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.

Yeah, yeah, everyone is entitled to a defence but, as I stated, this individual was represented by a chambers known for a liking for anti-establishment causes; it was not chance he ended up with them.

Don't a client's solicitors choose which barrister or chambers to instruct?

Back in the dark ages when I was a legal clerk that was the case, and they always instructed those with specialist experience in the relevant type of matter. They'd be mad to use, eg, a matrimonial specialist for an immigration matter, and I suspect that immigration specialists tend to be in chambers with something of a specialis in human rights related work.

We don’t need them all to be highly educated. Many of them work in low skilled jobs that are difficult to fill with our “own.”

A skilled work visa type already exists.

Fair point re benefits, it is an improvement on where many of them come from. No issue with that either, to be honest. If their visa type allows for recourse to public funds then that’s been decided by someone who’s job it was to make that decision.

It is publicly available for here and other EU countries. Journalists are lazy too and even BBC will spread misinformation, as I found out at a recent talk from a high profile BBC speaker.

Can you point me to a link or anything I’ve had a look but haven’t found anything that gives that info. I’ll keep looking but if you know you could point me in the right direction

I have the advantage of being lucky enough to possess excellent academic ability and that means I’ve been able to hold on to my career even with a progressive disability
@OwlBeThere
Here you’re boasting about how clever you are, yet you make statements about how big landowners shouldn’t be allowed so much land and it’s wrong that the royal family have so many bedrooms and ‘acres of lands doing nothing’ and so on.

However when asked for examples of the Royal family’s land that does nothing and how many bedrooms are too many and what is the maximum amount of land someone can own you are unable to come with any answers.
If you’re so clever surely you’ve thought these things through and have the answers?

There was an interesting section on an R4 programme yesterday, which put the cost of the Royal family at £4 per head, and the income from tourism etc. at about £15 benefit. You couldn't pay me enough to be the Princess of Wales but I am delighted someone wants to be, and even more pleased that she is so flipping brilliant at doing it. I really don't care that they probably have a spare bedroom or two.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOvf_XuAD_w/?igsh=ZHRnY2RvMGRleDA2

We don't know who these people are. Wait until this becomes the normality for children and parents.

Here’s an article in the local news that explains that video: https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/25477896.essex-police-statement-suspicious-behaviour-schools/

This isn't what the parents are saying. Who knows what the truth is.

Probably not “Creepwatchuk” judging by the rest of the “news” they’ve covered .

We don’t need them all to be highly educated. Many of them work in low skilled jobs that are difficult to fill with our “own.”

There should be a Gulf-style guest worker visa category for lower skilled roles. Worker only, no family. No pathway to permanent residency.
I'd suggest in return rebating tax payments on departure.

That way the jobs get done and we avoid the ageing population pyramid scheme we currently have going on.

A skilled work visa type already exists.

Indeed, that was my pathway.

So in essence - you can come here and care for our disabled and elderly, but you may not bring your family?

I don’t think so.

So in essence - you can come here and care for our disabled and elderly, but you may not bring your family?
I don’t think so.

Why not? Millions of workers consider working in the UAE, Qatar, Saudi etc under those conditions to be an incredible opportunity, enabling them to earn far more money in a few years than would otherwise have been possible.

But we have a returns agreement with them, so it must be okay, right?

@SpaceRaccoon

If people are coming here to provide this country with a service or role that we need, the very least we could do is allow them to bring their wives and families.

That’s how most of the world manages migration. Why should UK taxpayers pay to school your kids and pay your whole family’s medical bills, just because you choose to wipe a couple of bums because it’s an easier way to earn money than goat herding?

Did you even open that document? Afghanistan is not on the list.

In fact further down it says that the return agreement has been inoperable since 2021, following a change in regime.

Restarting that, I assume, involves a deal with the Taliban. And, no.

What a disgusting, dismissive way to phrase it.

Careful. Your mask is slipping.

I used to wipe bums for a living. No mask. And the goat herder wasn't doing anything as useful as wiping bums.
www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/courts/illiterate-goatherder-from-iraq-jailed-for-selling-drugs-on-streets-of-aberystwyth-731158

Okay, go down the list. You okay with returns to Sierra Leone, Somalia, or Vietnam? They’re on the list with no caveats.

What's the issue with Vietnam? DNeice went there with her friends a few months ago

Apparently it’s still one of the top countries for asylum grants in the UK.

Hundreds of Afghans go home on holiday.

That drug dealer also isn’t a carer. I’m not sure why you pull that example out, it’s got nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

I remain convinced that if someone comes here to complete the valuable task of caring for our most vulnerable, they shouldn’t have to do so alone.

Your original question was about Afghanistan, before we realised you hadn’t actually looked. No need to go through the rest of the list, Afghanistan was your point and it remains a no.

What a strange way of looking at things. So should I pay for the education and healthcare of all the people and their families who choose to wipe bums or scrub toilets, or even do nothing at all just because they’re British?

Spoiler alert - I have no issue with doing so, because I believe in giving back.

You won’t see much in the way of outward protest because Vietnam is a one party state, you’re not allowed to disagree with the government, or you disappear, they are on yeh watch list of amnesty international and human rights watch. Tourists are safe as the people are so rigidly controlled.