Does anyone know what's going on in Dover?

[YourWatermelonship]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cmwyzxlzxpzgt
Hundreds of masked protesters dressed in black disrupting Dover port.

They bear an unfortunate resemblance to the blackshirts

Fine why ask? Idk why I answered either tbf.

Btw people can be helped but no I don’t think victims should just be part of it.

Dover is a sh..hole. They didn’t enhance it. Large groups of men are always intimidating. The irony of an intimidating group of men protesting about an intimidating group of men. Women can never win in our society.

https://www.britishfuture.org/britain-thinks-net-migration-is-rising-when-it-has-actually-fallen-by-more-than-three-quarters/

Right? I saw someone call this " Stop the Blokes". So apt.

Danny Tommo is currently in the sea at Portsmouth trying to stop the boats and prevent illegal immigrants being brought ashore.

I’m still not convinced this will be more than a flash in the pan 5 day wonder. I really don’t think he’s got a disciplined group or significant numbers behind him.

I hope I’m right.

I agree, we need more upstanding politicians like Mandelson, hand picked by our outstanding ex-PM who had to leave us far too soon, politicians of that calibre would never be anywhere near dodgy money or people.

They have spent £240 million on the Marina, Marco Pierre White has two restaurants there . U have a street called Castle street because the view is a Castle. I visited some years ago when they had just built the shopping outlets with M&S , H&B etc I wouldn’t describe it as a Shithole although I went to the old high street which was just working class and it reminded me of Broadway market where the working class got squeezed out .

The times today : whistle blower says only 1 in 100 assluym claims are real and the rest are gaming our system

Even if the asylum claim is rejected 98% of arrivals know they will end up staying here. That's astonishing.

I don't agree with the methods of the protestors, but I do think the government needs to wake up and act. The process of dealing with asylum applications needs to be stricter and quicker and decisions to stay in the UK should be time limited to the period the country concerned is not safe for the person.

Well, that's a statement in need of substantiation. Even whistleblowers have to back up what they say. Let's see some evidence before we jump to believe it. Until then I am Switzerland.

I once worked briefly with some Home Office asylum decision makers. Most were OK, but two were openly racist. The racist ones gave a talk on their work and basically mocked asylum seekers. Yes I did complain about them, but nothing much happened.

Not saying the whistle-blower is like those two. But there may be an agenda at play. So I am Switzerland too.

The times have done an in depth article high lighting the issues and 98% of assluym seekers stay even after their claim has been rejected. Thats a pretty big pull.

The times is quite rigouros in it's reporting standards the details are in one article which are behind a pay
Wall. I'm sure more will come out

It is quite new for The Times to get into the detail, of migration issues that is. I haven’t read it yet but will.

I could have written that post line by line esp the experience of open, vile racism in asylum decision makers

The Times published the JLP poll commissioned by Reform and paid for by foreign donations without question.

The assertion only 1% are valid claims is patently absurd. You can look up criteria for an acceptance of claim on the gov.uk website and caseworker guidance and civil servants do boringly follow rules and guidance.

Also a fair amount of accepted claims are deemed so by courts at appeal - sometimes the Home Office withdraws rejection as it feels the decision was wrong and then reconsiders, sometimes they’re told to do so, sometimes the appeal court changes the decision straight off.

It will be debunked but no one will notice that will they.

98% staying after claim is rejected is unclear - have they an appeal that they are entitled to stay for? Or just saying those at end of appeals process stay - that would be a massively smaller number than that implied - although yes, returns need to be dealt with appropriately and if you check stats these have increased considerably under Labour.

It is very troubling.

https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/stop-the-blokes
Stop The Blokes
With fascism on the streets of England again, The Times uses its front-page to deliver the same message beneath a thin veneer of respectability.

The rate of asylum seekers granted asylum has fallen significantly in recent years, with the latest statistics showing that 42,394 people were granted refugee protection in the year to June out of a total of 115,394 initial decisions — a rate of 38 per cent.

Oh don't go confusing them with facts... The Times has taken the word of a disgruntled employee, and their word is gospel. As I said, let's wait and see.

What happens to those whose claim was refused?

This is initial decisions. What about with appeals?

A quick AI search says that in the last 15 years the percentage of asylum applications granted on first application varied from 25% to 76% (2022 and 2023 were the highest years). Yes it's AI so no better or worse than anonymous source.

So no sign of the 1% quoted by The Times. Does the insider mean that they think people who are lying are granted asylum? Or that they don't agree with some of the grounds for asylum set out by the law? I wonder

I am now going to find out more about the "spontaneous" protest in Porstmouth.