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.

The NHS is one of the most cherished British institutions and is a big part of British national identity.

Unfortunately so. One of the sacred cows we dare not criticise. Designed for a different time and a different population, but god forbid we try anything different or come up with something better.

’A big part’ our national identity, though? That’s over-egging it a bit! 😁

The NHS was created as a promise that healthcare would be free and fair for everyone, and many people are genuinely proud of that. The NHS often ranks above the monarchy in surveys about what makes people proud to be British. I'm all for changes to the NHS, in keeping with that original promise. But saying it's a part of British national identity is not over-egging it; it's evidentially true.

"In France, and 157,947 people claimed asylum.
For Germany, it was 229,751 claimed asylum." France accepted only around 25% of claims (40k). The UK accepts about 70% (75K), some of whom have already had claims rejected in other countries; wonder why they come here?

These articles are so depressing.

This is what people are concerned by. A known, convicted Islamic terrorist enters country the illegally, claims asylum, rapes a woman late at night in a park while waiting for his claim to be processed and is now locked up in prison.

And the judicial system is still discussing his rights and whether he should be deported or not.

While living in the Hilton, I might add......

There’s nothing wrong with saying something was great achievement, and we’re glad to have had it, but it no longer serves us well, so we’ll look into alternatives going into the future. That’s progress.

What's the alternative to free to access healthcare?

You not liking the NHS doesn't mean it isn't a widely recognised and highly valued British institution.

Similarly, Britishness doesn't have to mean what you want it to mean.

Right back at you - it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean, either. I’m not the one arguing that British people need to slavishly adhere to failing systems, emotionally invest in them, make them part of their national identity out of a sense of nostalgia, or fear of what comes afterwards. There was a Britain long before the NHS and there will be one after it’s gone.

Was that what I said?

It was not.

I don't decide what it means to be British and (thankfully) nor do you.

The French are generally more left-wing than the Brits, and even they don’t embrace communist healthcare with our inexplicable zeal and pride. Their healthcare is still universal and ime excellent. Wish I could say the same about “our” NHS!

Surprised by your comment about national identity. My experience has always been that most people are proud of the NHS, if not outright patriotic about it. The NHS was even featured in the London 2012 opening ceremony. Not many countries would do that. The relatively recent attempts to destroy it may have dampened people's enthusiasm, but the ideas behind it play a part in how Brits see ourselves in relation to our national values such as a sense of decency and fair play (because everyone should be entitled to health care, not just the wealthy).

I didn't say it was delivering a high quality service, I said it was severely underfunded and being propped up by people from all over the world. I personally think it needs to be better funded and improved. But certainly not replaced by something that is not free at point of access. I think a lot of British people are happy we live in the country where we don't leave people to die because they can't afford private healthcare.

Absolutely

Thank you. Apologies, I completely misunderstood.

No of course they don’t! The vast majority of immigrants to the UK agree with us. Which is why they want to be here and not Afghanistan, for example.

I was going to say the same. Britain was the First Nation in the world to offer free, universal and comprehensive healthcare to all its residents. The minister of healthcare (founder) at the time said himself “No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.” - to me things like this are British values and ones to be proud of.

I’m fully on board with British values. Decency, welcoming people in distress. “Christian” values, not so much.

A known, convicted Islamic terrorist

here is where more work needs to be done whilst screening people on entry. If he is ‘known’ then how did he slip through the cracks? This is where the Home Office is failing us.

It was lovely for you because you’re not an asylum seeker.

Many years ago I stayed in a hotel on the outskirts of Paris. That wasn’t so lovely. They’re treated like trash.

I don’t even know what that means.

I’m fairly sure that most NHS consultants born overseas don’t practice witchcraft.

Are you seriously suggesting that they do? Seriously?

Targeting kids near me https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/anti-immigration-march-counter-protest-10507794

What have we come to?

The bigger picture being;
1.) they are not all asylum seekers/refugees
2.) the UK can not accommodate an infinite number of displayed people
3.) people are sick of seeing their communities rotting away through disrepair, lack of funding for services, NHS dentist/GP/hospital waiting lists ever growing and generally getting less services for more tax while we spend ££££s on ILLEGAL migrants
4.) people don’t want huge numbers of unvetted young males with vastly different cultural values (particularly towards girls and women) living in their communities
5.) people can appreciate diversity whilst still not wanting a complete change to the fabric of British society

Not wanting a society in which FGM, honour killings and sharia law exist does not make one xenophobic.

If I may offer a different view? I am proud that the NHS is open and accessible. Everyone should be treated for the basics without cost, because 90% will be a child that needs antibiotics for an ear infection or a roofer who's slid down a ladder and broken a leg. Easy and straightforward to deal with. The problems arise when everyone, from your/my 24-week premie to your/my 94 YO is deemed equally deserving of every cutting edge procedure. Medicine can fix so much more than was possible at the inception of the NHS, and the costs have ballooned too.

I would provide basic care via the NHS... child and maternal health ++, injuries, obviously. Older people's hips and knees, done with an income related contribution, but promptly. I would almost certainly exclude all fertility treatments (sorry). And as I have the chair, briefly, doctors would have to make a very solid case for funding unproven procedures except in terminal cases.

But alongside my fairly bare bones NHS, there could be (as there is in most of Europe) a health insurance industry that's not modelled on the US. Everyone paid more than £x makes a contribution, and can access care beyond the basic.

Do people (you reading this on MN) not realise what a poor vision of life you are seeing? People in the poorest state of the USA earn on average 25% more. The UK is headed back to the third world, and fast.

Interesting and knowledgeable personal experience, thanks for that. If I were you and someone asked me what nationality I was, I would say French/German or Dutch because that is what I had chosen to be and that nation had accepted me as such.

Different perspectives I suppose.