Men’s Asylum seeker accommodation next to school

[chibcha]

I feel quite ashamed by how I feel but want to know if it warranted.

There has been an announcement that a 500 men’s asylum seeker accommodation is going ahead against councils decision (it was overruled on a national scale). This is Stafford btw

It will be butted up to (no gap) to my DCs school and opposite a nursery. It’s not because they are asylum seekers that concerns me. It’s the fact it’a 500 men unit, with many with no known history / criminal records/ mental state.

I work over an hour away and currently my daughter who is 12 walks to the bus etc, she also does after school clubs then walks home alone. Most parents at the school are talking about moving their kids but in reality and logistically that’s not going to happen.

I genuinely feel scared for her safety. AIBU?
Its the location of it that’s wrong and the fact the council stated issues and concerns so refused it but got overruled by the government…

@Zipidydodah what a thoroughly excellent post.

I would be in favour of the Australian model. Round where I live they housed almost 500 in a town of 25,000 people. Issues at yeh local school, my friends and myself who are women really don’t like it. Even the very Liberal minded friends I have.

Dulra "I do think we need to remember they are people with lives with loved ones with people that love them"

They left those loved ones behind in that 'war torn' country they claim to be from and they headed for the country currently gullible enough to believe them.

They destroy their papers and laugh at us as they do.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12287313/More-13-000-migrants-crossed-Channel-boat-year-338-people-yesterday.html

No they don’t. Stop making things up.

Pretty sure they don't normally buy return tickets on the boats. 😂

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/401-planning-news/54456-councils-win-permission-for-judicial-review-over-home-office-decision-to-use-airfields-for-asylum-seeker-accommodation#:~:text=Braintree%20District%20Council's%20judicial%20review,Class%20Q%20permitted%20development%20rights.

500 men who left their families and passed via many safe countries, knowing they would be feed and roof of their head.

@Westcoastwoman because it's now safe for him to return? Governments change etc

They do not have to seek asylum in the nearest safe country. You've already been told this.

In that case it should be safe for all the people crossing the channel to return to France, as the war there finished in 1945 🤔

Thanks, this is interesting, although it sounds like the judicial review might be on planning technicalities, and might not clear up the broader issues which we've been discussing.

I think that JR is based on the fact neither council made planning applications and instead relied on permitted development rights. That’s not the case in Stafford where the planning application went all the way to appeal.

It will advance on three grounds at the High Court, including a ground that challenges the use of Class Q permitted development rights. The second and third grounds concern an Environmental Impact Assessment direction and an Equality Impact Assessment.

The bit of Class Q it refers to allows the government to repurpose "Crown" land without applying for planning permission in an emergency.

@ilovesooty don't be an idiot. They destroy passports and refuse to get finger printed - because they know they will never be sent back to their country of origin - which we can't prove so don't know if it's safe.

It's always men.

It's always young men.

It's always men that are going to hurt our females.

I've been sexually assaulted by them. Yet gig don't date.

Care*

Oh look at this. They get what they want, amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/09/home-office-backs-down-on-plan-for-asylum-seekers-to-sleep-four-in-a-room

Meanwhile thousands of families are homeless in the capital

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1792151/RAF-Wethersfield-asylum-seekers-scabies

Why am I an idiot for pointing out a fact to you? Are you unable to debate with civility?

They do not have to seek asylum in the nearest safe country. You've already been told this.

The naivety here is breathtaking ! If they were genuinely desperate they would.

Not necessarily for a whole myriad of reasons that have been explained endlessly on previous threads.

The issue here is that it's 500 men. Statistically there will likely be men with dodgy backgrounds and interests when it comes to teenager w]girls and young women.

If this was too female asylum seekers and even 500 fully mixed asylum seekers it was be much less of an issue. It's the large group of males that is the issue I think.

It’s just breathlessly naive and pretty ungrateful to the feminists who came before us not to acknowledge the unprecedented level of independence, respect and safety women enjoy in the west. I’ve started to wonder if we will regress over the next decades.

If you read the planning decision, it is intended to be mixed accommodation.

I agree
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/asylum-seeker-charged-rape-skegness/

Well when you've got people like Jess Phillips if I recall correctly telling us it's nothing, what else is there to expect. Although she may have changed her stance since Cologne?