Quote Originally Posted by Andy_Faber View Post
In post #1557 you stated 'the Tories closed all legal routes to claim asylum'. You now state 'There are very few safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK'. My comment to rA was 'Swales 'explanation' is factually inaccurate/misleading', so thanks for proving me right with your own words.

My issue isn't about immigration Swale, its (in life in general) about people or organisations with a 'platform' (in your this case an orange-carton-sized one but hey ho) who influence the gullible with, as I mentioned, inaccurate and misleading information. And that's people on all sides of the argument, any argument - Tricky for instance, who just scatterguns anything remotely to his worldview - but occasionally some of it hits the mark and is worthy of further investigation, some ultimately somewhere near the truth, some a load of crap. However, I have an even bigger issue with people who suck up whatever they're fed from 'their side' without question, so be thankful in a way that you're not top of my list of silly little frustrations...

Having vented on that subject, you may be right on legalising/decriminalising certain 'drugs' but we're a million miles/years away from that in UK, and although I don't have much of a clue (I struggle taking Lemsips) what stories do come out in the media suggest there's some pretty uncompromising chaps involved. I just don't see politicians being close enough to the real world to appreciate that
Oh please, your being pedantic here, but for the sake of accuracy I will explain further.

In your reply you stated there were many safe route for asylum seekers, that wasn't true. I knew at the time I'd need to add additional explanation, but I guess those who remain convinced that those coming over on the boats are nothing more than "chancers" will basically not believe the FACTS because it doesn't suit their narrative.

The legislation in 2022 was specifically designed to appear as if the Government was making safe and legal routes available for Refugees or those claiming Asylum but in reality they provide for only specific sets of people.

So of the three schemes, the UNHCR resettlement scheme is both restrictive and ineffective, with the UK having accepted a fraction of those it pledged to accept.

To be considered, a person must have fled their home country due to conflict or persecution and have entered another country. This is often difficult and dangerous. They must then register with UNHCR.

A person cannot request or apply to be resettled, they can only hope to be selected according to the protection criteria of the resettlement programme (for instance a specific medical need that canÂ’t be met in the country of displacement), and if enough resettlement places have been offered.

No viable for most people as highly likely one could qualify but never get picked for the scheme and could end up in any country.

Bespoke schemes have been designed as a specific response to events in Ukraine and Afghanistan and are an important way to bring some Ukrainians and Afghans to safety. There was also the Hongkong scheme.

Obviously none of those in boats qualify under this scheme.

Family reunion is a rights-based route which allows refugees who have already fled and been given refugee status in another country to bring immediate family members to join them.

So if your a genuine refugee or Asylum seeker without family in the UK, you can't use this scheme!

When I stated that the Tories closed off the safe routes for Asylum seekers, i was speaking the truth, because although there exist 3 "safe" routes for refugees, asylum seekers to come into the UK in the vast majority of cases none of them can be accessed by those using boats because even if under International Law they would be deemed to qualify as a refugee or Asylum seeker they can't access a safe and legal scheme, or get a visa to travel to the UK to make a claim!

Now seeing as the UK Government requires a person to be in the UK, BEFORE they can claim Asylum, perhaps you can explain to me how the majority of those who qualify but want to make a claim can do so?

The last government was very good at putting things into law or making claims that something existed when despite appearances in reality it did not. This is a classic example whereby safe and legal routes are largely an illusion.

If Brexit has nothing to do with the rise in small boats crossings, explain why prior to Brexit such crossings were minimal?

Your comment about returns being minimal is odd, given it has been the resumption of a return agreement with Albania for their nationals that has largely stopped that nationality ( most of whom clearly weren't asylum seekers) crossing.

The point about the previous returns agreement, is that those for whom France or Italy was a reasonable safe country to claim asylum, never entered the UK.

As for THicky's contributions, they are littered with racist, xenophobic and bigoted remarks, often lifted straight from right wing media and internet sources, unapologetically so. He has been openly derogatory about Eastern Europeans, Syrians and many other nationalities, if the cap fits I will call it out. The fact that you as moderator don't see fit to do so is perhaps an indication of where your views lie?