Lilly Allen has apologised - on your behalf
Discussion
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.
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.
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.Yep, Sky news, isolated quote, they still don't all deserve to come here etc, etc...It makes you think though.
But it isn't sensible from our point of view to accept every refugee / migrant who can speak English. There's an awful lot.
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.But it isn't sensible from our point of view to accept every refugee / migrant who can speak English. There's an awful lot.
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.Yep, Sky news, isolated quote, they still don't all deserve to come here etc, etc...It makes you think though.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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....
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.
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?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.Yep, Sky news, isolated quote, they still don't all deserve to come here etc, etc...It makes you think though.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff