Why is the public directing their anger at the individual asylum seeker that arrives at the shore…

[AnotherNC12345]

… rather than the smuggling / trafficking gangs that are responsible for the journey?

I think it’s very extreme to put all of the blame and the anger at the individual that arrives, rather than the people responsible for orchestrating the whole process. These individuals are often ‘sold the dream’ and hooked in by organised crime groups who direct them to the UK. I’ve looked at sample routes from different parts of the world (screenshots may be pending) and these are complex and would need local people, as well as law enforcement, customs officers and other government officials to turn a blind eye involved in smuggling across multiple borders.

It’s no secret that these crossings likely cost a lot of money, and I think it would be safe to assume that refugees would often be in crippling debt to the OCGs who will put pressure on them to pay it back, by threatening them and their families and I would go as far as to say they could then be coerced in to further committing crimes when granted asylum in order to pay back their debt.

These OCGs are likely involved in other trafficking / crime, not just of asylum seekers but likely drugs, weapons and sex as they have the connections across those borders.

I think it’s very unlikely that an asylum seeker is sitting there looking at all the European government websites and shopping for a country with the best benefits package and approaching a trafficker with a brochure like they’re picking a Jet2 holiday. But this is the narrative that’s often put us and fuelled in the media.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a better system and want to control our borders better on a whole, but this sheer anger and blame placed at the human in front of us seems very misplaced, when they were likely manipulated in to thinking they can have a better life in this particular country and not another, and the problem is way way bigger than an individual.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum//

https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/united-kingdom/statistics/

🤷🏼‍♀️ I don’t lie.

You can get as ragey as you want but you know that people can vote how they want whether they believe it or not.

Actually, no. If I went to see a doctor in Bulgaria or Romania, the idea that I should be ENTITLED to an interpreter would be treated as deranged.

As a pp has said, most of that act has been repealed and some bits were never actually implemented.

Can you point to which specific clause in the legislation states that you cannot pay people for a lift on a small boat?

In the context of Romania and Bulgaria specifically:

Romania

What’s guaranteed (by law / policy):

• Law 122/2006 on asylum gives asylum seekers certain rights: to be given information in a language they understand; to have a legal translator/interpreter free of charge in the asylum procedure.
• Asylum seekers have the right to free primary health care, emergency hospital care, and treatment in acute or chronic illnesses that are life-threatening.

Bulgaria

What’s guaranteed (by law / policy):

• Asylum seekers in Bulgaria have the right to receive an interpreter free of charge as part of the asylum procedure (for interviews, etc.).
• They also have the right to access health care, and their health insurance is paid by the State Agency for Refugees during the asylum procedure.

The availability in those countries is the issue. But yes should one be available, they are entitled to it. You’re not, as you’re not an asylum seeker.

Credible sources , lol. Just had a look at both of them. Both pro migration orgs, it seems. I particularly enjoyed the cover illustration of a tiny pair of hands grasping a strand of barbed wire, and the immediate pop up for Amnesty. Perhaps take a look at Migration Watch.......🙄

As it happens, unfortunately,I lived about 100 yards from Bulgaria's newest migrant reception centre ( Svilengrad,Haskovo oblast) which contained many nationalities,varying from Syrians,Malians,Afghans to Mongolians, and can assure you ,from personal conversations with them,that no interpreting was done there.
And of course, the people the NHS are so keen to interpret for are,in the main,not asylum seekers either.

Like I say, availability and willingness will vary, that doesn’t mean there’s no entitlement.

Is there an ' entitlement ' to translation services imposed on the NHS by anyone, I wonder.

@OwlBeThere - escaping from wars they don’t want to fight in

Hmmm, do you think it would have been acceptable in WW1 and 2 for young men from this country to have made their way to “safe” economically-prosperous countries, leaving their kinfolk behind and their compatriots to fight in their stead?

You cannot generally enter countries legally without a passport. That’s why we have them. It’s what passport means. That’s our normal - far more noticeable on planes than at road borders but Schengen was always the exception rather than the rule. So the small boat is a red herring, but equally many of those small boats sink so don’t let’s pretend they are legally run, insured or registered.

I personally know asylum seekers, they are not allowed to work. Their housing, bills and a basic living allowance was paid for while their asylum claim went through. Ok so they can’t claim benefits that residents can but public money is still given to them.

Absolutely.

• NHS organisations (GP surgeries, hospitals, community health services) are required under the Equality Act 2010 and the NHS Constitution to make services accessible. That includes providing interpreters for patients who do not speak English well.
• This applies to spoken languages (face-to-face, video, or telephone interpreters) and to British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters.
• You do not have to pay for interpreting services — it is the NHS provider’s responsibility.

I’m happy to keep researching on your behalf, but I would hope you get the picture now.

Of course they aren't legally run. The trafficking gangs are criminal operations exploiting desperate and vulnerable people. And obviously you can't usually enter a country without a passport, but that isn't what we were talking about.

The pp stated that the law specifically prohibits people from paying for lifts on small boats. I was querying this.

Surely the answer is obvious - because that person, assuming you mean an illegal immigrant rather than a genuine asylum seeker, has chosen this country, and paid a lot of money to a criminal. They have passed through other safe countries, but choose to come to the UK as they know they are almost certainly not going to be removed, and will be housed/fed/given limitless free legal help. Nobody should be allowed to do this, in any country. I've lived in outher countries and in order to be able to do so have had to had proof of a job to go to, to prove I could speak the language, to have a medical and health insurance. All fine by me, why should I expect to be looked after at the expense of that country's citizens? Nothing to do with racism at all, more to do with entitlement and flouting the law.

Is it 40%?

In recent years, women have made up approximately 7-12% of people arriving in the UK on small boats, with figures from the year ending June 2025 showing 83.6% of arrivals were men, 12.5% women

Yes but Connor McGregor is also famous for being a boxer and therefore quite popular. I think also some of the "women" supporting him and Andrew Tate on here were actually men in disguise as they are both worryingly popular with a small sub-group. It is still shocking though I agree!

It's more complicated though with things like the war in Syria where the (horrendous) Assad regime was fighting rebels who sort of got taken over by time by Isis aligned groups. Its probably closer to the Spanish civil war where you had fascists fighting an odd mix of anarchists/Communists etc but where the (almost as bad) Communist forces were at times attacking/suppressing the anarchists and other groups. For all the romanticism given to that war it would have been hard, in the ground, to work out who the good guys were and I wouldn't blame young men for fleeing.

You also had horrific treatment of "deserters" from Assad's army (that is men that didn't want to fight, often against their own people). Including Wagner troops filming themselves torturing and beheading young men and using their heads as a football. And fleeing and fighting for the opposite side could easily land you with ISIS. Who are also bad guys. Or, if an Alawite automa6viewes as a traitor.

It's more complicated though with things like the war in Syria where the (horrendous) Assad regime was fighting rebels who sort of got taken over by time by Isis aligned groups. Its probably closer to the Spanish civil war where you had fascists fighting an odd mix of anarchists/Communists etc but where the (almost as bad) Communist forces were at times attacking/suppressing the anarchists and other groups. For all the romanticism given to that war it would have been hard, in the ground, to work out who the good guys were and I wouldn't blame young men for fleeing.

You also had horrific treatment of "deserters" from Assad's army (that is men that didn't want to fight, often against their own people). Including Wagner troops filming themselves torturing and beheading young men and using their heads as a football. And fleeing and fighting for the opposite side could easily land you with ISIS. Who are also bad guys. Or, if an Alawite automa6viewes as a traitor.
Eritreans also face compulsory conscription but there isnt really an alternative "good guy" they can fight for

Im not saying we can or should accept everyone. But comparing young men fleeing a bad situation to the second world war is unfair because WW2 was a situation with a much clearer "bad guy" who crucially was attacking from outside. Civil wars are much messier and morally complex (and deadly).

NRTFT but people are angry with everyone, the individuals making the treacherous journey over here and the govt for not managing the situation much more effectively.
The reason for most people's ire is more a cultural issue than a racist one, as well as quite simply, we don't have the infrastructure to support unlimited amounts of people who are fleeing from whatever they're fleeing from!

Perhaps these people ARE deserving, but if we don't have the means to support them, then we don't have the means!

The support isn't just limited to how much they receive in their hands every week, it is so much more than that.
It is the cost of their accommodation, the admin cost of processing the claims of asylum, the cost of interpreters, health care, and once they have been successful in their asylum claim, the cost of educating them and their children, supporting their need for housing and ongoing health care.
All in a country that is struggling to provide the basics for the people who already call the UK home.
Schools, councils, social care and the NHS are on the brink of collapse from the people who are already here, and still we add more and more people.
If you look around, vitriol is directed at anyone who is seen to be costing the tax payer money, because the cost of supporting the people who are already here is totally unsustainable as it is.

We cannot afford to support ever growing numbers of people who, for one reason or another, cannot support themselves.

@MIMITHEONION and I agree on a lot in your post. Hence why I feel the anger is misplaced. By all means question the system, the people in charge. But on a human level, waving a banner in someone’s face saying you’re the scum of the earth and you are not welcome here just isn’t okay

Can somebody please explain to me what people trafficking actually is?
People trafficking implies to me, taking somebody and transporting them somewhere they don't want to go.

Yes, that's a reasonable assumption, but it's my understanding that people (actually, adults) can in fact "consent" to being trafficked. I think the thing that makes it trafficking rather than just people smuggling is because there is some form of deception, coercion or other abuse of power. And with the intention to exploit.

More here if you want to get the proper legal explanation:

https://hopeforjustice.org/news/new-free-online-training-with-a-uk-focus/

Yes. I do. And I’m really fucking sad about it. But I also think that if the will of the country is to submit to fascists and liars, then we as a country will get what we deserve. I actually think the human race as a whole are a fucking mess who will get what we deserve. 🤷🏼‍♀️