To wonder what part of this statement reminded Gary L of Nazi Germany?

[marmaladeo]

This is Suella Braverman's statement Gary Lineker was reacting to when he said "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s" ... twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1633094764865126400

If she was saying she wanted to stop immigration I could understand GL's reaction. But she's not. I don't understand why anyone would not want to "stop the boats" when 1. they're lethal and 2. they're being run by criminal gangs. If GL had made it clear he wanted to stop the boats but thought this policy was the wrong way to do it, then fine. But he didn't - he just made an extremely inflammatory statement. He might be getting lots of love from some quarters, but personally I think he's an egotist who is playing into the hands of the people smugglers.

Are you saying that because you believe it?

This is the problem isn't it, so many people believe that every one is playing nice and following the rules.

Sad.

For those of you who use the argument about "not being the first safe country", what refugees would you accept? French, Irish? Who else would har the UK as the first "safe country"? Isn't it a bit double standard to feel "generous" enough to get involved in conflicts further away, but not so generous that you can share your resources?

Look how far down this list Antartica is in the number of refugees it has taken. By any reasonably estimates it should have taken 12million this year. Scandalous.

Anyway if you can spare a moment, do watch this video that explain the law around asylum.

twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1634330359839031301

Ok, rather than throw insults at me, could you educate me? Show me the evidence that economic migrants generally arrive in the UK in small boats please?

Just for your information.

The laws governing seeking asylum explicitly state that the route of entry into a country is irrelvant when it comes to whether someone can or cannot make an asylum claim.

You may find watching this video helpful so you don't make the same error again.

twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1634330359839031301

I haven't read it, seen it or heard it but as someone who has followed this situation for decades I don't need to swallow anything.

Again, all you can do is insult people that have come to a different conclusion to you.

I do know she lives here on the south coast where I live and where we are experiencing the growing numbers daily.

But we're just shxx on your self important shoe aren't we?

Have you watched this video yet you might find it quite informative.

twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1634330359839031301

Refugee facts

www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/

103 MILLION Forcibly displaced people worldwide

53.2 MILLION are internally displaced people
32.5 MILLION are refugees

72% originate from just five countries
More than 7 in 10 of all refugees under UNHCR’s mandate and other people in need of international protection come from just five countries.

Syrian Arab Republic 6.8 million
Venezuela 5.6 million
Ukraine 5.4 million
Afghanistan 2.8 million
South Sudan 2.4 million

36% hosted in five countries
Türkiye hosts the largest number of refugees, with 3.7 million people. Colombia is second with more than 2.5 million, including other people in need of international protection.
Türkiye 3.7 million
Colombia 2.5 million
Germany 2.2 million
Pakistan 1.5 million
Uganda 1.5 million

36.5 million are children

74% hosted in low- and middle-income countries
Low- and middle-income countries host 74 per cent of the world’s refugees and other people in need of international protection. The least developed countries provide asylum to 22 per cent of the total

69% hosted in neighbouring countries

Here we are talking about 40,000 a year. That is NOTHING compared to the number in countries like Turkiye

These figures are not well known. I wonder what would happen if the UNHCR ran adverts to raise awareness of these figures.

Could we do more to bring peace to Syria? We fucked up Afghanistan. Imagine the impact worldwide if refugees felt safe to go home.

The limit on capacity in the country they leave IS THE REASON THEY LEAVE. We can also have a capacity limit

What are you on about? So people from Afghanistan leave because there is a limit on capacity? People in Iran leave for this reason?

Certain posters on this thread don't deal in facts cakeorwine. They deal in hatred.

Delete this if you like MNHQ. But it is the truth.

The laws governing seeking asylum explicitly state that the route of entry into a country is irrelvant when it comes to whether someone can or cannot make an asylum claim.

We know this. This is exactly why they don't use the ports.

Honestly all the open borders shouters talk to anyone else as if they are idiots, and not taxpayers with a vote.

The dehumanisation of UK nationals seems to be acceptable to pro open borders fanatics.

If I had the energy I would copy and paste this every time the lies were peddled about numbers, but it is hard enough keeping up with the lies about what is and isn't legal as far as asylum is concerned.

How about withdrawing from international agreements and having a process that is adequate for us?

No wonder 75% of people who apply are granted asylum if they have no passport. How can they prove they are being persecuted if we don't know where they are coming from? Insane

The dehumanisation of UK nationals seems to be acceptable to pro open borders fanatics

🤪🤪🤪

Yes but apparently a clip that a poster has spammed the thread with states none of this matters. Asylum can be granted anywhere anyhow, people traffickers are not acting illegally infact they could actually be employed by Government as they are performing such a dedicated, absolutely legal service. Its all lovely silly. Nothing to see here.

Actually what is tragic is people are being exploited by criminals crossing the Channel dangerously and that needs do stop.

@IClaudine

Are you able to remain civil?

If you address a comment to me starting with "what are you on about" I will assume not.

If you know that the route of arrival is irrelvant as to whether an asylum claim is valid or not, why do you keep saying that some asylum seekers are illegal or fake?

What do you even mean by fake? Anyone can make an asylum claim in any safe country they choose. It is then up to that country to determine whether they have a valid claim or not. By fake do you mean those that do not have a valid claim? In which case that is only a small proportion of the people who are crossing the channel in small boats.

Regardless of the rights & wrongs of his actual statement, he is saying he wants to express them, & the BBC don't think he should be.
This is the issue. It's a pivotal time for free speech.
I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens with that.
Personally I think he should be able to express his opinion & I don't see how this puts his employers in disrepute. I just thinking most people see him as a person too, & one who has opinions like everyone, & not necessarily connect that to his job

This may have been the kind of thing that Lineker meant when he compared the government to 1930s Germany. The tearing up of carefully thought out international laws introduced in the wake of WW2 is not a good look, especially if you are the country that drafted them.

You are proving my point.

Agree.

And there is zero chance, whatsoever, that he would have been sanctioned for tweeting in support of government policy. It’s indefensible that he could be sanctioned for criticizing it.

I also agree with this. And I wonder, if he has to go for expressing a personal opinion on Twitter, why Lord Sugar wasn’t similarly dealt with when he said ‘Vote Tory’ a few years ago? If you leave Sugar in place but remove Lineker, it looks remarkably like agreeing with the gvt is fine but disagreeing is not.

Since people crossing the channel in small boats is a recent thing, it is quite easy to think back to what changed that caused crossing in this manner to start. That would of course be the much vaunted hostile environment for migrants that a previous home secretary introduced. Simple enough to reserve and then the majority of the crossing by boat would stop.

Here is a video that explains the laws about asylum you may find it instructive to watch it.

twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1634330359839031301

OK. I will try again more politely.

You said: The limit on capacity in the country they leave IS THE REASON THEY LEAVE. We can also have a capacity limit

Please explain what you mean as it makes no sense to me. As far as I am aware, people from Afghanistan, for example, do not leave because there is a "limit on capacity". People in Iran do not leave for this reason.

How about withdrawing from international agreements and having a process that is adequate for us?

You mean the 1951 International Refugee Convention and the ECHR?

Which rights are not adequate for us, or maybe you personally?