UK Asylum Appeals Surge Leaves Thousands of Migrants in Hotels for Years

[Nick Carter icp]

12 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

You folks need someone to do MEGA- Make England Great Again.  

 

 

   The UK should improve itself, but the UK doesn't need to copy the USA

[Hanaguma]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh might feel a bit left out by that

True, but it makes the acronym messy. "MENISWGA" is a bit unwieldy. 

How about Forward, United Christian Kingdom?

[NoshowJones]

21 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

It was Labour that promised to do something about these parasites landing in their boats and did nothing. Just another of their broken promises. Get them out as soon as possible and vote Reform.

You with the thumbs down moji, are you really serious????

[James105]

18 hours ago, Tiger1980 said:

  Unfortunately you are wrong on one point, nearly 50% of asylum claims are accepted, those who fail the initial application then go on to appeal ( at a high cost to the tax payer) of these approximately 50% are successful so the full figure is a 75% acceptance rate.

 

Yes, well I think I can guess why so many that should not be granted are successful

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg8emkley3o

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

[frank83628]

On 6/24/2025 at 9:07 AM, impulse said:

Rwanda's looking better and better.  Or maybe they can work a deal with El Salvador.

 

They were going to be sent there but all the do-gooders kicked up about 'human rights'

[frank83628]

Weak politicians, the French dont want them so are more than happy with the boats crossing.

Why not use the military to force the boats back.

It would be quite easy if stamer had a backbone to make a stand about it, its working for Trump. How many entered the US in recent months.

[The Cyclist]

27 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Weak politicians, the French dont want them so are more than happy with the boats crossing.

Why not use the military to force the boats back.

It would be quite easy if stamer had a backbone to make a stand about it, its working for Trump. How many entered the US in recent months.

 

You cannot force the boats back.

 

What you can do is declare it an issue of National security under the National Security Act.

 

Give the Military £10 million to build secure tented camps on Military training areas.

 

Armed Military pick them on the beach, transport to secure tented camp, given slops 3 times a day, and here they stay until they beg to go home.

 

No hotels, no cash cards, nothing. Only security , safety, fed and watered, provided by armed guards

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You cannot force the boats back.

 

What you can do is declare it an issue of National security under the National Security Act.

 

Give the Military £10 million to build secure tented camps on Military training areas.

 

Armed Military pick them on the beach, transport to secure tented camp, given slops 3 times a day, and here they stay until they beg to go home.

 

No hotels, no cash cards, nothing. Only security , safety, fed and watered, provided by armed guards

 

Exactly.

 

And once they realize that trip across the channel is going to result in months freezing in a tent in the middle of a fenced off field, they will stop coming.

 

But that's not what Labour want. They're perfectly happy with the numbers, they just have to pretend not to be. Hence the debacle continues. 

[James105]

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You cannot force the boats back.

 

What you can do is declare it an issue of National security under the National Security Act.

 

Give the Military £10 million to build secure tented camps on Military training areas.

 

Armed Military pick them on the beach, transport to secure tented camp, given slops 3 times a day, and here they stay until they beg to go home.

 

No hotels, no cash cards, nothing. Only security , safety, fed and watered, provided by armed guards

 

It's (kind of) been tried with Bibby Stockholm.   

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4ng711yy2yo

 

"She said a large number of the migrants had boycotted their breakfast and lunch, and had taken part in a two-hour sit-in at the site's outside compound."

 

The eventual rewards are too great for them to go home.    They have to be turned back before they get to the UK.   It's the only way.   Australia did it and solved the problem within a few weeks.   

[The Cyclist]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

She said a large number of the migrants had boycotted their breakfast and lunch, and had taken part in a two-hour sit-in at the site's outside compound."

 

Because, weak and spineless people give in to the emotional blackmail

 

Food is provided, eat or starve, the choice is yours.

[RayC]

7 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

You with the thumbs down moji, are you really serious????

 

That'll be me😁 (I wish that AN would remove the anonymity from the emojis) 

 

Yes, I'm serious about not wanting Reform to be the next government and my objections are practical.

 

Firstly, imo the idea that Reform are going to somehow magically stop illegal immigration at the drop of a hat, when all governments in Europe for the past 10 years have consistently failed to do so, is fanciful. 

 

Secondly, any damage that Labour's economic policies may have done to the UK economy would pale into insignificance if Reform were to enact some of theirs.

 

A couple of links from 'The Spectator', hardly a far-left journal, outlines the problems with Reform's policies

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-reform-serious-about-stopping-the-boats/

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/reforms-risky-economic-experiment/

 

[The Cyclist]

35 minutes ago, RayC said:

Yes, I'm serious about not wanting Reform to be the next government and my objections are practical.

 

No, your objections are not practical

 

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

Firstly, imo the idea that Reform are going to somehow magically stop illegal immigration at the drop of a hat, when all governments in Europe for the past 10 years have consistently failed to do so, is fanciful. 

 

Quite easy to stop 95% of it. I detailed how to do it 5 posts up.

 

Sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring it is not an option.

 

38 minutes ago, RayC said:

Secondly, any damage that Labour's economic policies may have done to the UK economy would pale into insignificance if Reform were to enact some of theirs.

 

30 years of the UK being damaged by both Tories and Labour, why vote any of them in again ? Einstein's definition of madness, writ large.

 

The UK, to have any chance of getting back on track, needs radical policies backed up by people with a spine to see them through.

 

Sticking your head in the sand, expecting the very parties who have caused the problem, to actually rectify them, is madness, writ large.

 

Are Reform the answer ? No idea, but I can tell you who is not the answer, and that is Labour or Tories.

 

 

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

That'll be me😁 (I wish that AN would remove the anonymity from the emojis) 

 

Yes, I'm serious about not wanting Reform to be the next government and my objections are practical.

 

Firstly, imo the idea that Reform are going to somehow magically stop illegal immigration at the drop of a hat, when all governments in Europe for the past 10 years have consistently failed to do so, is fanciful. 

 

Secondly, any damage that Labour's economic policies may have done to the UK economy would pale into insignificance if Reform were to enact some of theirs.

 

A couple of links from 'The Spectator', hardly a far-left journal, outlines the problems with Reform's policies

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-reform-serious-about-stopping-the-boats/

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/reforms-risky-economic-experiment/

 

OK I can respect your views on Reform, but not if you agreed that the boat people should be kept in the UK at the taxpayers expense.

The way I see it any PM is better than what there has been all through my adult life time. Both Labour and the Tories, have all betrayed the working class though Margaret Thatcher to a lesser extent, but Labour are supposed to be the party of the working class and I have never seen any sign of that.

I mentioned Margaret Thatcher, but that is only because her policies allowed the working class to buy their homes, and without that I would not have been living in Thailand today.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

No, your objections are not practical

 

 

Quite easy to stop 95% of it. I detailed how to do it 5 posts up.

 

Sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring it is not an option.

 

And your solution would be neither practical nor successful; it almost certainly wouldn't stop 95% of crossings as you claim: Why? Look no further than  'The Jungle' at Calais. That was no more  hospitable an environment that what you are suggesting but it didn't stop the flow of people arriving there 

 

I agree that sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem is not an option but, imo, the solution is to stop the flow of migrants at source i.e. smash the gangs. How do you do that? No idea.  But to have any chance of success it will need coordinated multi-national European action.

 

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

30 years of the UK being damaged by both Tories and Labour, why vote any of them in again ? Einstein's definition of madness, writ large.

 

Labour' and 'Conservative' are labels which mask a multitude of different opinions. On the Labour side, to suggest that the economic  policies of Blair and Brown were no different to those of Corbyn and McDonnell is ridiculous. Likewise, contrast the policies of Truss and Sunak for the Tories.

 

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

The UK, to have any chance of getting back on track, needs radical policies backed up by people with a spine to see them through.

 

Whether the policies have to be radical is a moot point, but I agree that a (mid-term) government shouldn't simply change direction simply to improve its' popularity. If it believes in its' policies then, as you say, it should have the spine to see them through.

 

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

Sticking your head in the sand, expecting the very parties who have caused the problem, to actually rectify them, is madness, writ large.

 

See my first paragraph.

 

Moreover, electing someone else simply because they are wearing a different label seems foolhardy.

 

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

Are Reform the answer ? No idea, but I can tell you who is not the answer, and that is Labour or Tories.

 

 

 

I agree that there doesn't appear to be anyone or anything much originating from Labour or the Tories to inspire confidence but, unfortunately, I don't think that the 'voodoo' economics of Reform are the answer either. 

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

And your solution would be neither practical nor successful;

 

Explain your working ?
 

1. The Army can rig up a tented, razor wire camp in a week.

 

2. The 1st inmates will be all over social media, with a don't come here messages.

 

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

Why? Look no further than  'The Jungle' at Calais

 

The Jungle as you call it. was a staging post for the UK, you are trying to compare apples with elephants.

 

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

Moreover, electing someone else simply because they are wearing a different label seems foolhardy.

 

Who mentioned different labels ?
 

Certainly not me. I gave you 30 years of cumulative Tory and Labour failure as a reason why they are not the people to sort out the problems that they created.

 

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

unfortunately, I don't think that the 'voodoo' economics of Reform are the answer either. 

 

Perhaps stop listening to the MSM and screeching Politicians who know they are picking up a P45 at the next GE.

 

And come back with something tangible that can be debated as to whether it is " Voodoo Economics "

[RayC]

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Explain your working ?
 

1. The Army can rig up a tented, razor wire camp in a week.

 

2. The 1st inmates will be all over social media, with a don't come here messages.

 

 

The Jungle as you call it. was a staging post for the UK, you are trying to compare apples with elephants.

 

Whether it was a staging post is irrelevant. It was an inhospitable environment and yet the number of inhabitants continued to grow. 

 

In any event, these internées will still have the right to apply for asylum, so I'd imagine that they will wait things out while they are processed (or are you going to withdraw the prospect of someone fleeing persecution, war, etc being granted asylum in the UK completely?)

 

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Who mentioned different labels ?
 

Certainly not me. I gave you 30 years of cumulative Tory and Labour failure as a reason why they are not the people to sort out the problems that they created.

 

And I gave you examples of how different individuals within both the Labour and Conservative parties had radically different policies for solving the country's problems. To that extent, 'Labour' and 'Conservative' are merely labels and simply changing that label to 'Reform' isn't a panacea for the country's problems.

 

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Perhaps stop listening to the MSM and screeching Politicians who know they are picking up a P45 at the next GE.

 

And perhaps you should stop suggesting overly simplistic solutions to complex problems

 

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

And come back with something tangible that can be debated as to whether it is " Voodoo Economics "

 

Read the second 'Spectator' link which I previously posted, and come back with a refutation(s) of the points made.

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

OK I can respect your views on Reform, but not if you agreed that the boat people should be kept in the UK at the taxpayers expense.

 

I can only answer that by differentiating between the type of 'boat person'.

 

Imo illegal economic migrants should be returned to their country of origin and should not be kept in the UK at the taxpayer's expense.

 

On the other hand, refugees - those seeking asylum e.g. those fleeing from persécution, war, etc - should be given a safe haven in the UK and the opportunity to build a life here. The UK has a long tradition of giving sanctuary to the persecuted and imo it is something to be proud of.

 

2 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

The way I see it any PM is better than what there has been all through my adult life time. Both Labour and the Tories, have all betrayed the working class though Margaret Thatcher to a lesser extent, but Labour are supposed to be the party of the working class and I have never seen any sign of that.

I mentioned Margaret Thatcher, but that is only because her policies allowed the working class to buy their homes, and without that I would not have been living in Thailand today.

 

I'm not so sure.

 

Until now, each generation has been better off based on almost any criterion than the previous one. It's anecdotal but our flat growing up was better than my parents'; my access to education and health services was better than theirs; my job opportunities were better than theirs, etc. Why was that? A combination of factors of course: Parental encouragement, my ability, luck, etc. However, the point that I am labouring to make is that I doubt that any of that would have been possible if successive governments had 'betrayed' the working class.

 

Wrt council house sales. Like you, I benefitted personally from it as I inherited my parents ex-council flat. However, overall I think that the policy did more harm than good.

 

A link to an interesting, non-partisan article from an estate agent about council housing and the 'Right-to-buy' policy is below

 

https://nexaproperties.com/huge-drop-in-council-houses-in-the-last-40-years/

[The Cyclist]

44 minutes ago, RayC said:

Whether it was a staging post is irrelevant. It was an inhospitable environment and yet the number of inhabitants continued to grow. 

 

Because the land of milk and honey is on the other side of the Channel.

 

That inhospitable environment that you keep waffling about, needs to be on the UK side of the Channel.

 

How is it that you, and all the other " Refugees welcome " Brigade, fail to grasp that a great big deterrent is needed to stop them crossing the Channel ?

 

50 minutes ago, RayC said:

And I gave you examples of how different individuals within both the Labour and Conservative parties had radically different policies for solving the country's problems.

 

Actually, you didn't. Because neither of them have any radical policies, or any clues on how to fix the problems that they have created.

 

More of the same and a tinkering at the edges, doesn't cut the mustard as radical policies.
 

48 minutes ago, RayC said:

Read the second 'Spectator' link which I previously posted, and come back with a refutation(s) of the points made.

 

I never asked the Spectator, I asked you. Not really interested in what the media have to say, I could provide articles backing Reforms plans, but that would be counter productive, it's lazy and for the hard of thinking.

[RayC]

44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Because the land of milk and honey is on the other side of the Channel.

 

Of course it is. The UK is a 'soft touch' when it comes to refugees unlike those on mainland Europe which is why they 'all' want to come here .... Oh, hold on ... here's a thought if that's the case why don't we just copy the French policies. That should do the trick🤦😂

 

44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

That inhospitable environment that you keep waffling about, needs to be on the UK side of the Channel.

 

Maybe it does but you have offered nothing to support the idea that your overly simplistic 'solutions' will cut boat crossings by anything like 95%

 

44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

How is it that you, and all the other " Refugees welcome " Brigade, fail to grasp that a great big deterrent is needed to stop them crossing the Channel ?

 

I haven't failed to grasp that at all. What I dispute is that your solutions will make much difference 

 

44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Actually, you didn't. Because neither of them have any radical policies, or any clues on how to fix the problems that they have created.

 

More of the same and a tinkering at the edges, doesn't cut the mustard as radical policies.
 

 

Actually I did but you refuse to admit it, unless you define anything but a change to a command economy as 'tinkering at the edges'.

 

Corbyn and McDonnell's manifesto was radical. It would also have probably proved disastrous for the country.

 

Trusses' budget was radical and did prove disastrous for the country.

 

44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I never asked the Spectator, I asked you. Not really interested in what the media have to say, I could provide articles backing Reforms plans, but that would be counter productive, it's lazy and for the hard of thinking.

 

Lazy. Guilty.

Hard of thinking: Maybe but then imo that is preferable to putting overly simplistic solutions in print and being thought of as  ... well ... simplistic.

 

As I admit to being lazy, I am not going to bother to go to the trouble of rephrasing an argument when a journalist has articulated my position perfectly adequately:  So if you want to engage in a discussion about Reform's economic policies, read the article, post your objections to the points raised in it and then I'll reply to them (assuming that I think them worthy of a reply).