9 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

"My thoughts are the judges will have been leaned on......."

 

Seriously?

 

If it were shown that the UK government had improperly influenced judges to secure a favourable ruling, the consequences would be constitutionally seismic. 

Yes will B Same as when the county council Elections were to be held Starmer cancelled them knowing Reform would wipe out his labour councils.

6 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Yes will B Same as when the county council Elections were to be held Starmer cancelled them knowing Reform would wipe out his labour councils.

 

 

The UK government postponed county council elections in seven areas—East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, and West Sussex—from May 2025 to May 2026.

•  The reason given was local government reorganisation: these counties are transitioning from a two-tier system to unitary authorities, which requires restructuring before elections can be held

 

 

Not quite the same as 'leaning on judges'

9 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

The UK government postponed county council elections in seven areas—East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, and West Sussex—from May 2025 to May 2026.

•  The reason given was local government reorganisation: these counties are transitioning from a two-tier system to unitary authorities, which requires restructuring before elections can be held

 

 

Not quite the same as 'leaning on judges'

Thats the reason Starmer gave. Two councils did vote guess who won ?

36 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

"My thoughts are the judges will have been leaned on......."

 

Seriously?

 

If it were shown that the UK government had improperly influenced judges to secure a favourable ruling, the consequences would be constitutionally seismic. 

The Judicial System it rotten to the core.

 

Basically it is there to protect the Monarchy, the Bankers and the Elites.

 

Appropriate to ask; "What has happened to the Ukrainian rent boys that wanted revenge on Sir Kier Two Tier?"

When a boat full of migrants lands in the UK, they seem to run in all directions to escape detention. It does imply they know they are illegal. So why not put them in prison while awaiting trial?

7 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Thats the reason Starmer gave. Two councils did vote guess who won ?

 

 

Is this a trick question?

Just now, Purdey said:

When a boat full of migrants lands in the UK, they seem to run in all directions to escape detention. It does imply they know they are illegal. So why not put them in prison while awaiting trial?

 

 

They are undocumented immigrants when they land and if they don't declare they are seeking asylum....i.e. they run away, they remain undocumented immigrants and have no rights other than to £5.70 a day on which to survive.

 

They obviously have no idea how the law works that being the case........becoming asylum seekers lands them a five star hotel, £49 a day an iPad and iPhone.......they will be kicking themselves.

Not a Trick Will B reform kicked out labour that had been in power for over 30 years. Starmer knew what would happen in County Elections and would be seen as a loss of Trust in the Government.

54 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

They are undocumented immigrants when they land and if they don't declare they are seeking asylum....i.e. they run away, they remain undocumented immigrants and have no rights other than to £5.70 a day on which to survive.

 

They obviously have no idea how the law works that being the case........becoming asylum seekers lands them a five star hotel, £49 a day an iPad and iPhone.......they will be kicking themselves.

What rubbish. 

If a person “runs away” and are illegal immigrants they get nothing. This is obvious because they are hardly showing up at the local council office, demanding money when they are there illegally. 
 

According to AI - Asylum seekers in the UK can receive financial support on a weekly basis, typically £49.18 per person for self-catered accommodation, which is loaded onto a pre-paid ASPEN card. Additional payments are available for pregnant mothers and children under three (£5.25) and for babies under one (£9.50). Those in full-board accommodation, where food is provided, receive a smaller weekly allowance of £9.95 for other essentials like toiletries and travel. There’s no 5 star hotels, iPads and iPhones. That’s just right wing propaganda. 
 

You are conflating two VERY different things. Asylum seekers are not illegal until their asylum is turned down - illegal immigrants don’t declare themselves at all and usually go underground. 

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

What rubbish. 

If a person “runs away” and are illegal immigrants they get nothing. This is obvious because they are hardly showing up at the local council office, demanding money when they are there illegally. 
 

According to AI - Asylum seekers in the UK can receive financial support on a weekly basis, typically £49.18 per person for self-catered accommodation, which is loaded onto a pre-paid ASPEN card. Additional payments are available for pregnant mothers and children under three (£5.25) and for babies under one (£9.50). Those in full-board accommodation, where food is provided, receive a smaller weekly allowance of £9.95 for other essentials like toiletries and travel. 
 

You are conflating two VERY different things. Asylum seekers are not illegal until their asylum is turned down - illegal immigrants don’t declare themselves at all and usually go underground. 

 

Asylum seekers are not illegal after they have had their asylum application refused, they are classed as failed or refused asylum seekers, entitled to section 4 support, if they are seen to be making preparations to leave the UK.

 

There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.....they are undocumented immigrants.....and they can still seek asylum, but having not declared they are seeking asylum when they land it is unlikely to be granted.

17 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Asylum seekers are not illegal after they have had their asylum application refused, they are classed as failed or refused asylum seekers, entitled to section 4 support, if they are seen to be making preparations to leave the UK.

 

There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.....they are undocumented immigrants.....and they can still seek asylum, but having not declared they are seeking asylum when they land it is unlikely to be granted.

Wrong. 
 

There are plenty of illegal immigrants in the UK often shipped over in lorries or who overstay their visas or the likes. They then go underground, working cash in hand jobs and keeping well under the radar. They are not the same as undocumented immigrants who mostly arrive to claim asylum.  "Undocumented" focuses on the person's status, whereas "illegal" emphasises an act.
 

Either way, illegals don’t get a penny. 
 

NB You are correct in how failed asylum seekers are classified though. 

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Wrong. 
 

There are plenty of illegal immigrants in the UK often shipped over in lorries or who overstay their visas or the likes. They then go underground, working cash in hand jobs and keeping well under the radar. They are not the same as undocumented immigrants who mostly arrive to claim asylum.  "Undocumented" focuses on the person's status, whereas "illegal" emphasises an act.
 

Either way, illegals don’t get a penny. 
 

NB You are correct in how failed asylum seekers are classified though. 

 

So which one of these is an illegal immigrant

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

So which one of these is an illegal immigrant

Ok fair enough.
 

There is obviously a push to call illegal “undocumented” but there used to be a clear separation with “undocumented” being those who got rid of their documents before arriving. I stand corrected if that’s what it is now. 
 

Still no access to public funds though. My original point. 
 

On 8/27/2025 at 12:26 PM, mikeymike100 said:

Currently they get (current rates are £49.18 or £9.95 weekly), and phones aren’t part of standard support, but charities like Migrant Help, Leeds Refugee Forum, and Heart4Refugees provide second-hand smartphones.

But we are getting away from the problem aren't we.

The alternative is of course not killing them off, but not allowing them in, in the first place.

But that ship sadly has sailed.
Maybe if they stopped giving out benefits it might be a start?

I agree with your posts but on the benefits , unfortunately once these aliens are in the UK they have to be cared for whilst awaiting their asylum applications decision . Farage would place them in security camps where they would be confined in those camps and not allowed out onto the public areas , whilst they await their place for deportation which seems a sensible solution that the weak Labour government should employ . If Farage becomes P.M. there would be no rubber boats coming which the populous agree with . However the illegals coming in rubber boats are only a small fraction of illegals in the UK with many over stayers having entered on legal visas .  Also distant family relatives of those already in the UK by legal means , plus bogus students  . An estimated 800,000 -1.2 million illegal invaders reside in the UK with other figures saying up to 3 million . 

The public anger is mounting and becoming widespread with many law abiding citizens protesting and getting arrested for holding placards . Free speech , it seems , is now outlawed along with flying the Union Jack and George Cross flags because of incitement .     This Labour government are causing huge unrest and economical damage in only their first year . Will they go their full term ? The consequences will be catastrophic .

On 8/27/2025 at 12:10 PM, newbee2022 said:

You are another one who needs extra lessons:

You can send back if France accept.

I advice you to more correct information 

So why is it that it OK for illegals to come from France which is a safe country, but NOT OK to return them to France where they came from in the first place?

Especially as the UK is sending money to France to stop them.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-france-agree-major-deal-to-crack-down-on-illegal-channel-crossings#:~:text=The pilot agreement is intended,being returned back to France –

 

How about this for correct and up to date information.

 

Did you notice that it is a link, which is something that you failed to provide, in your eagerness to show how smart and clever you are?

 

From your post.

 

You are another one who needs extra lessons:

You can send back if France accept.

I advice you to more correct information 

 

Perhaps it is you who needs the extra lessons.

 

28 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So why is it that it OK for illegals to come from France which is a safe country, but NOT OK to return them to France where they came from in the first place?

Especially as the UK is sending money to France to stop them.

 

Because of global international maritime law.

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/60049/channel-crossings-why-britain-cannot-simply-send-back-migrants

 

It should be noted that when we were a member of the EU we could legally send them back to wherever they first claimed asylum - if that was France then that is where we would send them back to. Since leaving the EU we can no longer do that.

So all the flag shaggers who voted for Brexit to "bring back control", "stop the immigrants", have actually made things much much worse, not better. They can't bring themselves to admit this though so instead they vandalise roundabouts, set fire to migrant hotels, smash things up, and paint Danish flags in the name of "patriotism".

Poor gammons, knowing they helped cause the problem they are protesting about. (Except they blame Starmer as that is easier)

47 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So why is it that it OK for illegals to come from France which is a safe country, but NOT OK to return them to France where they came from in the first place?

Especially as the UK is sending money to France to stop them.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-france-agree-major-deal-to-crack-down-on-illegal-channel-crossings#:~:text=The pilot agreement is intended,being returned back to France –

 

How about this for correct and up to date information.

 

Did you notice that it is a link, which is something that you failed to provide, in your eagerness to show how smart and clever you are?

 

From your post.

 

You are another one who needs extra lessons:

You can send back if France accept.

I advice you to more correct information 

 

Perhaps it is you who needs the extra lessons.

 

There are laws. Check Google. I think you can.

Troll post has been removed

On 8/30/2025 at 8:28 AM, josephbloggs said:

Because of global international maritime law.

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/60049/channel-crossings-why-britain-cannot-simply-send-back-migrants

 

It should be noted that when we were a member of the EU we could legally send them back to wherever they first claimed asylum - if that was France then that is where we would send them back to. Since leaving the EU we can no longer do that.

So all the flag shaggers who voted for Brexit to "bring back control", "stop the immigrants", have actually made things much much worse, not better. They can't bring themselves to admit this though so instead they vandalise roundabouts, set fire to migrant hotels, smash things up, and paint Danish flags in the name of "patriotism".

Poor gammons, knowing they helped cause the problem they are protesting about. (Except they blame Starmer as that is easier)

Before Brexit more illegals were allowed to stay than those who returned to the EU.

The Dublin agreements does not seem to be helping the Irish who are having problems returning the Illegals who entered the ROI direct from other parts of the EU. The same goes for those Illegals who entered vie Northern Ireland thinking that the Rwanda plan would be effective.

I suggest you follow the news from the ROI, many demonstrations against what the people consider invasion.

On 8/30/2025 at 2:28 PM, josephbloggs said:

Because of global international maritime law.

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/60049/channel-crossings-why-britain-cannot-simply-send-back-migrants

 

It should be noted that when we were a member of the EU we could legally send them back to wherever they first claimed asylum - if that was France then that is where we would send them back to. Since leaving the EU we can no longer do that.

So all the flag shaggers who voted for Brexit to "bring back control", "stop the immigrants", have actually made things much much worse, not better. They can't bring themselves to admit this though so instead they vandalise roundabouts, set fire to migrant hotels, smash things up, and paint Danish flags in the name of "patriotism".

Poor gammons, knowing they helped cause the problem they are protesting about. (Except they blame Starmer as that is easier)

How many incoming and outgoing transfers are there under Dublin III?

According to Home Office figures, between 2015 and 2018, 7,365 incoming requests were made to transfer people into the UK under the Dublin regulation, from which 2,365 people were transferred to the UK (some requests may still be pending).  

This means that the UK accepted around 33% of requests. During the same period, the UK made 18,953 outgoing requests to transfer people to other Member States, from which 1,395 people were transferred abroad. This amounts to around 7% of outgoing requests by the UK resulting in a transfer.  

In 2018, the UK received a total of 37,453 asylum applications, and made 5,510 outgoing transfer requests under Dublin III. Of these 5,510 requests, 209 migrants were transferred out of the UK under Dublin III, whilst 1,215 came in, making the UK a net recipient in 2018.  

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/

Returns were very low when the UK was in the EU