Counter terror police investigate possible Iran link to Fairford RAF bomb plot

[achristmaswish]

Fairford latest: Counter terror police investigating if Iran is linked to RAF base bomb plot, Sky News understands | UK News | Sky News https://share.google/cU4wjxGZBYQtIb3sx

I couldn't find a thread on this breaking news. How awful for everyone involved.

Thy are fleeing persecution in their home country - they can find safety where they feel safe, it does not have to be the nearest country, though the vast majority of displaced people do remain close - in massive camps.

The safety is from 1951 Refugee Convention and various other supporting laws since.

They are in France on their way to the U.K. and have every right to do this - it may be as they speak English, have family here - so many reasons.

We are 16th in Europe for asylum applications so not everyone asks for safety in the U.K. - as said vast majority are in camps near their home country.

That is interesting and of course any rule then some will abuse it.

I don’t think many women would go to Afghanistan for this option, but anyway the government proposed safe routes will be via referrals from UNHCR and IRAP. Completely different approach.

Yes necessarily. If there was even a whisper of suspected terrorism they wouldn’t have been bailed.

How do you know how illegal immigrants are living?

They’ll be underground, a lot rough sleeping, picking up work in the black economy or begging mainly.

I’m assuming you are not referring to those seeking asylum who are not here illegally - if you are the hotels aren’t all that, if they get food they get £10/week, if they have to get food then £50 - all this and all asylum costs are 0.2% of government budget and reducing btw.

Lucky the lady is anonymous otherwise there would be a pile on calling her a drunken racist.

Unlikely. This is getting quite ridiculous now.

So are you seriously saying that they don't feel "safe" in France, Germany, or any other European country they cross? The main nationalities crossing the channel are:
Eritrean: 16% of total arrivals
Sudanese: 15% of total arrivals
Somali: 15% of total arrivals
Afghan: 13% of total arrivals
Iranian: 7% of total arrivals
And are you saying these nationalities come here because they "speak English", really ?
So how are you qualified to speak about the motivation of these people?

Disclaimer for those hard of reading - I think this murder was abhorrent.

You can’t blame a whole group for the actions of one.

We could consider the lives Samir Zitouni saved as well but we equally can’t say all immigrants are heroes.

We could consider how British colonial rule impacted the current horrors of Sudan.

What we should not be doing is reducing the debate around immigration to individual acts - it’s ridiculously reductive and increases division and hatred.

How do you know the mechanisms for approval?
And how do they weed out those who are supporters of terrorist groups?
It seems someone screwed up big time with this one

Entry can be about risk and the debate can be what the government’s basic duty is to reduce that.

If a system is chaotic and dangerous then it should be addressed.

Government costs on asylum seekers are reducing because they move to a different category and further costs them and for the families they bring here are accounted differently.

If anything, they cost more, because they have full access to public funding.

@Ms Jinks "We could consider how British colonial rule impacted the current horrors of Sudan."

Why?
This was Sudan's problem from 1967 and still is.
Many newly formed governments will accept military aid and training from their ex-colonisers, as was the case with Sudan, whose military was initially supplied and trained by the British, which was the case until Sudan cut off ties in 1967 over British involvement in the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War.
So any problems they have are completely of their own making.

What is worrying me now is that if the arrestees are unconnected to the Iran plotters intelligence was monitoring, are the latter not likely still to be out there? Unless MI5 was rushed into discreet arrests by all this.

They’re also allowed to work.

Yes, but they can also receive benefits, so that pretty cancels out their contributions. If there were any contributions to start with.

Let's face it, we aren't going to know anything that they don't want us to know.
I wouldn't worry about it and I've more important things to be concerned with, like repotting my hostas

If they can speak English why do we spend huge amounts of money on interpreters and translation in the courts/NHS etc?

No it doesn’t. If the investigations had brought up no evidence, they’d have been released on no further action. Not police bail. They’ve been bailed because investigations are ongoing and there was no need to keep them in the police station any longer.

Crikey there are some real misunderstandings on this thread.

NHS in England spends approximately £64 million per year on translation and interpretation services, according to the latest freedom of information data. This figure has more than doubled over a five-year period, rising from £31 million in 2020/21.
To manage these escalating costs, the NHS earmarked £73 million for a dedicated, multi-year translation contract framework to streamline how local trusts procure language services.
Also, bear in mind that if you have an appointment say, for an Outpatients Clinic, and there are people requiring a translator. they will be seen first. This is because the Trust doesn't want the translator hanging around doing nothing and having to be paid.
So these people are effectively queue-jumping again.

I was actually saying we can’t go that far - too many ifs, buts, maybes - we can’t also reduce this to one asylum seeker committed a bad act and so all are bad.

I’ve never said our system is perfect - I’ve said many times, though maybe not on this thread, that we could do better.

There’s a myriad of reasons for the ‘chaos’ - Tories allowing backlog to build, Brexit reducing intelligence sharing across EU, the wars we get ourselves involved in and so on.

Personally, I’m all for immigration and our country was built on the back of it - however, I recognise it’s a contentious issue and many don’t share my views. Whomever is voted in here will have laid out plans in their manifesto and should aim to implement them.

Whilst I don’t like Labour’s immigration stuff to date they are reducing both net migration, acceptance of asylum claims and small boat crossings - I thought people who want immigration and small boats reduced would be pleased with this - it can’t happen overnight but their is definitely a change from chaos to more managed to be seen.

I disagree.
You were blaming British Colonialist activities for the present state of play, which is ridiculous.
Maybe you should accept that many of these countries are authors of their own misfortune.
Uganda gained independence in 1962 but Idi Amin came to power in 1971, so would you blame his despotic regime on Britain's involvement in that country?
I think not.

There will at some point be details about who the U.K. will look to take on safe routes. In the Syrian resettlement, for example, we took
specifically vulnerable refugees who had survived such as torture and women/children deemed to be at high risk.

There will be security checks on all as well.

I know someone who has been in the UK for 25 years and during all that time he ran a successful customer facing business. But when he got cancer and had to deal with medical language he lost all confidence and needed his daughter who was educated in the UK to go along and translate for him.
I know someone whose dad had lived in Spain for over 20 years and could live his life in Spanish, worked for a Spanish business in Madrid. Then he got ill and came home because he found it difficult to understand his treatment options.
My FIL was British and he had trouble understanding medical terminology when he got cancer.

Well if that's your level of intellect...........