest of your post is absolute rubbish, gleaned from propaganda sites and the likes of Stephen Lennon.

 

Yes, first generation immigrants do tend to congregate in one area. Usually because of the availability of cheap housing; provided in the main by private landlords. There is an area where I live and grew up which when I was a boy was almost exclusively occupied by Italian immigrants. As they prospered, they moved out and first generation immigrants from Pakistan moved in. Now this group are prospering and moving out and immigrants from Poland and Romania are moving in.

 

'Twas ever thus. Chinese ghettos in East London in the 19th century, West Indian ones in the mid 20th being just two more examples.

 

 

 

 

No I am most definitely NOT your friend I would also not wish to be, and from you supercilious attitude I should think you have very few. I was using the expression as an idiom since I have not (thankfully) met you.

I defined Mark as a loser, he has had some help that he was entitled to, that is not my point.

 

The Taxpayer pays the bills, including those who give to charities, no matter how big or small the bills. If there are 3 million EU citizens in the UK and they represent a minority of the immigrant influx and population how many arrive and are accepted (see below).

If they have friends and family in the UK they can find out the truth easily enough, it seems that they do. The extended family restriction is only recent, grandparents for instance.

 

You say yourself there are now new ghettos springing up. A BBC documentary earlier this year showed places with areas that are now taken over, not from previous immigrants but from local British people.

You say it has been this way for years, that is not true. The numbers are far greater than since the influx in the 60s. Enough people arrive to fill a large town every year and not all are self supporting. Incidentally everywhere seems to have a China Town, even Beijing...

 

Leave them on the street, where, in the UK, or maybe put them in organised camps like France, Greece, Italy and Spain.

Where are the camps in Britain?

Here's a link for you:

 

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

 

I don't have time for bleeding heart liberals that can't see the wood for the trees.

Over and out!

[7by7]

On ‎09‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 2:45 PM, nontabury said:

 

You state that most application for asylum are refused. 

Do you Know the actual numbers over the last 10yrs, who have been refused? And how many of those failed applicants,have actually been deported? I do recall reading of instances of failed Asylum seekers, still remaining in the UK, more than 10yrs after their failed application. Maybe something to do with the flourishing appeals, orchestrated by business minded Lawyers, and financed by the tax payer.

 

 I have previously posted a link to the number of refusals etc., and am not going to do your research for you. But you can start with Migration to the UK: Asylum

Quote

This briefing sets out key facts and figures, as well as information gaps, relating to the number of asylum seekers applying to stay in the UK, who these asylum seekers are, how many are rejected, what the overall impacts of asylum seekers are on UK migration statistics and what happens to asylum seekers after their applications have been processed.

 

[7by7]

On ‎09‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:01 PM, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

<snip>

Here's a link for you:

 

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

 

I don't have time for bleeding heart liberals that can't see the wood for the trees.

Over and out!

As you have made a tactical withdrawal from the debate, I wont bother responding to and correcting the misconceptions in most of your post.

 

But a word on the net migration figures.

 

Yes, they do include asylum seekers, but as the link in my post above says

Quote

Asylum seekers make up a smaller share of net migration than they did in the 1990s and early 2000s. Between 1994 and 2003, asylum seekers’ share of annual net migration ranged from 20% to 54% in annual data. This trend had changed decisively by 2004, as net migration again increased and asylum declined. Between 2004 and 2014, asylum ranged from 3% to 10% of net migration, and was estimated at about 7% for 2014.

The figures in both your and my link are based on estimates gleaned from the international passenger survey and represent the number of occasions when a person entered or left the UK, not the number of distinct individuals.

 

For the latest actual numbers under each category, including asylum, see Immigration statistics, April to June 2017: data tables. July to September are not yet available, but should be soon.

[nontabury]

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I have previously posted a link to the number of refusals etc., and am not going to do your research for you. But you can start with Migration to the UK: Asylum

 

According to UN rules, genuine asylum seekers  are supposed to apply and be granted asylum in the first country they arrive in, not to travel through many countries in order to seek asylum in a country that they assume will be a easy touch.

According to articles in many of today’s UK nationals, there are 1,000,000 illegal immigrants in the UK,  these include a large number who have been refused asylum, Furthermore the articles states that the ex Home Office Immigration CHIEF says there is zero chance that they will ever be deported.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nontabury said:

According to UN rules, genuine asylum seekers  are supposed to apply and be granted asylum in the first country they arrive in, not to travel through many countries in order to seek asylum in a country that they assume will be a easy touch.

 I am sure that a significant proportion of those seeking asylum in the UK do so because they believe, like you, that the UK is an easy touch.

 

Like you they are wrong; as they will discover when and if they get here.

 

Others come to the UK for a variety of reasons; maybe they have family here, maybe it's because of the historic ties between their home country and the UK, i.e. it was part of the British Empire.

 

5 hours ago, nontabury said:

According to articles in many of today’s UK nationals, there are 1,000,000 illegal immigrants in the UK,  these include a large number who have been refused asylum, Furthermore the articles states that the ex Home Office Immigration CHIEF says there is zero chance that they will ever be deported.

 I cannot find any such article, though don't have much time to look at present; maybe yo9u'd be kind enough to link to one.

 

The latest such article i can find is this one from The New Statesman last February.

 

Of course, not all illegals in the UK are failed asylum seekers, though many do abscond. Most are overstayers of one sort or another.

 

UKVI do have teams searching for illegals that's where the vast profits made on visas and leave to remain applications go in part. But finding people who are in hiding is not simple.

 

Of course, in the context of this topic illegals are irrelevant because they do not claim any public funds, for the obvious reason that attempting to do so would probably get them arrested and deported.

 

 

[wakeupplease]

Must be dig at Britain week on Tv, thats ok they are used to silly people making stupid comments.

[SheungWan]

9 hours ago, nontabury said:

According to UN rules, genuine asylum seekers  are supposed to apply and be granted asylum in the first country they arrive in, not to travel through many countries in order to seek asylum in a country that they assume will be a easy touch.

According to articles in many of today’s UK nationals, there are 1,000,000 illegal immigrants in the UK,  these include a large number who have been refused asylum, Furthermore the articles states that the ex Home Office Immigration CHIEF says there is zero chance that they will ever be deported.

'According to articles in many of today’s UK nationals...' I thought you only read the Express and The Mail?

Edited October 11, 2017 by SheungWan

[SheungWan]

On 10/8/2017 at 8:21 AM, MrPatrickThai said:

Ridiculous thing to say.

 

Have you thought of seeking help for your addiction? 

 

Sex addiction is a disease and many have been cured.

 

I have known many men here in Thailand to abandon their kids and spend money on hookers.

 

Take a test if you really are an addict and not just trying to get some cheap "like"

 

https://www.recoveryzone.com/tests/sex-addiction/SAST/index.php