Stopping the boats is easy...

Don’t put words in my mouth, or anyone’s. I don’t recall a single entry here suggesting open borders, even for English speakers.

How do you know the religious background of asylum seekers? It isn’t tracked by the British government, the UN, or any reputable organisation. Any ‘statistics’ are unreliable since these do not exist.

Many come from traditionally Muslim countries, and many from sub-Saharan Africa. What is the largest religion by far in sub-Saharan Africa? That’s right - Christianity. This region contains one of the largest, most active and fastest growing Christian communities in the world. Over 60% of the population identify as Christian.

The Muslim dictatorships in particular prosecute those who are not practising Muslims, including Christians and atheists, so a number flee these countries for religious persecution. Some Christian countries are also intolerant.

Both the MidEast and sub-Saharan Africa - the latter largely comprised of Commonwealth nations - do have a cultural affinity for the UK. Many educated Africans and Arabs speak better English than most Britons, many have read widely in English literature, ate knowledgeable about British culture, etc. It does mean a lot.

I haven’t ignored your question. When refugees trust interviewers enough to open up, they cite family, culture, knowledge of history and customs, and language as big draws. Many Africans and other Christians are drawn to the Evangelical churches here, also.

Also in some cases the nations closest to home are equally war torn, intolerant and dangerous (eg to atheists or gay people).

If you are serious about wanting answers you would do better to seek them first hand: The British Red Cross, The Oxford Migration Laboratory and the UN High Commission on Refugees all have video interviews with refugees, asylum seekers and experts delving into these questions. Others too, I am sure.

But they never ask that specific question.

I know the answer, its the reason why Dick Whittington went to London. The myth that the streets are paved with gold.

We all know its the reason. The trouble is no one is prepared to admit it. Migrants come here because they think its the land of milk and honey. They believe they will get decent houses, education, health care and that its all free (i know i missed the apostrophe).

And the only way to stop the small boats is to remove everyone who arrives. Ban them from ever receiving asylum in the UK.

The British government has stopped the football hooligan issue abroad by banning specific British people from leaving the country at specific times. The opposite is so easy to do.

In the year ending March 2026, Eritrean nationals accounted for the largest share of small boat arrivals (18%), followed by Afghan (11%), Sudanese (11%), Iranian (11%) and Somali.

The religions of these groups are Eritrean 50/50 Islam/Christianity, Afghan Sunni Muslim, Suadanese 97% islam, Iranian Shia Muslim 93%, Somai Sunni Muslim.

Not many from sub-Saharan Africa it seems.

(From House of Commons Library)

It seems that Christianity is rather under-represented.

This says nothing about the religions, or lack of religion, of those who leave - often because of religious persecution. HMG does not publish those statistics.

Well if a country is 100% Muslim then you can be pretty sure that those on the boats are Muslim.
If they wanted to be classed as "No religion" then they wouldn't be there in the first place, because those who leave Islam are stoned to death for apostasy.

I defo need to know the full story.

@poetryandwine "rather than prejudice by people who think they know it all."
I would hope that the assessments are done by Home Office specialists and by factual means.
Why are you intimating that some are not? Do you have proof of that?

It’s all a bit academic. When it gets down to it the majority won’t want Labour’s barracks nearby to them.

Piddington signed a referendum at 96%. It’s a Lib Dem voting place, there’s probably a cross over in demographic with mn where people who post that others are too unwelcoming would quietly sign that referendum too.

@poetryandwine "rather than prejudice by people who think they know it all."
I would hope that the assessments are done by Home Office specialists and by factual means.
Why are you intimating that some are not? Do you have proof of that?

It’s all a bit academic. When it gets down to it the majority won’t want Labour’s barracks nearby to them.

Piddington signed a referendum at 96%. It’s a Lib Dem voting place, there’s probably a cross over in demographic with mn where people who post that others are too unwelcoming would quietly sign that referendum too.

AB wants to move to dispersed housing. I think that’s a great idea. I know there is some in my nearest city, and a hotel in the nearest large city - problem free so far. My village is small and I would be happy with a proportionate amount of dispersed housing. I think many of us would.

It’s all a bit academic. When it gets down to it the majority won’t want Labour’s barracks nearby to them.

Piddington signed a referendum at 96%. It’s a Lib Dem voting place, there’s probably a cross over in demographic with mn where people who post that others are too unwelcoming would quietly sign that referendum too.

Answering my own question here as I have googled. The Piddington referendum is on declaring independence from the UK.

So you think that those who who don't see every Muslim asylum seeker as the devil incarnate would "quietly sign" a referendum for their area to declare independence from the UK? 🤔

I am guessing you thought the referendum was specifically about asylum seekers. What it actually is is an attempt to get the Home Office to engage with concerns about asylum seekers being housed in the area. Which is absolutely fair enough and should happen. The vote is on September 15.

www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/26495034.piddington-presses-referendum-amid-deafening-silence/

Piddington used a polite referendum and picnics to get press attention. You’re missing the point of it.

It’s a mc leafy area that votes Lib Dem, they wanted a way to get the attention of the press and Burnham. It worked to do that.

Would you be a yes to those barracks nearby to you?

Yes it would be a yes.

I am not sure barracks are the right answer, but we have to house asylum seekers somewhere. There was outrage at them being in hotels. There is outrage at them being in HMOs so what exactly do people want?

There is an ex-old people's home round the corner from me, about three minutes walk from my house, and there are proposals to house asylum seekers there. I have no issues with that.

Ok great so you’re a yes to over 1000 men waiting for asylum near to you.

Labour should target these areas, they’d get lower backlash.

As I said, I don't think barracks are ideal, but you don't want them in hotels, you don't want them in HMOs, so what is the answer? Where do you think the asylum seekers who are currently awaiting processing should be housed?

Well you either do or don’t want over 1000 men nearby. And if it’s a no thanks as it was for the other welcoming poster you’ll need a way to show that.

You might even want the press to notice. You could take tips from Piddington.

As for where that’s for Labour, I’m sure the smash the gangs pledge will deliver for them instead.

I am honestly more in danger from the local yoof who ride around balaclavad up on electric bikes.

I bet statistically I am more likely to be run over by one of them than I am of being murdered or raped by an asylum seeker.

So to reiterate, yes if the existing barracks in my town were used to house 1000 male asylum seekers I would not protest.

Good stuff. As said Labour should use your and similar areas first. It makes sense to target where there’d be lower backlash.

Absolutely. Fine by me!