AIBU to feel helpless about a large asylum camp in our village?

[putupwhatever]

My village has been chosen for a 1500 open asylum camp for single men. It will be an open camp (as the men haven't done anything wrong so aren't detained.)

The thing is the village only has 700 people and it is pretty isolated. it's about 10 miles to the nearest city and you can walk to another small village. There is a playpark, a pub and a primary school.

It has to go through planning, but the government have changed the planning laws so that they grant themselves planning and you can't see it as it is deemed sensitive. So they will just grant themselves planning and you can't oppose it without a judicial review--by which time it will probably be already open.

They want to reduce the number of people in hotels. But am AIBU to think that this puts the burden of sorting these issues out on one tiny community? Feels like we are collateral damage to be honest. The community will be outnumbered 2 to 1 and it feels too much. There is nothing for them to do or places to go. Also the fact that it is all single men put in one massive place with no money or means or anything to do is going to lead to problems

Apparently the camps cost £10 less a night than the hotels. But they don't count the set up costs which are astronomical (the one in Essex was £47 million to set up). So it seems like it's not not even cheaper than the problem it is trying to solve but much more expensive.

AIBU to feel a bit helpless? It seems so unfair but there is nothing I can do. We wouldn't be able to move from the village anyway as no one would buy a house here.

I gather you are not in area with huge expensive houses op?

People don’t want them in Hotels or HMOs, so where are they supposed to go?

The govt are reusing ex-military bases, as I assume this is the cheapest option.

It's a bit of a mix to be honest. There's some expensive houses and then quite a lot of affordable houses for the area as they are ex-MOD. It's a nice area, and our village is probably a bit more down to earth than some around us.

At a guess, I’d say OP is talking about the RAF Barnham site that was just announced in Suffolk.

Would it not make more sense to ensure that asylum seeker provision doesn't put the asylum seeker population above 10% of the local population?

Surely the governement hopes they will intergrate into the community and have a positive impact? Can't do that by overwhelming local resources, tripling the population of a small village with no service capacity to cope and making locals feel like a minority in the village that a lot of them were born and bred in.

I don't want to run the country and sort out all the immigration policy.

I just think that a ratio of 2 to 1 is extreme. If you live in a city of 100,000 how do you think it would affect you life if it was suddenly doubled and it was all young single men with nothing to do? Is it fair that the village is kind of sacrificed to government policy?

Can you get a national newspaper to pick up the story? I hate to say it but the Daily Mail might run with this. Also contact your local MP.

You aren't helpless but you need to think ahead. Talk to the local planning authority and your MP? Ask what is being done to safeguard the local population. 1,500 young men with no female companions and nothing to do, will inevitably lead to tensions.

While the politicians are arguing, you need to consider the safety of every female in your house. Do you have dds? How do they get around? You'll need to reconsider if they walk to school, cycle or run on their own etc. Check your domestic security.

"The community will be outnumbered 2 to 1 "

This is a really unhelpful way to look at it and it kind of speaks to an 'us and them' mentality op. That part I would say really isn't a fair thing and is your exposure to stereotypes speaking. I've worked extensively with single asylum seeking males and ALL of them bar none have been nothing but respectful individuals who were really keen to learn English, learn our culture, build a home and a life for themselves so they could get female or elderly relatives to safety. Most of them were strongly opposed to any sort of extremism which is what they were often running from. I have never ever felt unsafe working with them in the way I have with some local men.

Aside from that I think you are right to be concerned about the impact on community infrastructure which is a totally separate issue. I'd be asking council for their plans around access to healthcare and services that promote health, wellbeing and inclusion.

What I would also say is that for a small village this will likely bring a lot of money to your local shops, volunteers for local charity groups and probably new visitors to your local churches. So your community, if they approach this right, will have the benefit of people with free time and skills/ abilities to lend which is
in real decline in the current climate.

Thats where the military bases are though. If you can identify a Government owned facility, that has the facilities to house people, and that place is in a town or city, let the Government know.

They aren’t allowed to be in hotels or HMOs, so this is the consequence.

you would assume it was the cheapest option but it suprisingly isn't. Have a look up how much it cost to set up the Wethersfield Site. It was £49 million, But they don't include the set up costs which are extortionate in the costings. So the official figures from the Home Affairs committee is that it is £10 cheaper per night in a camp than a hotel--but they haven;t included the vast set up costs. So it doesn't even make sense from that angle.

Is it Barnham? If so, BBC news has an article.

Of course daily mail would love to villainise them before they've even materialised.

What do you think of it though? I know why it has happenedbecause the governent's number one priority is closing hotelseven if they spend more and put the whole burden on a few tiny communities.

The same rag that has campaigned to get the Hotels and HMOs shut down.

That would be my guess too. I had no idea how many people were going to be housed there though.
OP if it is RAF Barnham I have seen a petition on Facebook ( is probably also advertised elsewhere). I’m not sure it will achieve anything, but at least it is taking some action.

Oh god, I would hate this - it's the fact they're all men that I'd be objecting to.

Should be in closed camps until such time as its absolutely certain who they are, where they're from and whether they have a criminal record 🤷‍♀️ safety of the local population first

For £5,000,000 you should be able to buy an hour long feature with Nigel Farage,

I’d have left then in the Travel Lodges they were already in … they were hardly living at The Ritz, and were close to the services they needed.

… but (as we know) all Asylum Seekers are sex-pest, so best to ship them out of the cities, away from services, a put them in a place ill-equipped to cope.

The flag wavers just wanted them out of thier area, and did not care where they went to next.

It's not about villainising the asylum seekers. I'm a realistthere will be good people and bad people in the cohort. When you put a huge amount of destitute young men together there are problemsit attracts a lot of exploitation (sexual, drugs, gangs etc.). We know this from the police commissioner and the information they have been given. Even if it was say 100 people it would a massive % of the community, but at 200% of the community it will be unworkable. This isn't to do with where the asylum seekers are from or casting aspersions on their individual charactersits about groups and numbers. The other thing is these people won't stay in the village even if they are granted refugee statusthey are by nature transient and then moved on so it's not even like you could build relationships

This really.

The thing that has really surprised me and made me angry is that there is no due process. The idea that the government changed the law so they can bypass local planning seems particularly undemocratic. So they now apply to thrmselves for planning and you cant see it cos its top secret

Whilst I agree that it all being men seems a worry, the premises was previously used by the RAF, so mostly men, and it’s harder to argue against.
I am fairly local and am concerned, but it’s hard to object just because they are men. There may be an argument that the previous male occupants were highly trained and disciplined professionals I suppose.

I would not be happy. I have teenaged daughters and I would feel uneasy letting them walk around when there were an extra thousand bored young men around...