PDA

View Full Version : The Ghurkas



capitals_finest
20-03-2008, 11:54 PM
I think it is a disgrace that we live in a country where we have millions of sc*mmy bassas sittings on their fat asses scrounging off the state having done absolutely nothing for this country, yet some of the finest soldiers to have served this county are being told they must leave.

Shame on this country.:bitchy::bitchy::bitchy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7300521.stm

Peevemor
21-03-2008, 12:00 AM
Agree 100%

chorley_fm
21-03-2008, 12:11 AM
Agreed 100%

Some of the bravest, most decorated soldiers ever to fight in the British Army

so much so the when Prince Harry was at the front line he was protected by Ghurkas

shame on this country how we are treating them now

Haymaker
21-03-2008, 03:26 AM
I love Gurkhas and i find them really nice people. It is a shame that they volunteer from their homeland to serve this country over the world yet our government doesnt support the nepal government in its problems.

Kinda ****ed up.

creebo1875
21-03-2008, 08:50 AM
Agreed, we should be honouring these poeople. For 200 years they have fought for our country and this is how we repay them.
I wasn't aware that most commit suicide if they dont get picked for the British army. Unfortunately untill they realise its not such an honour to fight for this country, the British millitary will always have warriors to recruit.

Aslong as 100 Ghurkas hand back there medals, another 1000 will be waiting in line for recruitment.

I salute them for there bravery and honour. But these guys must be a god send for the army who are toiling to recruit in this country. They have a entire country filled with some of the best warriors in the world chomping at the bit to join up.

PiemanP
21-03-2008, 10:02 AM
disgracefull IMO, there was a guy who had fought for brittain for 31 years...and now he's just being told to bugger off home :bitchy: yet (not wanting to be racist, PC madness IMO) theres guys that are coming tied to the bottom of trains or getting fake passpots, whatever ways they can get into the country, and claiming asylum that get to sit on there ***** and claim benefits all day that have done absolutly ****** all to help this country get to stay and live here yet genuine people who have died for the country get told to go home :bitchy:

creebo1875
21-03-2008, 10:04 AM
disgracefull IMO, there was a guy who had fought for brittain for 31 years...and now he's just being told to bugger off home :bitchy: yet (not wanting to be racist, PC madness IMO) theres guys that are coming tied to the bottom of trains or getting fake passpots, whatever ways they can get into the country, and claiming asylum that get to sit on there ***** and claim benefits all day that have done absolutly ****** all to help this country get to stay and live here yet genuine people who have died for the country get told to go home :bitchy:

:confused::confused::confused:

Surely they have a right to be buried in there own country :wink:

Mibbes Aye
21-03-2008, 11:41 AM
disgracefull IMO, there was a guy who had fought for brittain for 31 years...and now he's just being told to bugger off home :bitchy: yet (not wanting to be racist, PC madness IMO) theres guys that are coming tied to the bottom of trains or getting fake passpots, whatever ways they can get into the country, and claiming asylum that get to sit on there ***** and claim benefits all day that have done absolutly ****** all to help this country get to stay and live here yet genuine people who have died for the country get told to go home :bitchy:

Do you know anything about what benefits people seeking asylum are entitled to? Do you know how many are granted leave to stay? Do you wonder why people may seek asylum?

Not read the Gurkha article but have read previous ones and it does stink. Between that and the treatment of the Diego Garcia islanders our government should take a long, hard look at itself.

Gatecrasher
21-03-2008, 12:21 PM
Do you know anything about what benefits people seeking asylum are entitled to? Do you know how many are granted leave to stay? Do you wonder why people may seek asylum?

Not read the Gurkha article but have read previous ones and it does stink. Between that and the treatment of the Diego Garcia islanders our government should take a long, hard look at itself.

i dont think there is any denying that there are people who get to stay in the UK that are a lot less deserving than these loyal people.

DaveF
21-03-2008, 12:31 PM
On the face of it, there seems to be little logic in the decision. Why cut people off before 1997?

However, this isn't just a labour government issue and the Tories can't claim any high ground here - They (and successive govts before them) treated the Gurkha's with contempt for many years before.

Still, I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere. It's not just a couple of thousand soliders, but extended familiy too who would be entering the country.......

alex plode
21-03-2008, 01:16 PM
Sadly Britain has a long history of persuading foreign nationals to fight for blighty; only to shaft them afterwards. :bitchy:

Mibbes Aye
21-03-2008, 05:49 PM
i dont think there is any denying that there are people who get to stay in the UK that are a lot less deserving than these loyal people.

While no fan of this country's role in the invasion of Iraq I would agree that if you have given military service then you have probably earned the right to full citizenship.

The contrast with asylum seekers is a stupid one though. The three biggest countries in terms of asylum applications to the UK three years ago were Afghanistan China and Eritrea.

So we are talking about people fleeing war zones or possibly fleeing persecution for their ethnicity or beliefs that could result in their death or imprisonment.

People in that situation deserve the support of those countries that claim to hold tolerance and the right to safety as their values.

Or wasn't that what the Gurkhas were supposed to have been fighting for when they saw service in the British Army?

alex plode
22-03-2008, 02:10 AM
While no fan of this country's role in the invasion of Iraq I would agree that if you have given military service then you have probably earned the right to full citizenship.

The contrast with asylum seekers is a stupid one though. The three biggest countries in terms of asylum applications to the UK three years ago were Afghanistan China and Eritrea.

So we are talking about people fleeing war zones or possibly fleeing persecution for their ethnicity or beliefs that could result in their death or imprisonment.

People in that situation deserve the support of those countries that claim to hold tolerance and the right to safety as their values.

Or wasn't that what the Gurkhas were supposed to have been fighting for when they saw service in the British Army?

The contrast with asylum seekeers isn't a stupid one.
Ghurkas with 25 yrs. sevice are being asked to formally apply for residency - in effect assylum seekers. :bitchy:

Mibbes Aye
22-03-2008, 09:23 AM
The contrast with asylum seekeers isn't a stupid one.
Ghurkas with 25 yrs. sevice are being asked to formally apply for residency - in effect assylum seekers. :bitchy:

Who are they seeking asylum from?

Gatecrasher
22-03-2008, 10:20 AM
The contrast with asylum seekeers isn't a stupid one.
Ghurkas with 25 yrs. sevice are being asked to formally apply for residency - in effect assylum seekers. :bitchy:


Who are they seeking asylum from?

not asylum seekers but merely seeking residancy.

Which many people from other countrys can do in this country. along with people from countrys like india, pakistan and loads of other countrys around ther word. countrys that have killed brittish troops and that have been at war with the UK. these people chose to fight with us during a tough time and get treated like the rest. dont know about you but i think something stinks about that

Hibrandenburg
22-03-2008, 10:33 AM
Gonna play :devil:'s advocate here and say they knew what they were getting into when they signed the dotted line. The British government offered them a deal and at the time of taking the deal they considered themselves lucky. What's changed?

H18sry
22-03-2008, 10:36 AM
Whilst in the RN I served on HMS Gurkha who had there own Squad of Gurkha soldiers on board when we were the Belize guard ship and a nicer group of guy's you never could meet. Always willing to be first at the queue when it came to volunteering for anything slightly dangerous or out of left field.

The government should be ashamed of themselves for the shoddy treatment of these soldiers who put life and limb on the line for us.

Brizo
22-03-2008, 10:49 AM
According to some bod on zitelli this morning theres 2000 new immigrants granted National Insurance numbers in the UK every day while the total number of Ghurka troops is 7000. Im sure he also said theyre the regiment whove won the most Victoria Crosses in their history , 21 ?

Imho given what theyve contributed to the UK they should be at the head of the queue to be granted full citizenship.

AndyP
22-03-2008, 11:04 AM
According to some bod on zitelli this morning theres 2000 new immigrants granted National Insurance numbers in the UK every day while the total number of Ghurka troops is 7000. Im sure he also said theyre the regiment whove won the most Victoria Crosses in their history , 21 ?

Imho given what theyve contributed to the UK they should be at the head of the queue to be granted full citizenship.

Green Jackets, Medics and Engineers have all won more than the Goorkas.

alex plode
22-03-2008, 12:00 PM
Who are they seeking asylum from?

As far as I understand they're not seeking asylum from anyone.

The point was, it's not daft to mention the ghurkas plight in relation to asylum seekers.The ghurkas need to apply for UK citizenship which is a fairly similar process to assylum application.

Why should someone who has fought for the British Army for 25 years have to fill in forms confirming birth, parentage , where they've lived over the past years or whether they're of "sound mind" essentially justifying their right to live in the UK ?

Mibbes Aye
22-03-2008, 05:25 PM
As far as I understand they're not seeking asylum from anyone.

The point was, it's not daft to mention the ghurkas plight in relation to asylum seekers.The ghurkas need to apply for UK citizenship which is a fairly similar process to assylum application.

Why should someone who has fought for the British Army for 25 years have to fill in forms confirming birth, parentage , where they've lived over the past years or whether they're of "sound mind" essentially justifying their right to live in the UK ?

The comparison that was stupid was somehow equating the Gurkhas in the link as being more 'deserving' than someone seeking refuge from persecution.

As it stands there is a fair bit of difference between being granted asylum and being granted citizenship both in proces and end result.

As for your last paragraph, why shouldn't someone seeking 'residency' or 'citizenship' have to do that? It's pretty much what I have to do to get my new passport and I am already a UK citizen. In fact barring the parentage I'm sure all those things crop up when buying a house.

alex plode
22-03-2008, 06:04 PM
The comparison that was stupid was somehow equating the Gurkhas in the link as being more 'deserving' than someone seeking refuge from persecution.

As it stands there is a fair bit of difference between being granted asylum and being granted citizenship both in proces and end result.

As for your last paragraph, why shouldn't someone seeking 'residency' or 'citizenship' have to do that? It's pretty much what I have to do to get my new passport and I am already a UK citizen. In fact barring the parentage I'm sure all those things crop up when buying a house.

No-one has suggested the gurkhas are a more deserving case than those seeking refuge from persecution.
What was suggested is there's people who get to stay in the UK who are less deserving than "these loyal people".
Like it or not, that's absolutely correct.

Citizenship and asylum are different processes (as you point out) but the end result is the same - both lead to a right of domicile.

Finally and with respect, there's a significant difference between applying for a passport and applying for UK citizenship.
There's huge irony and complete nonsense in asking members of a British military unit, famous for being first in line when duty calls - to formally apply for the right to live here, attend interviews and sit a new citizen test, after having served queen & country, sometimes for as long as 25 years,

If you're British enough to be serve in the army, you're British enough to live here.

Mibbes Aye
22-03-2008, 06:53 PM
No-one has suggested the gurkhas are a more deserving case than those seeking refuge from persecution..

This is the post I was referring to and IMO it does exactly that.......


disgracefull IMO, there was a guy who had fought for brittain for 31 years...and now he's just being told to bugger off home :bitchy: yet (not wanting to be racist, PC madness IMO) theres guys that are coming tied to the bottom of trains or getting fake passpots, whatever ways they can get into the country, and claiming asylum that get to sit on there ***** and claim benefits all day that have done absolutly ****** all to help this country get to stay and live here yet genuine people who have died for the country get told to go home :bitchy:



What was suggested is there's people who get to stay in the UK who are less deserving than "these loyal people".
Like it or not, that's absolutely correct..

Who? And how are you judging that? Aren't you just contradicting what you said before?


Citizenship and asylum are different processes (as you point out) but the end result is the same - both lead to a right of domicile...

The majority of successful asylum seekers are granted leave to stay, not refugee status. This means they will face the same, stringent testing against criteria that they faced when they first sought asylum, five years on. So it's not really the same.


Finally and with respect, there's a significant difference between applying for a passport and applying for UK citizenship.
There's huge irony and complete nonsense in asking members of a British military unit, famous for being first in line when duty calls - to formally apply for the right to live here, attend interviews and sit a new citizen test, after having served queen & country, sometimes for as long as 25 years,

If you're British enough to be serve in the army, you're British enough to live here.

I think I more or less agree with this. I do think it's been a bit hyped up though.

As Hiberlin pointed out, no one walked into this blind i.e. as far as I'm aware promises of citizenship weren't made. And I'm sure there are many retired soldiers who have no desire whatsoever to live in the UK.

It also only extends to soldiers who retired prior to 1997 I believe. Have there been any cases of retired soldiers being refused residency?

alex plode
23-03-2008, 11:14 AM
This is the post I was referring to and IMO it does exactly that.......

Whichever post you were referring to..
The suggestion was there's so many illegal immigrants in the country, something's not quite right when long-standing members of the armed forces have to justify their right to be here.


Who? And how are you judging that? Aren't you just contradicting what you said before?


Government statistics on illegal immigration are notoriuously sketchy but tend to bear the argument out;

In 2006 only one in ten people applying for asylum were actually found to be genuine.
In 2006 amnesty was granted for 80,000 asylum seekers whose claims weren't even processed because of a massive backlog !
3 years ago; the estimated number of people living in the UK on forged documents, expired visas or failed asylum seekers was between 310,00 & 570,000 - roughly the population of Edinburgh :bitchy:

If you're looking for specific examples of people who shouldn't be here, just google "bogus asylum seeker jailed" and read the rogues gallery of immigrants being held at vast expense in UK jails, sometimes for the most hideous crimes.

I don't think I've contradicted myself anywhere on this thread tbh.


Have there been any cases of retired soldiers being refused residency

Unfortunately yes..believe it of not.an 84 year old VICTIRIA CROSS winner, was recently refused residency. You couldn't make that up.

As well as deeming Gurkhas not fit to have the same level of pension as "British" soldiers - the residency issue is an absolutely shameless way to treat the ghurkas (imho).

AndyP
23-03-2008, 12:16 PM
Unfortunately yes..believe it of not.an 84 year old VICTIRIA CROSS winner, was recently refused residency. You couldn't make that up.

As well as deeming Gurkhas not fit to have the same level of pension as "British" soldiers - the residency issue is an absolutely shameless way to treat the ghurkas (imho).

2 things just to keep the facts in place so to speak.

1. Lt Talbhadur Pun VC was granted full UK residency last year, he had a very good Christmas party and carved the hosts Christmas meal with his Kukri (how that got through customs goodness knows)

2. The pensions of the Gurkhas are smaller due in no small part to their lower wage (contrary to popular belief the AF pension is NOT non-contributory it is a average percentage of salary earned during service), which was/is controlled by the tri-patriate agreement between the UK and Nepaleese governments, it is also this agreement that states that all Goorka soldiers need to return to Nepal on discharge

Mibbes Aye
23-03-2008, 07:43 PM
Whichever post you were referring to..
The suggestion was there's so many illegal immigrants in the country, something's not quite right when long-standing members of the armed forces have to justify their right to be here.


Nonsense - I think you're the first person to mention illegal immigrants. We were talking about asylum seekers who by definition aren't illegal immigrants.

Does this mean you are switching your argument to "Gurkhas should get to stay here because we have lots of illegal immigrants"?


Government statistics on illegal immigration are notoriuously sketchy but tend to bear the argument out;

In 2006 only one in ten people applying for asylum were actually found to be genuine.

Really? I don't think that's true because 27% of applicants were either granted asylum, humanitarian protection or allowed to stay pending an appeal against the decision of their original hearing. That's a bit more than you are saying. And do you really think everyone turned down for asylum isn't genuine or is it the case that some people may not be able to prove their need against the stringent criteria the UK employs?


In 2006 amnesty was granted for 80,000 asylum seekers whose claims weren't even processed because of a massive backlog !

Any evidence to back that up, other than scaremongering in the Daily Mail or perhaps a BNP manifesto leaflet?


3 years ago; the estimated number of people living in the UK on forged documents, expired visas or failed asylum seekers was between 310,00 & 570,000 - roughly the population of Edinburgh :bitchy:

If you're looking for specific examples of people who shouldn't be here, just google "bogus asylum seeker jailed" and read the rogues gallery of immigrants being held at vast expense in UK jails, sometimes for the most hideous crimes.

I don't think I've contradicted myself anywhere on this thread tbh.


Maybe you think you didn't. You've certainly displayed an alarming ability to mix together asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, to come out with some spurious statistics usually employed by the far right to try and rabble-rouse the worst kind of response.

What's your problem with people seeking asylum? And what's your problem with immigrants?

alex plode
23-03-2008, 09:05 PM
2 things just to keep the facts in place so to speak.

1. Lt Talbhadur Pun VC was granted full UK residency last year, he had a very good Christmas party and carved the hosts Christmas meal with his Kukri (how that got through customs goodness knows)

2. The pensions of the Gurkhas are smaller due in no small part to their lower wage (contrary to popular belief the AF pension is NOT non-contributory it is a average percentage of salary earned during service), which was/is controlled by the tri-patriate agreement between the UK and Nepaleese governments, it is also this agreement that states that all Goorka soldiers need to return to Nepal on discharge

Indeed ..Lt Talbhadur pun was thankfully granted residency to receive the medical care he needed last year. The very fact he had to apply (and was turned down) is a shocking example of how we view military from outwith Britain.
Lets hope Falklands vetran Gurkha Lance Corporal Rai and Madan Gurung (24 years service) have their refusals overturned as well.

The Gurkha pension was originally based on the cost of living in Nepal. In 2007 it was fixed so all post 1997 Gurkhas have UK pension rights. it's taken a long time to recognise this inequality.

alex plode
23-03-2008, 09:15 PM
What's your problem with people seeking asylum? And what's your problem with immigrants?

Don't want to drift too off topic and would like to stick with the Gurkhas, Rod Liddle's view from the Times (not a Mail man myself) sums up an underlying anomoly, very apparent in this thread.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article1845263.ece

Mibbes Aye
23-03-2008, 09:45 PM
Don't want to drift too off topic and would like to stick with the Gurkhas, Rod Liddle's view from the Times (not a Mail man myself) sums up an underlying anomoly, very apparent in this thread.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article1845263.ece

If you didn't want to drift off-topic why did you cite a load of false statistics about asylum seekers in your posts? Or suggest I Google up stories about how there are all these scary foreigners coming over here and committing crimes?

Liddle's article is idiotic and his argument meaningless as it is based on a false comparison. Are you seriously suggesting that beause someone had an application for residency refused because they didn't meet the agreed criteria (and regardless of anyone's opinion that's what seemed to have happened) we should break international law to deport people to countries where they are at risk of torture?

alex plode
23-03-2008, 10:05 PM
If you didn't want to drift off-topic why did you cite a load of false statistics about asylum seekers in your posts? Or suggest I Google up stories about how there are all these scary foreigners coming over here and committing crimes?

Liddle's article is idiotic and his argument meaningless as it is based on a false comparison. Are you seriously suggesting that beause someone had an application for residency refused because they didn't meet the agreed criteria (and regardless of anyone's opinion that's what seemed to have happened) we should break international law to deport people to countries where they are at risk of torture?

I thought the Liddle article would make you choke on your horlicks.

The reason asylum seekers and illegal immigrants came up is because at the start of this thread, some were insinuating there's less deserving cases permitted to stay in this country. Liddle's article articulates this in relation to a VC winning Gurkha - therefore it's not "meaningless", nor based on false comparison.

Hope that's clear.

Mibbes Aye
23-03-2008, 10:20 PM
I thought the Liddle article would make you choke on your horlicks.

The reason asylum seekers and illegal immigrants came up is because at the start of this thread, some were insinuating there's less deserving cases permitted to stay in this country. Liddle's article articulates this in relation to a VC winning Gurkha - therefore it's not "meaningless", nor based on false comparison.

Hope that's clear.

You don't deport people where they are likely to face torture. That's not relative, that's an absolute in international law.

Which makes Liddle's article a meaningless comparison.

alex plode
23-03-2008, 10:35 PM
You don't deport people where they are likely to face torture. That's not relative, that's an absolute in international law.

Which makes Liddle's article a meaningless comparison.

Where does Liddle's article mention deporting people to face torture ?...why is deportation relevant to a thread on gurkhas and more pertinently;
Do you think it's right that soldiers who've served 25 years in the army, need to apply (and are sometimes turned down) for residency ?

Mibbes Aye
23-03-2008, 11:15 PM
Where does Liddle's article mention deporting people to face torture ?...why is deportation relevant to a thread on gurkhas and more pertinently;
Do you think it's right that soldiers who've served 25 years in the army, need to apply (and are sometimes turned down) for residency ?

You can see my thoughts on that in my early posts.

Liddle refers to people being deported to face execution admittedly. At least one of the four he mentions (Sihali) has argued that he faces potential imprisonment, torture or execution in Algeria as a result of his being charged (and acquitted) with terrorist offences in the UK.

We've ended up here because you seem to have backtracked away from some of your more spurious claims and dodgy sentiments when challenged.

alex plode
24-03-2008, 08:32 AM
You can see my thoughts on that in my early posts.

We've ended up here because you seem to have backtracked away from some of your more spurious claims and dodgy sentiments when challenged.

We've ended up here because an earlier poster mentioned asylum seekers which you took exception to.
I was attempting to point out there are parallels and ridiculous comparisons to be made between those seeking asylum, and the gurkhas; I think I've done that.

If by dodgy sentiment you mean my references to illegal immigration , I'm sorry but many people in this country are concerned about the high numbers of immigration and bogus asylum claims. One of the main political parties made it a key policy at the last election (not the BNP who you refer to) however it's really a subject for another thread.

If you think my figures are spurious, I've already mentioned official figures for both illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers are difficult to verify because of their very nature. A quick search to back copies of the Times & Telegraph however will confirm the figures I gave as generally correct.

My point as you know is, we've become so scared of offending peoples "human rights" in this country that we readily welcome Somali rapists, Libyan terrorists and other assorted convicted criminals into the UK, but will refuse applications from people who have won a VC, or served with gallantry in the Falklands. It's almost too ridiculous to be true.

Mibbes Aye
24-03-2008, 08:49 AM
We've ended up here because an earlier poster mentioned asylum seekers which you took exception to.
I was attempting to point out there are parallels and ridiculous comparisons to be made between those seeking asylum, and the gurkhas; I think I've done that.

If by dodgy sentiment you mean my references to illegal immigration , I'm sorry but many people in this country are concerned about the high numbers of immigration and bogus asylum claims. One of the main political parties made it a key policy at the last election (not the BNP who you refer to) however it's really a subject for another thread..

Okay. I'll ask again - why are you concerned about immigration, or asylum seekers?


If you think my figures are spurious, I've already mentioned official figures for both illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers are difficult to verify because of their very nature. A quick search to back copies of the Times & Telegraph however will confirm the figures I gave as generally correct...

By 'bogus' asylum sekers do you mean people whose application is turned down? There's nothing difficult to verify there, the official figures are releases every quarter and also annually. They're certainly not the figures you've cited.

The figures you gave don't stand up regardless of what you might say about the Times and the Telegraph. Why don't you provide a link? Or just answer me why you said 90% of asylum claims in 06 weren't genuine when the true number was much lower.


My point as you know is, we've become so scared of offending peoples "human rights" in this country that we readily welcome Somali rapists, Libyan terrorists and other assorted convicted criminals into the UK, but will refuse applications from people who have won a VC, or served with gallantry in the Falklands. It's almost too ridiculous to be true.

Your point sounds like the kind of ill-informed and malicious rhetoric usually empoyed by the far right. There is no mention anywhere of us welcoming people into the country.

Are you suggesting we should break international law and rescind our commitment to the UN Convention on Human Rights, which is what underpins our policies on asylum and deportation (at least most of the time)?

Doesn't that make a mockery of the values that people have fought and gave their lives for, over the years in military service to this country?

alex plode
24-03-2008, 09:57 AM
Okay. I'll ask again - why are you concerned about immigration, or asylum seekers?
Topic for another thread.
By 'bogus' asylum sekers do you mean people whose application is turned down? There's nothing difficult to verify there, the official figures are releases every quarter and also annually. They're certainly not the figures you've cited.
Yes they are. Home Office Figures for 2006 asylum applications show only 9% are accepted. I said "one in ten" refused, it's much the same thing. - see link http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/asylumq206.pdf

The figures you gave don't stand up regardless of what you might say about the Times and the Telegraph. Why don't you provide a link? Or just answer me why you said 90% of asylum claims in 06 weren't genuine when the true number was much lower.
Happy reading:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_%281922-present_day%29#Illegal_immigration

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3065784.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/nimm105.xml
Your point sounds like the
kind of ill-informed and malicious rhetoric usually empoyed by the far right.
Where's the woman holding handbag smilie when you need one.
There is no mention anywhere of us welcoming people into the country.
Read Rod Liddle's article again.
Are you suggesting we should break international law and rescind our commitment to the UN Convention on Human Rights, which is what underpins our policies on asylum and deportation (at least most of the time)?
If it means deporting bogus asylum seekers who rape and murder then yes.
Doesn't that make a mockery of the values that people have fought and gave their lives for, over the years in military service to this country?
No, it makes a mockery of our immigration system.
Hope that's clear.

Mibbes Aye
24-03-2008, 10:15 AM
You said only 1 in 10 were 'genuine'. Your words.

Yet 27% were granted asylum, humanitarian protection or right to appeal. Doesn't quite match does it?

The wikipedia entry (:greengrin) is about illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers, and doesn't back up your figure or claim anyway. Nor do the Times and Telegraph articles.

The only thing clear is that you can't evidence your arguments.

alex plode
24-03-2008, 11:48 AM
You said only 1 in 10 were 'genuine'. Your words.

If the other 9 in 10 were "genuine" claims , they would have been granted :agree:
One of the problems in the UK (as the posted links suggest) is that a large but difficult to define number of refused claimants simply remain in the UK regardless.


Yet 27% were granted asylum, humanitarian protection or right to appeal. Doesn't quite match does it?

Can't find that 27 % figure anywhere and 27% of what ?
As the Home Office figures record - 91% of initial applicants are turned down - are you saying 27% of these have appealed ?
In any case, EVERY failed applicant has the right of appeal so I'm surprised such a small number choose to do so.
Incidently, almost 75% of appeals are rejected.



The wikipedia entry (:greengrin) is about illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers, and doesn't back up your figure or claim anyway. Nor do the Times and Telegraph articles.


If you read them, they actually do.
Wikipedia has some pretty good source material so not sure what the smilies about...and it was you asked for links to "spurious" figures Wikipedia confirms the Telegraph article on estimated numbers of illegal immigrants in the UK.


The only thing clear is that you can't evidence your arguments.
Wrong again, everything I've stated is evidenced.

Mibbes Aye
24-03-2008, 03:07 PM
If the other 9 in 10 were "genuine" claims , they would have been granted :agree:
One of the problems in the UK (as the posted links suggest) is that a large but difficult to define number of refused claimants simply remain in the UK regardless.

Can't find that 27 % figure anywhere and 27% of what ?
As the Home Office figures record - 91% of initial applicants are turned down - are you saying 27% of these have appealed ?
In any case, EVERY failed applicant has the right of appeal so I'm surprised such a small number choose to do so.
Incidently, almost 75% of appeals are rejected.


If you read them, they actually do.
Wikipedia has some pretty good source material so not sure what the smilies about...and it was you asked for links to "spurious" figures Wikipedia confirms the Telegraph article on estimated numbers of illegal immigrants in the UK.


Wrong again, everything I've stated is evidenced.

Here's a link (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1407.pdf) to the Home Office figures. 27% of asylum applicants received refugee status, humanitarian protection or the right on appeal to stay. Not one in ten.

Having read my earlier posts I've made it sound like only 27% of failed applicants appealed or that in the 27% figure were successful applicants and those who had right to appeal. My error and not the case. Rather like your "only 1 in 10 are genuine" claim.

Wikipedia is hardly infallible, especially if it is confirming figures in a newspaper with a certain agenda.

More importantly the figures I said were spurious were your '90% of 2006 applications weren't genuine' and your '80,000 people given asylum in 2006 because of unprocessed applications'.

You haven't evidenced those and I will be surprised if you can.

Why do you have such a problem with asylum seekers and with immigrants?
Why do you want to portray them all as 'bogus' or as heinous criminals?

alex plode
25-03-2008, 11:42 AM
Here's a link (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1407.pdf) to the Home Office figures. 27% of asylum applicants received refugee status, humanitarian protection or the right on appeal to stay. Not one in ten.
I'm sorry but a word-search of that document doesn't come up with any 27 % figure - The document you posted is the Home Office figures I posted earlier, confiming only 9% of initial asylum applications are accepted. I repeat - roughly, "one in ten"


More importantly the figures I said were spurious were your '90% of 2006 applications weren't genuine' and your '80,000 people given asylum in 2006 because of unprocessed applications'.
You haven't evidenced those and I will be surprised if you can.

According to the figures you have posted 91% of 2006 asylum applications are initially refused .
Whilst I accept mistakes are made, if these applications were "genuine" appeals for shelter, the Home Office would immediately grant relief.
I made the mistake of believing the Mail when quoting 80,000 people granted asylum because of unprocessed applications :rolleyes:
The actual figure for 2006 was nearer 30,000 under David Blunket's "Families Indefinite Leave to Remain" exercise :-http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1407.pdf
This scheme grants permanent settlement in the UK to asylum seekers who applied before 2000 (with one dependant child) - just for being here !

Why do you have such a problem with asylum seekers and with immigrants?
You have to read the statistics in the context of the thread.
An amnesty exists permitting tens of thousands of long-term asylum seekers permanent residency in the UK - but no such special concensions are in place for members of the gurkhas :confused:
By my reckoning (since 2003) around 79,000 will have benefitted from the ex- Home Secretaries scheme

Why do you want to portray them all as 'bogus' or as heinous criminals
That's a generalisation worthy of a Daily Mail journo.
Like it or not, immigration's an issue.
Many Local Authorities are struggling to cope with increased demand on public services and introducing schemes where "amnesty" is offered for those who have entered the UK illegally, is simply a reward for breaking the law.

Mibbes Aye
25-03-2008, 12:28 PM
I'm sorry but a word-search of that document doesn't come up with any 27 % figure - The document you posted is the Home Office figures I posted earlier, confiming only 9% of initial asylum applications are accepted. I repeat - roughly, "one in ten"

Section 37 - from memory 10% of the overall total applications granted refugee status, 9% granted humanitarian protection and 8% granted right to stay on appeal. They are all deemed as having the right to stay - what you describe as 'genuine' I assume. Notwithstanding my earlier point that I would bet there are people who can't prove their case against the criteria but nevertheless are genuine.


According to the figures you have posted 91% of 2006 asylum applications are initially refused
Whilst I accept mistakes are made, if these applications were "genuine" appeals for shelter, the Home Office would immediately grant relief.

See my comment above


I made the mistake of believing the Mail when quoting 80,000 people granted asylum because of unprocessed applications :rolleyes:
The actual figure for 2006 was nearer 30,000 under David Blunket's "Families Indefinite Leave to Remain" exercise :-http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1407.pdf
This scheme grants permanent settlement in the UK to asylum seekers who applied before 2000 (with one dependant child) - just for being here !

You have to read the statistics in the context of the thread.
An amnesty exists permitting tens of thousands of long-term asylum seekers permanent residency in the UK - but no such special concensions are in place for members of the gurkhas :confused:
By my reckoning (since 2003) around 79,000 will have benefitted from the ex- Home Secretaries scheme

That's a generalisation worthy of a Daily Mail journo.
Like it or not, immigration's an issue.
Many Local Authorities are struggling to cope with increased demand on public services and introducing schemes where "amnesty" is offered for those who have entered the UK illegally, is simply a reward for breaking the law.

I think we agree on the principle that military service probably should entitle someone to citizenship. I also certainly agree immigration is an 'issue' although my concerns are more at the way certain elements in society (parts of the media for example) are prepared to scaremonger and manipulate the facts in a way that helps create a groundswell of received opinion about immigration, legal or otherwise, and about asylum seekers.

These manipulations and lies stoke fear, intolerance and persecution. And play into the hands of those who promote racist agendas IMO.

Like you say, maybe stepping outwith the context of the thread but immigration is a positive thing, on the whole. And granting asylum is a positive and honourable thing.

alex plode
25-03-2008, 02:00 PM
Maybes Aye.
I broadly agree with your last paragraphs. Scaremongering by the media is a cynical and dangerous game; often leading to attacks on people peceived to be taking "our" housing or "our" jobs.

I'm more wary of the common peception that immigration is a positive thing and if you think otherwise, you're somehow branded racist.
You can't really define UK immigration without breaking it down into trends and timescales.
Without doubt the UK has benefitted from immigration - from the Irish in the early part of last century to Commonwealth & particularly Indian immigration in the 50's & 60's. Similarly the more recent "managed migration" has imported a wealth of skills into the UK and eastern europeans are generally contributing to a healthy economy.
However there's also a less than healthy trade in illegal immigration, people smuggling and "asylum shopping" into the UK, with incomers intent on not working and either cheating the system to obtain benefits or organising their own means of support.
Traditionally, organised crime in the form of sex trafficing, prostitution & pimping has been controlled by immigrant gangs from the jews in the 20's to Jamaicans in the 60's and recent gang clashes, knife crime and shootings in London have been atributed to afro-carribean gang warfare. Don't want to sound like Billy Britain, but the high proportion of "immigrants" in UK jails pays some testiment to the fact everything about immigration is not always rosy.

Mibbes Aye
25-03-2008, 07:56 PM
Maybes Aye.
I broadly agree with your last paragraphs. Scaremongering by the media is a cynical and dangerous game; often leading to attacks on people peceived to be taking "our" housing or "our" jobs.

I'm more wary of the common peception that immigration is a positive thing and if you think otherwise, you're somehow branded racist.
You can't really define UK immigration without breaking it down into trends and timescales.
Without doubt the UK has benefitted from immigration - from the Irish in the early part of last century to Commonwealth & particularly Indian immigration in the 50's & 60's. Similarly the more recent "managed migration" has imported a wealth of skills into the UK and eastern europeans are generally contributing to a healthy economy.
However there's also a less than healthy trade in illegal immigration, people smuggling and "asylum shopping" into the UK, with incomers intent on not working and either cheating the system to obtain benefits or organising their own means of support.
Traditionally, organised crime in the form of sex trafficing, prostitution & pimping has been controlled by immigrant gangs from the jews in the 20's to Jamaicans in the 60's and recent gang clashes, knife crime and shootings in London have been atributed to afro-carribean gang warfare. Don't want to sound like Billy Britain, but the high proportion of "immigrants" in UK jails pays some testiment to the fact everything about immigration is not always rosy.

Some fair points and some I'm less inclined to agree with. No surprise there I'm sure.

I agree it is very hard to present an anti-immigration argument without running the risk of being called racist. But then an anti-immigration argument does tend to feature quite highly on the agendas of racist groups.

I've never really heard a solid economic argument against immigration, quite the opposite. And arguments around social cohesion seem to ignore the fact we have accommodated and assimiliated a rich tapestry of different immigrant cultures over the centuries without the ending of life as we know it.

Crime and the proportion of foreign nationals in jail is certainly a contested subject. You could argue that foreigners are inherently more criminal I suppose. Alternatively you could argue that the criminal justice system in this country is heavily weighted against the most marginalised in our society and disproportionately punishes the less well-off or black people or foreign nationals.

That's not to suggest people aren't locked up for committing crimes, just to draw attention to the structural factors that may cause things.

I find it interesting that a huge proportion of foreign nationals in our jails are there for drug offences. We are talking about 'mules' rather than 'kingpins' most of the time I suspect. Definitely a topic for a different thread but to what extent is this situation visited upon us by our government's drgs strategies and our huge demand for various substances?