My doctor was late to my appointment because he had been at the local country hotel full of asylum seekers...

[doodiethewonderdog]

When was the last time you had a home visit? Is this a way of managing the " problem" by them taking clinics there? Is it a way of hiding this issue? I understood they did not have access to the NHS yet I see massive bags of medicine labelled for this hotel too at the dispensary. We wait about 6-7 weeks for a routine appointment.

This is a link to the Stek Oost wikipedia page, which seems to illustrate the sorts of things I think people are fair to be concerned about - the misogyny that asylum seekers may bring with them.

They are. About 1 in 5 asylum seekers in the U.K. are female. The others are often in refugee camps near their home countries waiting for men to do the journey, in which women would be at far higher risk of sex trafficking and rape than the men, and then send for them. It’s pretty obvious really.

The asylum seekers in asylum hotels are here legally and are ‘in the system’. The hotels are similar to hostels provided to homeless families, if anything they are worse on average. They are expensive - HMG pays - but this has nothing to do with quality.

I agree completely that housing and healthcare are broken. But that has almost nothing to do with the small number of refugees in the country. Arguably these problems began during the Thatcher years and have been getting worse since, with a great decline during the Tory government of 2010-2024. Of course the pandemic did not help.

No country is a Utopia

Do you know what i need to click on to translate it I cant see it Thanks

Please show a policy of any party including labour that suggests building new council homes for asylum seekers?

My doctor is constantly late because of all the old people that take up all his time, how can we sort this problem?

@cardibach They are. About 1 in 5 asylum seekers in the U.K. are female.

It's a misconception among people like you that women are a minority group, and are greatly outnumbered by men. That is simply not correct.

Just over 50% of the population globally are women. If the gender ratio of asylum seekers reflected the global population, then a slight majority of asylum seekers would be women.

Then why are women not crossing the English channel?

Women and children have died trying to cross the Channel,

Maybe do a bit of research before asking such a silly question.

Some are. Why don’t you go back and read the rest of my posts which explain quite clearly why only 2 in 5 people crossing the channel are women and children, and why the rest feel it’s safer to stay in a camp until safe passage can be secured. It’s obvious really, you shouldn’t need it explaining (yet again).

These threads always go the same way. People ask nonsense questions, and other people will go out of their way to explain the facts. But the questioners won’t engage with their responses because it disproves their assertions, so they just continue to ask further inane questions. How about you read what people have actually written and reply to that?

Eh? I know women make up 51% of the population. Why
do you think I don’t? I have no idea what your point is.
1 in 5 asylum seekers in the U.K. is female (or female or a child, depending on your data source). That’s all I said.

Fear of death?

Some are though.

Men die in the channel too. Drowning in the channel is not gender-specific.

Your answer does not explain why only men are attempting to enter the UK via the channel.

Can I ask why you are opposed to the UK doing more to help women, given that women are the main victims in wars and conflicts?

Logically, if we want to help people seeking asylum, then the vast majority of people we take in should be women. Yet, the vast majority of people we take in are men.

The gender ratio of the people taken in the UK simply does not support the argument that these people are asylum seekers. The evidence indicates that these men are not asylum seekers.

Because it's not only men.

If you keep saying it is, can you back that up with some facts please.

It’s not only men. If you know women and children have died trying to cross the channel, you must know that women and children have tried to cross the channel.

Is that you nige?

@DuncinToffee, @GalaxyJam Neither of you are getting this.

At the very least, the gender ratio of asylum seekers should reflect the general population. So a slight majority should be women.

Logically, the vast majority of asylum seekers should be women, given that women face greater hardships in times of war and conflict.

If 1 in 5 asylum seekers are women, then that means 4 in 5 asylum seekers are men. So for every 4 men entering the country, only 1 woman enters. That means women are a very small minority of asylum seekers. Do you understand ratios?

Sorry, I’m not engag8ng wit( you anymore. It’s all nonsense, straw manning and make believe. I’m not opposed to so7nds more to help women. I’ve said e,se where in th thread we should make it possible to apply for asylum from home countries. You are twisting words and being disingenuous. Shame on you.

For reasons people have explained ad nauseam it won’t be population percentages.

And why do you think there are more men than women? And why do you think that means that men can’t be real asylum seekers?

If asylum seekers were allowed to get on a plane to come here, do you not think that there would be more women and children coming here?

Given that you said earlier that parents should be crossing treacherous mountain ranges on foot with FIVE year olds, maybe you’re still not aware of the risks of mountaineering or crossing oceans in an inflatable boat? Is it beyond your wit to acknowledge that it is too arduous a journey, and too risky for many women and children, and that is the reason the gender numbers are not equal?

But it’s not only men? Why are you saying that?

Eh? I know all about ratios. I was replying to your post where you said it’s ’only men’ crossing the channel. That is factually incorrect.

Here are two big reasons why the count if asylum seekers skews male:

Men, particularly young men, are vulnerable to forced conscription which can mean being swept up at the point of a machine gun by whichever warlord’s gang sweeps through your village first. Families put their life savings into sending their young men to safety, even with people smugglers.

For both practical and cultural reasons, husbands and fathers often travel first. The plan is that they, who are strongest, will make the dangerous journey. The women and children will join them when they receive asylum, under the Family Reunification Scheme. People arriving in the UK under the FRS are not counted as asylum seekers. Thus many women who come to join their husbands are not counted as asylum seekers.

No one goes to sea on a small rickety boat unless it is safer than staying put, and that goes double for putting a child on one.

Because racists trot out the same old disproven nonsense as facts.

• They’re all men.
• They all come to the UK and we’re the only country any asylum seeker could possibly want to come to.
• No other countries take asylum seekers, but they pass through all those countries to get here.
• They come because they get more benefits here.
• They get given phones, tablets, teslas, etc
• They’re housed in 4* hotels with spas and room service.
• They’re all rapists.
• They want to convert us to Islam and force us to live under Sharia law.
• They are all going to steal our jobs, while at the same time not getting jobs and sitting on their arses on benefits*

*when in actual fact they’re not allowed to work, nor claim benefits.