That’s a bit hard to read - mind if I reformat it?
1 Like
Interesting, @Ancient_Mariner .
Ian Dale (I think: certainly the bloke with the nice voice on LBC) interviewed someone from (again, I think) the IPPR about the Piddington situation.
One thing the interviewee mentioned confirmed what your correspondent said: putting large numbers of people into that sort of accommodation is a poor way of dealing with the matter.
Well, your mother smells of elderberries.
1 Like
OK - I posted from a computer, and it didn’t seem to bad on that, but tough going on the phone.
Folks following various Sky Pixie books is how humanity got into this mess.
1 Like
Thanks for your insightful and detailed comment.
1 Like
Try that - can’t find it online so you might want to check it is OK to repost.
It is, at least, more coherent than what appears to be pure publicity stunt, but merely states their concern rather than providing evidence as to why they believe there will be problems.
Also I get the impression that their experience is from woking with people who have been granted asylum - “as they have developed language skills, undertaken training, set up homes and sought voluntary or paid employment” - you can’t do the last three things if your claim has not been processed.
ISTR that the idea of using former barracks went down well with the public - only, it seems, not if it happens to be close by.
There are some pertinent documents here - https://www.bicester.gov.uk/mod-bicester-site-a/ - in its response letter the HO does seem to be at pains to point out it’s at the “just an idea” stage at present. Yes, I find myself reaching for a pinch of salt there, especially as there is a planning application in - Urgent Crown Development application: MOD Bicester (Site A) - GOV.UK
The Government’s statement about the whole thing is here - MoD Bicester (site A), Oxfordshire: factsheet - GOV.UK
It seems that the government has pushed this through a bit hurredly, and I would want this to be done properly if at all but, as I said, we have a lot of claimants who are still going through the system - if not hotels, where do you put them?
Oh I don’t know - @NotALot is right that people attach way too much importance to which sky pixie they follow, and often fall into particular sky pixie tribes which is then just used as an excuse to dislike (sometimes violently) another sky pixie tribe.
Though I suspect that if we didn’t worry about the sky pixies we’d find some other excuse.
1 Like
It’s a message to supporters, rather than general publicity.
Even so if you boil it down is seems to come to “we are concerned that there will not be enough support”.
I thought many villages around Sheffield were already independent, that’s how it seemed to me in the village I grew up in.
1 Like
Having skimmed through this argy bargy I don’t see anyone who has an answer as to what to do with these illegal immigrants. Short of riddling the boats with bullets mid-Channel, has anybody got a solution?
If not that, what are the best suggestions? Mine? Treat them as any other incomers and let them work for their living legally which, of course, means they have to find their own digs and pay for their own upkeep.
Just as I did, the fact that I entered legally is neither here nor there, I couldn’t have sustained myself and Fran without an income.
1 Like
apologies and edit - the klaxon, long overdue, should have been attributed to those who first said the phrase in the thread
2 Likes
How else are people who illegally enter a country for whatever reason, profit or succour, should be described in English?
Asylum seekers? My understanding is that when the relevant authorities decide their application for asylum is refused they then become illegal. What they’re considered until that time I’m sure some smart person on here will know.
1 Like
Logically, if you have left one place where you were safe to go to another where you believe that your prospects are better, you’re no longer seeking asylum.
1 Like
Also it is not necessarily correct to describe people who enter the country illegally in order to better their, already safe, situation, as asylum seeking.
Those who enter illegally, who intend to stay, are immigrants and are also illegal ones. Thus illegal immigrants. Must we dance like angels on the head of a pin in order to discuss such a serious, for everybody, subject?
I think it is best to say ‘migrants’ on arrival, leaving out the word “illegal” which is misleading and rather triggering. Not ‘immigrants’ or ‘illegal migrants’ until processed and/or refused entry.
Language, just as sticks & stones, can wound.
2 Likes
True.
Many of us on here are migrants, are we not? The difference seems to be that we come from first world countries and are somehow more acceptable.
1 Like
