Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask where I can send my 57p?

405 replies

drspouse · 31/07/2015 20:47

According to the Mirror if all the asylum seekers currently in Calais came into the UK and (highly unlikely) never paid any tax, it would cost each of us 57p.
To save a group of people from some of the most unimaginable horrors in their home countries, I'm more than happy to pay that.
So, where do I sign to pay up (and make it clear I'm happy for them to officially seek asylum and have their claims verified)?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-migrant-hordes--people-6165167

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Original poster
drspouse · 03/08/2015 15:08

So what are you doing to improve conditions for those at Calais postingbot?

I'd love to hear any constructive suggestions.

OP posts:
MNpostingbot · 03/08/2015 16:18

I'm doing nothing, but I'm also not jumping up and down on every forum and social media site shouting "meeee meeee, look at meeeee, I care" and then doing nothing. That was my point.

There are other causes closer to my heart (that's not to say Calais is less worthy but I have limited time to devote, so focus that time on a couple of areas where I might be able to have some effect) where I actively donate and lobby local and national politicians to show that there is a percentage of the population that those issues matter to.

I don't post on here and click like and share so I can appear to care. I do something to demonstrate I care.

Please note I'm not tarring everyone who's posted in here with that brush, I have no idea what you individually do and you may all be active.

Just an observation that people will be posting about Calais for a few weeks and then it will go away and there will be a new topic at the top of the debate list. Very few people actually do anything, there was a protest at Downing street about this last week, there were about 25 people there......

BeyondTheWall · 03/08/2015 18:00

Oo, fame! Grin

To ask where I can send my 57p?
BeyondTheWall · 03/08/2015 18:03

(This surely confirms they know where all the 57p's are coming from!)

custardismyhamster · 03/08/2015 18:14

What about if the 'illegal' is a doctor who has been persecuted in their home country because they are gay, and the 'legal' has also been persecuted because they are gay but if a hairdresser? (Disclaimer, I am not suggesting hairdressing isn't a worthy profession just making a point!)

elementofsurprise · 03/08/2015 19:25

I'm so sorry to hear about your mother Binit. It makes me sick to have to agree with Garlick but what she writes is true. There is enough money, it's just in the wrong place. (Oops that sounds wrong, I'm happy to agree with Garlick but not happy at what the government are doing!)

The government is not committed to running down the NHS. In fact, all parties publicly prioritised the NHS in 2015

Governments have to get elected. They employ spin doctors, advertising people etc. They wouldn't come out well if they said "We're purposely underfunding the NHS and making the system unworkable so we can replace it with private companies making a buck off health insurance/hand services to private companies". They have to spin it in such a way that people think it's a good idea, or at least inevitable.

David Cameron had a billboard campaign saying "I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS" before the 2010 election; they then cut the NHS. Also things like pledging to give £X amount towards a service, without mentioning that the previous year they cut six times as much as that from the very same service...

caroldecker · 03/08/2015 19:28

Can you provide evidence that the NHS was cut? Also, why is private provision of services considered so bad - no-one wants a nationalised supermarket.

Theresaflyinmyhouse · 03/08/2015 20:12

Good lord carol. Honestly. I might have to hide this thread too. It started out so well making and so lush to hear people giving a shit and not just ranting about how the UK is full (it isn't) and how the illegals are flooding in (they're not) and stupid ignorant crap.

Carol, privatisation is awful because the NHS, when it has appropriate funding and is run by people who know what they're doing, is shit hot. Private care costs money, to the patient (have you seen breaking bad??). It ruins people.

The world doesn't belong to you, you don't own this country, you're lucky you are here and can feel smug about it. But you could easily have been one of the 1 in 2 people in Syria who've been displaced.

caroldecker · 03/08/2015 20:18

Private provision of care paid for by the NHS does not cost people money. All GP's are private, paid by the NHS. All pharmaceticals are made by private companies and paid by the NHS - why not nurses and hospitals?

Real spending on the NHS increased by £4bn from 2010 to 2015 according to the King's Fund, so no cutting.

TopazRocks · 03/08/2015 20:36

I KNOW nationality is an accident of birth, plain and simple, but I have never been so ashamed to be British as I am today. I was ignoring all the refugee threads on MN as I couldn't face the bigotry and half-baked political thought. This one started out so well. Now we have a WM government making draconian laws on the hoof. Not in my name, Shiny.Sad

Original poster
drspouse · 03/08/2015 21:52

I know, it's a bit depressing isn't it? It's like people don't want anyone to actually help people so they have to rant about how undeserving those people are and how you should only help THEM and people who are like THEM, and if you do help people you're stupid and/or self-serving.

OP posts:
caroldecker · 03/08/2015 22:00

If it is so depressing, why not actually join in and help people, not just think 57p thrown at a charity about something in the news will make any difference, and then complain when the not the whole world agrees with your naivety.

NewFlipFlops · 03/08/2015 22:10

Umm, Jassy, seems like having a go at me is now your hobby, which is a little sad, but Googling "UK" and "asylum" should get you to the right place in a matter of seconds.

Also, today's papers referred to failed asylum applicants. I hope you agree that in order for an application for asylum to fail, the asylum must exist.

The absurdity in all this is that I wasn't talking about asylum per se but simply expressing a preference for legal immigration over illegal immigration.

ArcheryAnnie · 03/08/2015 22:14

I'm in, too.

All these people - resourceful, brave people, evidently - whose resourcefulness and determination could be a real asset to whichever country took them in.

WidowWadman · 03/08/2015 22:46

Newflipflops have you read the red cross link I posted earlier, which clearly states that method of entry can't be held against St an asylum seeker?

BooChunky · 03/08/2015 23:20

Have any of you 57p'ers ever actually watched the news? Have you actually seen them flinging themselves at fences and still think..

Yes. That would be a perfect neighbour for me. I never have to wait at A&E, my local schools are undersubscribed and I recently purchased a house for a fair price!

Morons. Literally. I feel I should start a thread asking for 57p from all of you to go to sainsburys and you'd give it to me.

JassyRadlett · 03/08/2015 23:31

Also, today's papers referred to failed asylum applicants. I hope you agree that in order for an application for asylum to fail, the asylum must exist.

The application must exist. But as soon as someone who has entered the country illegally claims asylum, they become legally in the country while their asylum application is evaluated, regardless of how they entered.

This is what I'm saying - if you have information that others don't have access to, the reasonable thing is to share it. Because playing a 'I have information that I'm not willing to share with you' game is just rather odd, particularly when the statements you make are actually at odds with the facts.

The absurdity in all this is that I wasn't talking about asylum per se but simply expressing a preference for legal immigration over illegal immigration.

This is why I asked for clarification on your original post - including asking whether that meant you had a preference for economic migrants coming in via legal routes than asylum seekers, for whom legal routes are much fewer and far between. I'm assuming the answer is yes, and that you're content that the bar is set at different levels for different groups.

NewFlipFlops · 03/08/2015 23:48
  1. That's not what you were saying Jassy. You said fuck-all asylum existed. They were your words.
  1. I wasn't playing a game. I was pointing out that we have access to the same information on the interweb and the same means of retrieval. I am not your servant and have no interest in playing link wars.
  1. I think economic migrants is actually a misleading term. I have no preferences and believe legal applications for residence should be considered on their individual merits. I don't think applicants who seek to bypass the rules should be considered at all; it's unfair to the law-abiding, as so much of life is.
caroldecker · 04/08/2015 00:29

flipflops the law (broadly) states that:

  1. if you are in danger in your country due to race/religion/sex/sexual orientation and you flee to another country you can claim asylum. This is regardless of the method used to get to the new country.
  2. If the above do not apply, then you apply for a visa at the embassy in your own country and wait for a yes response before coming to the country. If you enter without the appropriate papers, you are returned.

Therfore asylum seekers who enter without papers are not bypassing the rules.

CallMeExhausted · 04/08/2015 03:22

Just an offshoot of where this conversation has drifted...

I live in Canada. We have a system similar (but far from identical) to the NHS. My residence is about 8 km from the Canada/US border.

My daughter (and my son and I) have a quite rare genetic disease.

The fatality rate for this disease is more than 100% higher in the U.S. Is this because the U.S. Is a profit driven system and there is a vested interest for increased "investigation and intervention" or because the cost of health care is so high?

I have my theories, but regardless... I prefer the odds for our survival here.

JassyRadlett · 04/08/2015 07:38

If you're going to quote me, do at least be accurate. I said:

Fortunately, I already know what routes are actually available to the vast majority of asylum seekers - fuck all, especially post-Sangatte.

And in previous posts I'd made it clear I was talking about accessible, legal routes. Repeatedly.

I asked if you had special information on legal, accessible routes available to the majority of asylum seekers because your repeated statements that they exist fly in the face of all the available evidence, including information posted on this thread.

caroldecker · 04/08/2015 09:11

callme

Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities. This is what people are objecting to in the UK.

silveroldie2 · 04/08/2015 16:52

I want to help and have a spare 57p, the only difference is I want mine to go towards this country installing 20 foot steel fences around the tunnel and protecting our lorry drivers.

elementofsurprise · 04/08/2015 17:29

Carol Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities. This is what people are objecting to in the UK.

If someone is ill and receives treatment from the NHS, it costs X amount. If a private company provides that treatment, it costs X amount plus profit for the company.
This is obviously more expensive.

Wheretheresawill1 · 04/08/2015 17:45

Even if there is enough money - which there isn't because actually I would like it spent on projects in the UK instead why should we in the UK always be the ones helping those abroad- there's masses of them. Have you tried doing anything in this country recently? It's packed- roads. Streets. Nhs. Housing. Schools. I would pay more than 57p to keep people out. We simply do not have the room or the resources. Incidentally those who wish to help why not offer your spare bedroom? Thought not