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.

Well at least you are honest in your bigotry.

I remember seeing on the news in 2015-2017 the alleged increase in crime (especially rape) in Sweden and Germany from the asylum seekers.

If it was just right wing media hysteria and the data doesn't actually show this then I'm happy to be corrected.

I said acres of land, not a large garden.
the royal family are one example, Anders Holch Povlsen is another. Such Uneven distribution of wealth is wrong.

I’m not suggesting we fill the countryside with houses.

the royal family are one example, Anders Holch Povlsen is another. Such Uneven distribution of wealth is wrong.

Ok well please will you answer my question; how much land should one family be allowed to own?
Does Povslen just let all the productive land he owns lie fallow? Or is it farmed? Moors and mountains cover many acres but it’s mostly unproductive except for sheep. However as far as I know people can walk on it and enjoy the beautiful scenery.

Owlbethere sorry I sent my last post before I’d finished it.
Can you give some examples of areas of land owned by the royal family that do nothing? Parks like Windsor are grazed and are beautiful places for people to walk.
You may be referring to Povslen’s large scale rewilding which I agree there may be arguments against .

Rewilding is a whole new issue. It's fashionable, but deluded IMO. Most large estates owned by wealthy families are carefully managed to be productive and profitable, even grouse moors bring in revenue despite being fairly useless for agricultural pursuits.

I don’t believe that you can be a billionaire ethically, exploitation of other people creates billionaires and as such they are morally dubious.
I can’t give you a specific number, personally I don’t believe that any of us own the earth and we shouldn’t live in a world where some people control huge percentages of a place whilst others starve to death.
i think it’s obscene that the royal family have houses with literally hundreds of bedrooms whilst people have nowhere to live, it baffles me that people are going after asylum seekers and refugees for taking up too much space, but are quite ok with that situation. I genuinely don’t understand it.

There are doctors and nurses and lawyers and physiotherapists and experienced carers and psychologists and teachers and many many more in those boats. Have you ever even spoken to a person who came in that way? Probably not. You’re just happy to assume they’re all criminals because it fits your narrative and stops you having to face the uncomfortable reality that these people are the same as you or me, they just happen to be born in a place that is currently unstable.

@OwlBeThere , I hope you are very very young because what I am about to write may be hurtful. There are clever people, who may be rich, and who might pass on clever genes to their offspring who might piss it up the wall or, get even richer. They might be cleverer than you, or more hard working. There are also a lot more people who are less clever; some are frankly stupid and could not find their way out of a paper bag. The bottom line is that life is not (and has never been) fair.

Until we get a breakdown, boat by boat, with certification of the qualifications of the people paying for transport on small rubber boats, then I tend to believe that most of them are economic migrants planning to deal drugs or clean cars. Call me cynical.

More assumptions and wrong again. My work in public health regularly and routinely brings me into contact with people off the boats - around 150/200 people every month. I’m involved in doing basic health assessments, ensuring people are vaccinated/free from TB etc and that they have medicines they need.

In the past 18 months, this has included two women and four children. The rest have been unskilled young men with extremely poor/no English and few skills. A couple of carpenters and farmers but that’s been it.

@Youdontseehow , your version is more credible.

You'd be wrong that most are economic migrants based on data showing % grants of asylum to people who have arrived via small boats.

I think the only "fact" is that they think they are reaching the Promised Land. They will rapidly be disabused of any such delusions. Bring on strict ID requirements.

No, I disagree, but I am probably older than you, and sceptical about most 'obvious' truths. Most economic migrants just see a better economy than the one they are leaving behind. I don't believe they are leaving for anything more than a better life, and I don't disagree with their reasoning either. But I also think that we/us/the UK/EU/Western world have put a lot of time and blood into making the world we live in, and we should only welcome people who wish to contribute to making it better.

If the intention is to create little [Syria/Pakistan/India/ Iran/Iraq] in Nottingham or Plymouth, then I am against the idea. Stay in Syria or wherever, and make your country what you want it to be.

Many years ago we did work at integrating refugees - Poirot was a fictional character but how he came to Britain and was welcomed at the local tea parties was based on fact. Then there’s Paddington!
We didn’t do this with the Windrush generation, we invited them then stuck notices on doors, and shuffled them all down the arse end of any city.
We didn’t learn from that.
Apart from the Ukrainians, and tbf some of the Syrian resettlement.
ESOL funding was cut around 2010 so access to learning English was made harder. I’ve taught people trying to get on the English FS rather than via the better route for them - though conversely some were way better educated, way better at grammar than I but they needed to jump through our requirement hoops to get anywhere.
Tbf also we have very little community going on for anyone - few adult centres with no free stuff such as cooking etc, though I think something like sure start may be coming back in.
Personally, I have no issue with different languages and find different cultures give so much to broaden our experience. Also in fact if my parents’ street had not been multi cultural they’d have had a much harder time when aging - family/community is really, really important in some cultures and they often extend that to everyone around.
I think you must have missed that one by led by donkeys projected onto the white cliffs of Dover I think, where an asylum seeker told his story, he was a dr.
Obviously, not all asylum seekers are drs - war doesn’t discriminate, but don’t dismiss out of hand. It’s quite a feat to get here - maybe they have enough bravery and nous to do well here.

You may hold an opinion but what you're saying is demonstrably false. You are assuming the majority are economic migrants despite evidence to the contrary. The majority of people who have arrived by small boats have been granted asylum. Making vague comments about age and obvious truths doesn't change that. How much experience have you with the processes involved in seeking asylum?

Absolutely zero, frankly.

The issue is the world’s population with much of it living in untenable situations - likely to get worse. And then some living in pretty awful situations - for example letting yourself and your kids die of aids when a retroviral drug across the sea would solve it - not a reason for granting asylum but you’d chase that if possible wouldn’t you.
We do need a global solution- migration will increase though no one says that in any government. There are options - stop cutting foreign aid, stop bombing places, work collectively across the world. Let people understand the world isn’t going to remain rich. Get billionaires on board.
I can’t be a fan of I’m alright Jack - anyway it also wouldn’t end well ultimately. For me, we’ve had benefits of globalisation and now we need to accept responsibilities too.

But I don't think there is much evidence that the rubber boats are mainly full of useful professional people either. On balance, given the normal skill distribution across any population, it's probably reasonable to assume that 70% are keen but uneducated. Given that our own secondary schools manage to produce illiterates too, why am I worrying?

“400 million years ago, when the first fish crawled up onto the land. OUR LAND.

Coming up here, onto OUR land with your barely developed lungs, and your hopes and dreams of a better tomorrow for fish. Get back in the sea!

I say we need to ensure the brightest and best fish stay in the sea and concentrate on making it aquatically prosperous instead of coming up here onto the land and beginning the process of evolution that will eventually lead to all life on Earth as we know it.”

I liked it when there was NOTHING.

The NOTHING days, nothing nothing nothing!