O/T Eden North

[Wild Bill]

Wow, this thread is now going very off topic.

Crazy how much media attention 45,000 migrants get. It's an issue for sure but with all the other problems in the country its basically just a distraction.

[Scouseport_Shrimp]

[Edit] Please don't quote attention seeking children, it makes tidying up take longer.

Oh heck.....now the thread is in the gutter.

[Keith]

Basically, some of you don't want any refugees in the UK, under any circumstances. UK can destabilise countries, but never take any responsibility for the people we bomb.

A few quick facts:

1. There is no legal requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country.

2. The UK has a very poor record with regards to taking asylum seekers or refugees. According to the UK government statistics, when taken as 'per head of population', the UK ranks 18th in Europe for taking asylum seekers. (Year ending Dec 2021)

3. 86% of asylum applications are upheld (72% on initial application and a further 14% on appeal). The majority of the refused applications were on the basis of the UK not being the correct country to 'hear' the appeal, under the 'Dublin Agreement', whereby refugees are removed to another EU country. Obviously, we're no longer party to the Dublin Agreement.

Still, at least there's no problem with billionaires avoiding tax and filling their pockets, eh?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... tection-to

[Scouseport_Shrimp]

Basically, some of you don't want any refugees in the UK, under any circumstances. UK can destabilise countries, but never take any responsibility for the people we bomb.

Is it that simple? I don't quite understand your 2nd sentence, please explain.

A few quick facts:

1. There is no legal requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country.

Go on then. What is the legal requirement, and which body has set that requirement?

2. The UK has a very poor record with regards to taking asylum seekers or refugees. According to the UK government statistics, when taken as 'per head of population', the UK ranks 18th in Europe for taking asylum seekers. (Year ending Dec 2021)

Facts please. What would you say to the people of Linton-on-Ouse, and Cottingham for example?

. 86% of asylum applications are upheld (72% on initial application and a further 14% on appeal). The majority of the refused applications were on the basis of the UK not being the correct country to 'hear' the appeal, under the 'Dublin Agreement', whereby refugees are removed to another EU country. Obviously, we're no longer party to the Dublin Agreement.

I reckon a fair %, particularly those that pose a possible threat to the security of this country, aren't included in those percentages. In fact they won't be included in any figures because nobody knows how many or where they are.

At least there's no problem with billionaires avoiding tax and filling their pockets, eh?

I don't think that includes most of the normal folk who make up much this country.

[mrpotatohead]

Most people that dont like asylum seekers coming to their countries are ignorant or racist.

[Gone_Shrimping]

Most people that dont like asylum seekers coming to their countries are ignorant or racist.

Bullshit !

[redrobo]

Most people that dont like asylum seekers coming to their countries are ignorant or racist.

I think what a lot have objections to is the way that some asylum seekers get a lot of freebies ie Mobile Phones with automatic free call plans and in some cases free Mountain Bikes whilst the general population suffer with poor housing and in some cases have to rely on Food Banks.....

However on the flip side a lot of refugees are actively seeking meaning employment and a growing number prosper in their local community. In my area a number of Ukrainians are rebuilding their lives and are working in the local community in support of their families whilst their men folk remain in war torn Ukraine fighting the Russians to preserve their country and way of life......

[Keith]

Basically, some of you don't want any refugees in the UK, under any circumstances. UK can destabilise countries, but never take any responsibility for the people we bomb.

Is it that simple? I don't quite understand your 2nd sentence, please explain.

When Cruella Braverman, who repeatedly claimed refugees could use 'safe ways' to get to the UK, was asked by a Conservative MP, to describe one of those "safe routes", she was unable to do so. She basically wants a system whereby asylum seekers can apply for asylum only on reaching Britain, but can not ever reach Britain in order to do so.

As for the second part, I'm sure you do know fine well that the UK was involved in destabilising, or encouraging war in many countries, including profiting from the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, in order to kill people in Yemen, or the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, or the arming of ISIS, again, via Saudi Arabia, or... or... These are the main countries from which asylum seekers come.

Home Affairs Select Committee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpZAS0yqkJM

A few quick facts:

1. There is no legal requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country.

Go on then. What is the legal requirement, and which body has set that requirement?

The UK is a signatory to the '1951 Refugee Convention', which makes no requirement for a refugee to seek asylum in the first safe country. In fact, the UK was one of the leading countries in developing the Convention in the first place. The EU 'Dublin Agreement' allows for the removal of asylum seekers from one EU country to another, however, the UK is no longer a party to this agreement, therefore cannot remove an asylum seeker 'back' to the EU.

2. The UK has a very poor record with regards to taking asylum seekers or refugees. According to the UK government statistics, when taken as 'per head of population', the UK ranks 18th in Europe for taking asylum seekers. (Year ending Dec 2021)

Facts please. What would you say to the people of Linton-on-Ouse, and Cottingham for example?

The facts were already linked to in my original post. That is a link to UK government's own statistics.

. 86% of asylum applications are upheld (72% on initial application and a further 14% on appeal). The majority of the refused applications were on the basis of the UK not being the correct country to 'hear' the appeal, under the 'Dublin Agreement', whereby refugees are removed to another EU country. Obviously, we're no longer party to the Dublin Agreement.

I reckon a fair %, particularly those that pose a possible threat to the security of this country, aren't included in those percentages.

Facts please.

In fact they won't be included in any figures because nobody knows how many or where they are.

You are either unintentionally [through ignorance in the literal sense] or deliberately [racist] conflating 'illegal immigrants' with 'asylum seekers' and 'refugees'. Illegal immigrants are, as the name implies, in Britain illegally. They are not known to the government. Many are being abused and held captive [see 'modern day slavery']. They do not receive benefits, housing and many do not receive any health care. Frequently they are trafficked and have passports & ID taken from them. They fear the authorities, so cannot look for help and are often held as slaves by criminal gangs. You may be aware of the Chinese cockle picking disaster? Those people were 'illegal immigrants', living, working and dying, as slaves.

'Asylum Seekers' are people who have arrived in a safe country and claimed asylum.
'Refugees' are people who have had their asylum claim listened to and granted the right to remain.

At least there's no problem with billionaires avoiding tax and filling their pockets, eh?

I don't think that includes most of the normal folk who make up much this country.

No, it isn't. But the billions of pounds of taxes avoided would go a long way towards fixing it, wouldn't it? Why are people always so much more angry towards the poorest people in society, being given £40.85 per week, rather than billionaires who pay no taxes at all? Why are most of the working people who read this, paying more tax than billionaires, and think that is 'okay'?

Total cost to the UK for supporting asylum seekers in 2021: £1.5 billion [Home Office figures]
Potential tax raised by removing 'non-dom' status for people living in the UK: £3.2 billion. [Warwick University & London School of Economics Report]

The UK could fund the entire asylum seekers system AND have £1.7 billion for the NHS (or whatever else) simply by making wealthy UK residents pay their taxes.

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/202 ... um-system/

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news- ... new-report

[Keith]

I think what a lot have objections to is the way that some asylum seekers get a lot of freebies ie Mobile Phones with automatic free call plans and in some cases free Mountain Bikes...

Please provide evidence of this happening.

...whilst the general population suffer with poor housing and in some cases have to rely on Food Banks.....

As in my previous, [too long?] post... closing the 'non-dom' status for billionaires who live in the UK but choose not to pay taxes there, would raise more than twice the amount spent IN TOTAL on asylum seekers. Perhaps if they paid their fair share, that extra money would reduce the need for nurses going to food banks?

[Freez]

Some fans on here eh!
Lovely people. All I commented on was use of the word “illegal” and all of a sudden it’s a political argument.
Sorry folks, I shall not comment in future if my right thinking brethren get upset.
Up the Shrimps.

[captain sparkle]

Some fans on here eh!
Lovely people. All I commented on was use of the word “illegal” and all of a sudden it’s a political argument.
Sorry folks, I shall not comment in future if my right thinking brethren get upset.
Up the Shrimps.

Certainly "woke" them up, Freez!

[Freez]

[twosheds]

Just announced on Granada Reports Eden Project North has been allocated the necessary funds to go ahead...

[Keith]

Excellent news for the town.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-63952492

[mrpotatohead]

Fantastic news for the whole area.

[Wild Bill]

Wow this brilliant news. Well done all those involved

[black morse]

As an exile I am excited by this brilliant news. I hope it brings prosperity back to my home town

[Old Man Kensey]

Brilliant news.

If I was on the Board I would be asking if there is anyway we could link the club to the project. Get in early and forge a link from the get go.

[shrimp in cyprus]

Totally agree that this is excellent news for the whole area. And I just wonder if it might even have some sort of spin-off encouraging effect with regards to new owners???

Whatever, it's great to know that my home town (well OK that is really Heysham) is going to benefit hugely from this and move into the 21st century with a great fanfare.

Success to all.

[captain sparkle]

This sounds great!
Hopefully find out all the details later on.
The only strange comment, I thought, was the chief exec saying "We will now continue to work hard with our partners to make this vision a reality,"
I thought it was "cut & dried", "oven ready" (or whatever the "term du jour" is!)
Please forgive my cynicism, as those of a certain age will remember, we've had more than our fair share of false starts round here!
Fingers are well & truly crossed!

edit: Oh No! something else I've just thought about!! 3 years ago, it was a £125 million project, now it's £100 million, with rampant inflation too!
Hurry up with it!!

[redrobo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-63952492

Superb news BUT maybe once.....just once.....Labour could find it within itself to congratulate all concerned rather than the usual sniping of their spokesperson.

Read the very last paragraph in the entire BBC article.

[captain sparkle]

Superb news indeed....for us, but there's still many, many places that badly need investment.
On a lighter note, just been down the old Super swimming stadium & it's like a Summer Saturday in 1968 down there, the buzz is incredible!
Film crews in abundance, interviews left right & centre, even on the roof of The Midland (the new owners there must be over the moon!) you can't move for photographers, 4 police officers & loads of nosy people, like us.

& we were interviewed too!

[Wild Bill]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-63952492

Superb news BUT maybe once.....just once.....Labour could find it within itself to congratulate all concerned rather than the usual sniping of their spokesperson.

Read the very last paragraph in the entire BBC article.

I think the reality is that public spending has been cut massively across the board in the last 13 years. In particular this has been felt in the most deprived areas.

The BBC this morning were in Blackpool, who have also received funding in a 'warm hub centre' interviewing hard up families. This will be the reality also for many in Morecambe.

Its great that the town is getting funding for this fantastic project but its really a sticking plaster awarded to only a small percentage of areas that applied. Much of the funding has also gone to Tory constituencies, including the PM's own.

Anyway, whatever the politics this can only be a good thing for the town. Hopefully it will lead to further investment, including the Frontierland site.

[redrobo]

Let's just be thankful that we are one of the winners. I can only guess what the reaction on SVs would have been if the money had NOT been granted.

There was always going to be winners and losers...

[paulshrimp]

Once again, on the 1.00 News, it was spelt Morcambe