RAF Scampton

[BikeBikeBIke]

pequod said:

Back on topic, I am not against the use of abandoned airfields to house asylum seekers but RAF Scampton has significant historical reasons why, In my opinion, it is unsuitable for consideration.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/public...

Why? They won't be damaging any buildings, which are rightly listed. Do you really think it's practical to maintain acres of empty airfield as open space forever?

And where do you think would be better than this? Open fields? Stone Henge? Windsor Castle?

[don'tbesilly]

BikeBikeBIke said:

pequod said:

Back on topic, I am not against the use of abandoned airfields to house asylum seekers but RAF Scampton has significant historical reasons why, In my opinion, it is unsuitable for consideration.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/public...

Why? They won't be damaging any buildings, which are rightly listed. Do you really think it's practical to maintain acres of empty airfield as open space forever?

And where do you think would be better than this? Open fields? Stone Henge? Windsor Castle?

Scampton wasn’t going to stay as open fields, morph into Stonehenge or be the site of a new Windsor Castle, the proposals for Scampton had already been proposed prior to the Home Office decision to turn Scampton into a ‘Hi-Di-Hi campsite’ for migrants.

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/growth-regeneratio...

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/council-news/2023/...

[SteveStrange]

bhstewie said:

Or we could just do the right thing.

Just an idea.

Which is...?

[pequod]

don'tbesilly said:

Scampton wasn’t going to stay as open fields, morph into Stonehenge or be the site of a new Windsor Castle, the proposals for Scampton had already been proposed prior to the Home Office decision to turn Scampton into a ‘Hi-Di-Hi campsite’ for migrants.

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/growth-regeneratio...

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/council-news/2023/...

Indeed, and this link is a worthwhile read...

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/council-news/2023/...

[S600BSB]

don'tbesilly said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

pequod said:

Back on topic, I am not against the use of abandoned airfields to house asylum seekers but RAF Scampton has significant historical reasons why, In my opinion, it is unsuitable for consideration.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/public...

Why? They won't be damaging any buildings, which are rightly listed. Do you really think it's practical to maintain acres of empty airfield as open space forever?

And where do you think would be better than this? Open fields? Stone Henge? Windsor Castle?

Scampton wasn’t going to stay as open fields, morph into Stonehenge or be the site of a new Windsor Castle, the proposals for Scampton had already been proposed prior to the Home Office decision to turn Scampton into a ‘Hi-Di-Hi campsite’ for migrants.

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/growth-regeneratio...

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/council-news/2023/...

Government seemed to confirm yesterday that support for the development of the site will still go ahead once it has served its purpose of providing temorary accommodation for asylum seekers. Seems like a good idea all round.

[liner33]

How long before the migrants are rioting and complaining about the accomodation? I'm sure given the choice of Scampton or a nice seaside hotel I'd take the latter .

The real shame is that these disused sites aren't used to help get our current homeless off the streets into somewhere warm and dry with 3 meals a day

[Electro1980]

liner33 said:

How long before the migrants are rioting and complaining about the accomodation? I'm sure given the choice of Scampton or a nice seaside hotel I'd take the latter .

The real shame is that these disused sites aren't used to help get our current homeless off the streets into somewhere warm and dry with 3 meals a day

Lack of accommodation is not the issue for rough sleepers. There is no choice between housing rough sleepers and helping asylum seekers.

[crankedup5]

liner33 said:

How long before the migrants are rioting and complaining about the accomodation? I'm sure given the choice of Scampton or a nice seaside hotel I'd take the latter .

The real shame is that these disused sites aren't used to help get our current homeless off the streets into somewhere warm and dry with 3 meals a day

Agreed, people are living on park benches, filthy squaller in some private rented accomadation which is unfit for purpose. Living with parents because some can’t afford a home and can’t access social housing. And yet ! Six million pounds every day is madness.

[liner33]

Electro1980 said:

Lack of accommodation is not the issue for rough sleepers. There is no choice between housing rough sleepers and helping asylum seekers.

Why is it an either/or? Plenty of people end up sleeping rough for no fault of their own, do they not deserve ANY help at all?

[Hill92]

pequod said:

Back on topic, I am not against the use of abandoned airfields to house asylum seekers but RAF Scampton has significant historical reasons why, In my opinion, it is unsuitable for consideration.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/public...

There's surely enough space on the post-1955 expansion to avoid infringing the remaining WW2 sections?

[bitchstewie]

SteveStrange said:

bhstewie said:

Or we could just do the right thing.

Just an idea.

Which is...?

Fulfil our obligations.

Unless you don't think we have any to the Afghans who fought alongside us only for us to leave them behind.

[don'tbesilly]

S600BSB said:

don'tbesilly said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

pequod said:

Back on topic, I am not against the use of abandoned airfields to house asylum seekers but RAF Scampton has significant historical reasons why, In my opinion, it is unsuitable for consideration.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/public...

Why? They won't be damaging any buildings, which are rightly listed. Do you really think it's practical to maintain acres of empty airfield as open space forever?

And where do you think would be better than this? Open fields? Stone Henge? Windsor Castle?

Scampton wasn’t going to stay as open fields, morph into Stonehenge or be the site of a new Windsor Castle, the proposals for Scampton had already been proposed prior to the Home Office decision to turn Scampton into a ‘Hi-Di-Hi campsite’ for migrants.

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/growth-regeneratio...

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/council-news/2023/...

Government seemed to confirm yesterday that support for the development of the site will still go ahead once it has served its purpose of providing temorary accommodation for asylum seekers. Seems like a good idea all round.

That would depend on what “temporary” means, the 3 sites so far earmarked have a capacity of 4,200 - 6,00 apparently and depend on the media source one reads.
So once they are up and running the sites won’t accommodate the migrants that have and will arrive over the next few weeks/months, 3,600 already to date since the beginning of the year.

One site in East Sussex is earmarked to accommodate 1200, which wouldn’t cover the number of arrivals on one day alone in August last year.

On top of everything else it won’t ‘stop the boats’ as Sunak pledged to do weeks ago.

It’s no more than a sticking plaster which doesn’t cover the wound.

[Electro1980]

liner33 said:

Electro1980 said:

Lack of accommodation is not the issue for rough sleepers. There is no choice between housing rough sleepers and helping asylum seekers.

Why is it an either/or? Plenty of people end up sleeping rough for no fault of their own, do they not deserve ANY help at all?

It’s not. I didn’t say it was. There is lots of help for rough sleepers. Every single rough sleeper in the UK could get a bed and three meals a day right now if that was the fix.

The issues rough sleepers face are far more complex. Asylum seekers accommodation is irrelevant. There is around 3000 people rough sleeping in the UK, a tiny number, but most have complex health and social issues that are not “fixed” with a roof and 3 meals, and would most definitely be made worse by being moved across the country to one location, breaking what local ties and connections they do have.

“Help our rough sleepers” is nothing more than anti immigration propaganda by people who understand neither the issues asylum seekers or rough sleepers face.

[crankedup5]

bhstewie said:

SteveStrange said:

bhstewie said:

Or we could just do the right thing.

Just an idea.

Which is...?

Fulfil our obligations.

Unless you don't think we have any to the Afghans who fought alongside us only for us to leave them behind.

And what obligations are we under regarding our homeless people?
Questions are being asked regarding the migration crisis throughout Europe, time for a complete re-evaluation of policies which were agreed to decades ago. We are in a completely different World now to when the policies were introduced.

[bitchstewie]

crankedup5 said:

And what obligations are we under regarding our homeless people?
Questions are being asked regarding the migration crisis throughout Europe, time for a complete re-evaluation of policies which were agreed to decades ago. We are in a completely different World now to when the policies were introduced.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive Cranked.

These people fought alongside us and we told them we would fulfil our obligations and responsibilities to help them.

Personally I consider that means we owe them something but it's not the biggest surprise that it appears that you don't.

[SteveStrange]

bhstewie said:

SteveStrange said:

bhstewie said:

Or we could just do the right thing.

Just an idea.

Which is...?

Fulfil our obligations.

Unless you don't think we have any to the Afghans who fought alongside us only for us to leave them behind.

Oh right, you meant the specific situation with the Afghans who fought alongside us. Yes I agree.

[cossy400]

Electro1980 said:

cossy400 said:

It would never go through but "No papers"
"No money"

You ll be on the 1st boat out of here end of.

It’ll never go through because it’s a stupid idea. Reject anyone without paperwork because reasons? What about the vast majority of the world who don’t have “papers”? Or all of those who have had them confiscated at some point, for example anyone who fled Iraq to go to an asylum camp in Syria or Turkey, only to find themselves fleeing those places because of war? Or those who have to flee with little to no notice, like the Afghan people who worked for us (and were then told to go to the Taliban to get paperwork…).

They should have stayed in the 1st country they came to.

We get all the shock tactics, "we ll house them here/there etc"

Start giving them some.

Not everyone will agree of course but 160000 awaiting checks at something ridiculous like 1 a week.

May aswell just stop patrolling and let them just roll in.

It would be cheaper after all.

[Jonmx]

Electro1980 said:

liner33 said:

How long before the migrants are rioting and complaining about the accomodation? I'm sure given the choice of Scampton or a nice seaside hotel I'd take the latter .

The real shame is that these disused sites aren't used to help get our current homeless off the streets into somewhere warm and dry with 3 meals a day

Lack of accommodation is not the issue for rough sleepers. There is no choice between housing rough sleepers and helping asylum seekers.

Funny, I work in property. I called the local authority recently to try and help an ex forces gentleman who'd been issued a no fault eviction notice and has no means to secure alternative accommodation (LHA is risible when compared to local rental values). Pretty much laughed at down the phone. Several local hotels in the area have been put across to housing the asylum seekers economic migrants. The chap I'm helping may, if he's lucky, get a voucher to stay in a bunk in a local hostel that is usually the first choice for those being let out of the local prison. Thankfully organisations such as SSAFA are pretty good at helping out, but in my experience, Councils have very much made a choice out of the two (I admit, this may be due to some legal requirement to help migrants that holds more power than the requirement to help rough sleepers).

[Electro1980]

Jonmx said:

Funny, I work in property. I called the local authority recently to try and help an ex forces gentleman who'd been issued a no fault eviction notice and has no means to secure alternative accommodation (LHA is risible when compared to local rental values). Pretty much laughed at down the phone. Several local hotels in the area have been put across to housing the asylum seekers economic migrants. The chap I'm helping may, if he's lucky, get a voucher to stay in a bunk in a local hostel that is usually the first choice for those being let out of the local prison. Thankfully organisations such as SSAFA are pretty good at helping out, but in my experience, Councils have very much made a choice out of the two (I admit, this may be due to some legal requirement to help migrants that holds more power than the requirement to help rough sleepers).

So… not a roughy sleeper then…

[BikeBikeBIke]

cossy400 said:

They should have stayed in the 1st country they came to.

That is certainly the right thing to do. Stop at the first safe country. Much easier to manage that way.

Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.