Lilly Allen has apologised - on your behalf

[Beati Dogu]

They're not fluent in English. They can grunt a few words of really bad pidgin English. They're totally unemployable.

[durbster]

Beati Dogu said:

They're not fluent in English. They can grunt a few words of really bad pidgin English. They're totally unemployable.

What are you basing that statement on?

[FredClogs]

Seems to me that everyone that's been to "The Jungle" whether it's celebs, commentators or serious Journos seems to report back that it's a visceral and painful human experience, people who haven't been seem to range from mildly concerned, to callously indifferent to the plight of the unfortunates there.

I don't mind Lilly Allen speaking for me on something that I have no direct experience of - I'd be an idiot to think I knew better when I haven't been there. Sorry won't change anything though, which is a shame.

[SpeckledJim]

durbster said:

TEKNOPUG said:

7795 said:

I heard one interview that stopped me in my tracks last week. An Eritrean was asked what the motivation was for him and his family to get to London. His answer was "you have running water in English homes".

Yep, Sky news, isolated quote, they still don't all deserve to come here etc, etc...It makes you think though.

They have running water in French homes too. And every other country in the EU that they have transited.

If you were fluent in English and couldn't speak French, where would you head for?

That's very sensible from the migrants' point of view.

But it isn't sensible from our point of view to accept every refugee / migrant who can speak English. There's an awful lot.

[FredClogs]

SpeckledJim said:

That's very sensible from the migrants' point of view.

But it isn't sensible from our point of view to accept every refugee / migrant who can speak English. There's an awful lot.

If they can speak two languages fluently they're already better educated and probably mentally sharper than the majority of the country (and 1/10 of them are already immigrants). I'd settle for a 1 in 1 out policy.

[AJL308]

durbster said:

TEKNOPUG said:

7795 said:

I heard one interview that stopped me in my tracks last week. An Eritrean was asked what the motivation was for him and his family to get to London. His answer was "you have running water in English homes".

Yep, Sky news, isolated quote, they still don't all deserve to come here etc, etc...It makes you think though.

They have running water in French homes too. And every other country in the EU that they have transited.

If you were fluent in English and couldn't speak French, where would you head for?

If I were somewhere where people were trying to bomb, rape, torture or behead me then I'd head for the first country where people weren't trying to bomb, rape, torture or behead me. I really wouldn't be worrying too much about what language they spoke.

Even if it were a consideration - which it isn't - then in pretty much any country in the world you will find enough people speaking English for your purposes as a refugee.

You are a refugee by necessity rather than choice.

[AJL308]

FredClogs said:

Seems to me that everyone that's been to "The Jungle" whether it's celebs, commentators or serious Journos seems to report back that it's a visceral and painful human experience, people who haven't been seem to range from mildly concerned, to callously indifferent to the plight of the unfortunates there.

I don't mind Lilly Allen speaking for me on something that I have no direct experience of - I'd be an idiot to think I knew better when I haven't been there. Sorry won't change anything though, which is a shame.

They have a choice though. Claim asylum or remain in the Jungle. They choose to remain there so it can't be that bad.

Of course, if you are a genuine refugee then you would claim asylum in the first safe place you landed. If you don't then you can't be in much fear of persecution.

[768]

durbster said:

If you were fluent in English and couldn't speak French, where would you head for?

In many countries speaking English is an employable skill in and of itself.

England is probably the last place that applies.

[FredClogs]

AJL308 said:

FredClogs said:

Seems to me that everyone that's been to "The Jungle" whether it's celebs, commentators or serious Journos seems to report back that it's a visceral and painful human experience, people who haven't been seem to range from mildly concerned, to callously indifferent to the plight of the unfortunates there.

I don't mind Lilly Allen speaking for me on something that I have no direct experience of - I'd be an idiot to think I knew better when I haven't been there. Sorry won't change anything though, which is a shame.

They have a choice though. Claim asylum or remain in the Jungle. They choose to remain there so it can't be that bad.

Of course, if you are a genuine refugee then you would claim asylum in the first safe place you landed. If you don't then you can't be in much fear of persecution.

Errr... That's a complete non sequitur - they have not claimed asylum presumably because they do not feel safe in the countries they have passed through and continue to not feel safe in France, which is understandable given the reality of their current living conditions. The choice should be theirs, not yours to make for them.

[Camoradi]

durbster said:

If you were fluent in English and couldn't speak French, where would you head for?

French lessons

[anonymous-user]

durbster said:

If you were fluent in English and couldn't speak French, where would you head for?

South of France

[AJL308]

FredClogs said:

AJL308 said:

FredClogs said:

Seems to me that everyone that's been to "The Jungle" whether it's celebs, commentators or serious Journos seems to report back that it's a visceral and painful human experience, people who haven't been seem to range from mildly concerned, to callously indifferent to the plight of the unfortunates there.

I don't mind Lilly Allen speaking for me on something that I have no direct experience of - I'd be an idiot to think I knew better when I haven't been there. Sorry won't change anything though, which is a shame.

They have a choice though. Claim asylum or remain in the Jungle. They choose to remain there so it can't be that bad.

Of course, if you are a genuine refugee then you would claim asylum in the first safe place you landed. If you don't then you can't be in much fear of persecution.

Errr... That's a complete non sequitur - they have not claimed asylum presumably because they do not feel safe in the countries they have passed through and continue to not feel safe in France, which is understandable given the reality of their current living conditions. The choice should be theirs, not yours to make for them.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. All of the countries in Western Europe are perfectly safe and are at least as safe as the UK. You are saying there that remaining in the Jungle camp is a preferable/safer than France it self or any other country transited to get there which is clearly bks. As a refugee you are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country you arrive at.

Their 'current living conditions' are of their own making; they have the choice as to whether to stay in a st hole like the Jungle or to claim asylum and take alternative accommodation. What they want, as we all know, is the situation most advantageous to them rather than the one which is immediately available to them. That means coming to the UK because of better benefits and such like. Those are not the actions of people who are desperately fleeing persecution.

Edited by AJL308 on Thursday 13th October 17:03

[del mar]

FredClogs said:

AJL308 said:

FredClogs said:

Seems to me that everyone that's been to "The Jungle" whether it's celebs, commentators or serious Journos seems to report back that it's a visceral and painful human experience, people who haven't been seem to range from mildly concerned, to callously indifferent to the plight of the unfortunates there.

I don't mind Lilly Allen speaking for me on something that I have no direct experience of - I'd be an idiot to think I knew better when I haven't been there. Sorry won't change anything though, which is a shame.

They have a choice though. Claim asylum or remain in the Jungle. They choose to remain there so it can't be that bad.

Of course, if you are a genuine refugee then you would claim asylum in the first safe place you landed. If you don't then you can't be in much fear of persecution.

Errr... That's a complete non sequitur - they have not claimed asylum presumably because they do not feel safe in the countries they have passed through and continue to not feel safe in France, which is understandable given the reality of their current living conditions. The choice should be theirs, not yours to make for them.

Why would they not feel safe in France ?

They have not claimed asylum because they believe that the UK is the land of milk and honey, there is nothing unsafe about France. It is not their choice where they claim asylum the UNHCR states;

"asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin."

An Iraqi family were given asylum in Lithuania - they were very grateful for the help given by the country, until they realised that Germany would give them more in benefits, then they vanished....

[anonymous-user]

If you are granted asylum somewhere are you free to travel or are you stuck in that country until you can get citizenship?

[768]

Camoradi said:

durbster said:

If you were fluent in English and couldn't speak French, where would you head for?

French lessons

The French will probably give language lessons away for free faster even than the Welsh will.

[AJL308]

fblm said:

If you are granted asylum somewhere are you free to travel or are you stuck in that country until you can get citizenship?

I would imagine that you would be required to stay until your case had been decided at the very least?

What difference does it make though and why would it matter to anyone who is a genuine refugee? If I were fleeing for my life then whether I could travel outside the country I claimed asylum in (the very first safe one I came to) would be way, way down my list of considerations. In fact, after "leave here and get somewhere safe before I die" I don't think there would be too many other considerations weighing me down.

[Funkycoldribena]

FredClogs said:

I'd settle for a 1 in 1 out policy.

Nice of you to offer yourself first.

[XCP]

Smollet said:

oyster said:

XCP said:

Apologises for what? It's their choice to live in that awful camp.

What made you choose to live in the UK?

Perhaps he was born there.

Indeed. Not sure what point is being made here. The only reason the camp is in Calais is because of the Channel Tunnel.

[anonymous-user]

XslaneyX said:

grumbledoak said:

I'm just glad it wasn't Diane Abbott on that stool.

what a goppin' bit of kit she is.

Man I love her too

[anonymous-user]

durbster said:

TEKNOPUG said:

7795 said:

I heard one interview that stopped me in my tracks last week. An Eritrean was asked what the motivation was for him and his family to get to London. His answer was "you have running water in English homes".

Yep, Sky news, isolated quote, they still don't all deserve to come here etc, etc...It makes you think though.

They have running water in French homes too. And every other country in the EU that they have transited.

If you were fluent in English and couldn't speak French, where would you head for?

The nearest benefits office to you in the uk ?