RAF Scampton

[pequod]

A historic site, now being proposed as a Migrant Camp?

This is the wrong decision, surely?

[anonymous-user]

One could argue the wrong decision was back in 2016…there are a number of better options for this situation, but this is the one that gets the most people angry so it wins.

This is simply a self inflicted Tory policy failure.

If they really wanted to “stop the boats”, they would reopen the border controls in Calais but that wouldn’t help the image of “taking back control” and may even disprove whether Boris actually did “get Brexit done”…

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th March 18:11

[julianm]

Don't mention the canine grave.

[S600BSB]

If the historic buildings are protected, and the government say they will be, not sure what the problem is as a short term measure. Decent use of empty public owned accommodation?

[BikeBikeBIke]

S600BSB said:

If the historic buildings are protected, and the government say they will be, not sure what the problem is as a short term measure. Decent use of empty public owned accommodation?

+1, seems ideal.

[Earthdweller]

The numbers of people involved and the costs of putting them up in hotels is absolutely staggering, and is only going to get worse

It’s also having a major knock on effect on business and tourism travel which is putting up prices and negatively impacting local businesses

Realistically an alternative to 4* hotels has to be found

It’s just unsustainable as a long term option

[anonymous-user]

So why is reopening border controls in Calais and having the refugee appeal made there not the better option having just dropped Macron £500m to help?

[bitchstewie]

Don't know much about Scampton but I'd have thought this is what people want isn't it?

Lower cost mass accommodation rather than expensive hotel rooms.

[pequod]

S600BSB said:

If the historic buildings are protected, and the government say they will be, not sure what the problem is as a short term measure. Decent use of empty public owned accommodation?

I trust the historic buildings will be protected?

Given that assurance, the airfield is capable to accommodate thousands of migrants, in suitable, temporary modular facilities well away from the historic buildings plus, easy access to departure by aeroplane, when their 'claim' is rejected, within a secure environment.

I'm still to be re-assured that the Govt won't 're-purpose' the existing Barracks...

[valiant]

Earthdweller said:

The numbers of people involved and the costs of putting them up in hotels is absolutely staggering, and is only going to get worse

It’s also having a major knock on effect on business and tourism travel which is putting up prices and negatively impacting local businesses

Realistically an alternative to 4* hotels has to be found

It’s just unsustainable as a long term option

I suppose they could actually process them quicker…

[pequod]

valiant said:

I suppose they could actually process them quicker…

Indeed! No papers >>>

[Wacky Racer]

julianm said:

Don't mention the canine grave.

I did and I think I got away with it.

[bad company]

julianm said:

Don't mention the canine grave.

Isn’t ‘Nigel’ buried there?

[anonymous-user]

pequod said:

I trust the historic buildings will be protected?

Given that assurance, the airfield is capable to accommodate thousands of migrants, in suitable, temporary modular facilities well away from the historic buildings plus, easy access to departure by aeroplane, when their 'claim' is rejected, within a secure environment.

I'm still to be re-assured that the Govt won't 're-purpose' the existing Barracks...

Not sure why claim uses inverted commas, when ex-Afghan forces personnel are having to use small boats as a means of claiming asylum, something is fundamentally wrong.

Also based on this, the number of flights out of Scampton to Rwanda will be remarkably low...



FWIW Scampton is better than hotels but there are still many better options

[bad company]

julianm said:

Don't mention the canine grave.

Isn’t ‘Nigel’ buried there?

[pequod]

pablo said:

Not sure why claim uses inverted commas, when ex-Afghan forces personnel are having to use small boats as a means of claiming asylum, something is fundamentally wrong.

...

How many ex-Afghan forces have arrived on the shores of Dover by means of a rubber boat?

Genuinely interested to have the evidence... ?

[bitchstewie]

Afghan pilot who served with British forces and fled to UK in small boat facing deportation to Rwanda

[pequod]

bhstewie said:

Afghan pilot who served with British forces and fled to UK in small boat facing deportation to Rwanda

Shocking, if true?

Shouldn't the UN simply take over the country, and provide a safe, democratic, environment for all, or a means to apply for asylum on the borders of Afghanistan?

Or, maybe the UN could support those who will stand and fight for democracy in their own country??

[bitchstewie]

Or we could just do the right thing.

Just an idea.

[Frik]

pequod said:

valiant said:

I suppose they could actually process them quicker…

Indeed! No papers >>>

But seriously, we've had more asylum seekers in the past and managed to process their claims quicker than we do now. So what's changed?