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.

It’s the economic cost as well and the feeling of being taken over, pressures on housing and jobs, why does it have to be like this?

Why would they need to when not all Muslims are asylum seekers?

Would you be ok with the 1500 men site nearby to you?

Those berating the op and others must be surely.

Never said that, it's weird to make stuff up

These men committed these crimes while being housed as asylum seekers.
These are who you and we are discussing.

There are racist white thugs who want to hurt non-white people. Yes. There are also white people who just want their country back and want to live in a safe country.

Well, strictly speaking they're right. It's not Sikhs setting bombs off at concerts.

York?

Correct That no culture is marked safe from the depraved.

But why should we want to house more men from countries where it’s not so frowned upon? I’ve read of a few court cases where an illegal
immigrant has claimed ‘cultural differences and misunderstandings’ as defence for raping a woman.

@GaIadriel agree but unfortunaly we instantly inherited organised crime from Albania and Romania etc in the Blair wave.
We had never heard much about modern slavery and human traffiking and suddenly it became a massive thing ,looking at car washes /farms /fruit pickers as well as sex slaves and so on along side massive organised drug crimes .

Semantics are incredibly important. Saying what you mean is incredibly important when talking about whether cultures other than 'British' cultures are welcome in this country. If you're talking about certain cultures you need to say that. Everyone is so keen to jump down politicians throats to accuse them of being antisemitic, if we want to avoid antisemitism we shouldn't be saying we're against other cultures full stop. Say what you mean.

What are you including when you use ‘wrong un’?

What behaviour do you mean?

So all Muslims in the UK need to pay the price for a tiny minority?

How did your Muslim colleagues/neighbours take it when you shared this view?

Exactly, if women have to accept risk of rape from British men, they're just racists if they dont happily accept a risk of rape from forign men we're importing too.

🙄

I want this country to remain recognisably English. I want the dominant culture to be English. I want English people practising English culture - in every meaning of that term including language, religion, what they wear, how loudly they speak on buses, how they engage with government, etc ad nauseum - to feel perfectly at home and comfortable and not like they are travelling in a foreign land.

In order for this to happen there needs to be a critical mass of people actively practising that culture, having been immersed in it since birth.

Today in England there are people who are born here who cannot be said to meaningfully practise any aspect of that culture. Our ideals of diversity and religious tolerance came about in an age where we were essentially arguing about minor differences within Christianity that had very little impact on day to day culture since we'd already kicked out the most annoying Puritans. They're not fit for purpose when we find ourselves wringing our hands about whether it's mean to not want parades of foreigners chanting their way down the high streets of our cities, or as in the OP, not wanting villages overwhelmed with migrant camps...

There are 20th-century theoretical arguments about multiculturalism being different flavours of melting pot or stew or blah blah. They all rely on some kind of idealistic ideal that at least everyone's in the same pot - something like, on Sundays we each go into a different church and then come out a bit later to all play cricket on the village green together.

All those metaphors can get in the bin because we're no longer even cooking in the same kitchen.

That's not true. My town has an active group that supports refugees and asylum seekers. At least 3 members of the group have provided accommodation in their homes for people who have been granted refugee status.

They provide a lot of practical support for them, and are also involved in support for the men housed at Crowborough.

My background is in homeless prevention/resettlement and welfare rights, so I support them with that once they have been granted refugee status.

So youre anti multiculturalism too then by your own ridiculous logic. Congratulations

What is the point in bringing certain cases up? Of course we know that there are white men here who commit crimes… unfortunately we are stuck with them. Even more reason not to bring more men here!

If men are the problem then stop importing more men? Seems logical to me considering boat crossings are over 96% male for a start. There we go, we’ve reduced further risk of VAWG by doing this.

I can't see where anyone on the thread has argued for unlimited asylum seeker intake?

What do you want people to do, ignore that the UK has signed up to the ECHR?

@nomas agree .
Men are a big problem ! But we have a fundamental basis of equal rights in the UK. We can't stop these men but hopefully at least they know it's wrong. Somewhere some education has seeped in.
And we are open in our society.
When we think of the terrors in the catholic church or Jimmy savilles long hidden reign or terror or Harvey Weinstein / charles spencer abused at boarding school...its all coming out and being exposed.

What the hell is going on in these closed communities where there is no where near any foundation of equality at all and where they are taught women are inferior !!

So do I, feel sorry for my Dgc

It is not impossible to leave the ECHR.
Other European countries have or are in the process of ignoring the ECHR.
It appears that some European countries are also tackling the problem where before they let anyone in, as these countries have had bad problems with these migrants/asylum seekers, whatever you want to call them.

Well call it a pre trial if you want. At the end of the day it’s just words. No other country would you expect to just turn up without permission and get to roam around.

No one's importing men.