Why is the public directing their anger at the individual asylum seeker that arrives at the shore…

I'm sorry to hear that. It must be scary to think about what Reform might do to the NHS. Scotland sounds like a good plan, and it's good that your kids will have options.

We will be OK too, thanks. DH and I have options, and dd will be a doctor by that time so she should also have options, hopefully. I'm worried about my elderly dad though. If he is still alive at that point, I don't think I'll be able to just abandon him.

I think Scotland might be my (only) best hope. I’m disabled from cancer and still undergoing treatment so there’s nowhere that’s gonna take me. My kids thankfully have Irish passports. I’m making plans for them.
I hope you will be ok also.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2025/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk

will the governments own statistics do then?

You think they aren’t paying to get across Europe? The last bit is a tiny drop in that ocean. They risk death the entire way, they risk being murdered and dumped by traffickers the whole way.
one guy I spoke to was beaten more than 5 times between Syria and the U.K. he came here as he speaks good English and is a veterinarian in Syria. He hopes to work here once he is granted leave to. People choose here for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with our benefits system.

The enemy of the working class is not a man on a small boat. The enemy of the working class are the 1% of billionaires who now own 43% of ALL global capital assets.

Make plans to leave if you can. It isn't going to be pretty when people realise that Reform isn't going to fix anything for them.

Asylum seekers and refugees make up less than 1% of the population of the uk.

Yes. I do. And I’m really fucking sad about it. But I also think that if the will of the country is to submit to fascists and liars, then we as a country will get what we deserve. I actually think the human race as a whole are a fucking mess who will get what we deserve. 🤷🏼‍♀️

More here if you want to get the proper legal explanation:

https://hopeforjustice.org/news/new-free-online-training-with-a-uk-focus/

Yes, that's a reasonable assumption, but it's my understanding that people (actually, adults) can in fact "consent" to being trafficked. I think the thing that makes it trafficking rather than just people smuggling is because there is some form of deception, coercion or other abuse of power. And with the intention to exploit.

Can somebody please explain to me what people trafficking actually is?
People trafficking implies to me, taking somebody and transporting them somewhere they don't want to go.

NRTFT but people are angry with everyone, the individuals making the treacherous journey over here and the govt for not managing the situation much more effectively.
The reason for most people's ire is more a cultural issue than a racist one, as well as quite simply, we don't have the infrastructure to support unlimited amounts of people who are fleeing from whatever they're fleeing from!

Perhaps these people ARE deserving, but if we don't have the means to support them, then we don't have the means!

The support isn't just limited to how much they receive in their hands every week, it is so much more than that.
It is the cost of their accommodation, the admin cost of processing the claims of asylum, the cost of interpreters, health care, and once they have been successful in their asylum claim, the cost of educating them and their children, supporting their need for housing and ongoing health care.
All in a country that is struggling to provide the basics for the people who already call the UK home.
Schools, councils, social care and the NHS are on the brink of collapse from the people who are already here, and still we add more and more people.
If you look around, vitriol is directed at anyone who is seen to be costing the tax payer money, because the cost of supporting the people who are already here is totally unsustainable as it is.

We cannot afford to support ever growing numbers of people who, for one reason or another, cannot support themselves.

It's more complicated though with things like the war in Syria where the (horrendous) Assad regime was fighting rebels who sort of got taken over by time by Isis aligned groups. Its probably closer to the Spanish civil war where you had fascists fighting an odd mix of anarchists/Communists etc but where the (almost as bad) Communist forces were at times attacking/suppressing the anarchists and other groups. For all the romanticism given to that war it would have been hard, in the ground, to work out who the good guys were and I wouldn't blame young men for fleeing.

You also had horrific treatment of "deserters" from Assad's army (that is men that didn't want to fight, often against their own people). Including Wagner troops filming themselves torturing and beheading young men and using their heads as a football. And fleeing and fighting for the opposite side could easily land you with ISIS. Who are also bad guys. Or, if an Alawite automa6viewes as a traitor.
Eritreans also face compulsory conscription but there isnt really an alternative "good guy" they can fight for

Im not saying we can or should accept everyone. But comparing young men fleeing a bad situation to the second world war is unfair because WW2 was a situation with a much clearer "bad guy" who crucially was attacking from outside. Civil wars are much messier and morally complex (and deadly).

It's more complicated though with things like the war in Syria where the (horrendous) Assad regime was fighting rebels who sort of got taken over by time by Isis aligned groups. Its probably closer to the Spanish civil war where you had fascists fighting an odd mix of anarchists/Communists etc but where the (almost as bad) Communist forces were at times attacking/suppressing the anarchists and other groups. For all the romanticism given to that war it would have been hard, in the ground, to work out who the good guys were and I wouldn't blame young men for fleeing.

You also had horrific treatment of "deserters" from Assad's army (that is men that didn't want to fight, often against their own people). Including Wagner troops filming themselves torturing and beheading young men and using their heads as a football. And fleeing and fighting for the opposite side could easily land you with ISIS. Who are also bad guys. Or, if an Alawite automa6viewes as a traitor.

Yes but Connor McGregor is also famous for being a boxer and therefore quite popular. I think also some of the "women" supporting him and Andrew Tate on here were actually men in disguise as they are both worryingly popular with a small sub-group. It is still shocking though I agree!

Is it 40%?

In recent years, women have made up approximately 7-12% of people arriving in the UK on small boats, with figures from the year ending June 2025 showing 83.6% of arrivals were men, 12.5% women

Surely the answer is obvious - because that person, assuming you mean an illegal immigrant rather than a genuine asylum seeker, has chosen this country, and paid a lot of money to a criminal. They have passed through other safe countries, but choose to come to the UK as they know they are almost certainly not going to be removed, and will be housed/fed/given limitless free legal help. Nobody should be allowed to do this, in any country. I've lived in outher countries and in order to be able to do so have had to had proof of a job to go to, to prove I could speak the language, to have a medical and health insurance. All fine by me, why should I expect to be looked after at the expense of that country's citizens? Nothing to do with racism at all, more to do with entitlement and flouting the law.

Of course they aren't legally run. The trafficking gangs are criminal operations exploiting desperate and vulnerable people. And obviously you can't usually enter a country without a passport, but that isn't what we were talking about.

The pp stated that the law specifically prohibits people from paying for lifts on small boats. I was querying this.

I personally know asylum seekers, they are not allowed to work. Their housing, bills and a basic living allowance was paid for while their asylum claim went through. Ok so they can’t claim benefits that residents can but public money is still given to them.

You cannot generally enter countries legally without a passport. That’s why we have them. It’s what passport means. That’s our normal - far more noticeable on planes than at road borders but Schengen was always the exception rather than the rule. So the small boat is a red herring, but equally many of those small boats sink so don’t let’s pretend they are legally run, insured or registered.

@OwlBeThere - escaping from wars they don’t want to fight in

Hmmm, do you think it would have been acceptable in WW1 and 2 for young men from this country to have made their way to “safe” economically-prosperous countries, leaving their kinfolk behind and their compatriots to fight in their stead?

Is there an ' entitlement ' to translation services imposed on the NHS by anyone, I wonder.