Uk Asylum System. Fit For Purpose?

[Delayed]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Appeals can go on years and what happens in the meantime , free to walk the streets ?

Yes..they can't be locked up just for appealing at decisions. 

[The_DADDY]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

Because there not a single side

 

like this on the flip side (ignore its Owen jones, listen to what the anti human trafficker is saying)

 

No one is saying there isn't a flip side but don't be fooled.

Butlers isn't interested in the flip side, just deflecting away from the valid points of this thread or he/she would have started a thread on the subject?

Just now, Delayed said:

Yes..they can't be locked up just for appealing at decisions. 

How do we keep the public safe until we know if these people are a threat or not?

[Guest sibon]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Appeals can go on years and what happens in the meantime , free to walk the streets ?

Appeals don’t need to go on for years. 
Asylum claims don’t need to take years to process

This is a matter of choice by the government.
 

I think that the boat crossings are useful to them. It helps to distract from other things. They could end all of this madness quickly if they wanted to.

[hackey lad]

1 minute ago, Delayed said:

Yes..they can't be locked up just for appealing at decisions. 

They should be detained securely until we know who they are and a decision has been made on their status 

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, sibon said:

Appeals don’t need to go on for years. 
Asylum claims don’t need to take years to process

This is a matter of choice by the government.
 

I think that the boat crossings are useful to them. It helps to distract from other things. They could end all of this madness quickly if they wanted to.

Spot on 👏

[Guest sibon]

Just now, hackey lad said:

They should be detained securely until we know who they are and a decision has been made on their status 

Do you have a name in mind for these camps that you propose?

[Delayed]

3 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

No one is saying there isn't a flip side but don't be fooled.

Butlers isn't interested in the flip side, just deflecting away from the valid points of this thread or he/she would have started a thread on the subject?

How do we keep the public safe until we know if these people are a threat or not?

You can't fully establish if someone is a threat or not. We keep doing what we are doing which is security checks, screening. But what if someone becomes a threat whilst in the UK afterwards. What if they become radicalised whilst in th UK?

 

You can't fully prevent it

[hackey lad]

Just now, sibon said:

Do you have a name in mind for these camps that you propose?

You can call them what you want .

[The_DADDY]

Just now, Delayed said:

You can't fully establish if someone is a threat or not. We keep doing what we are doing which is security checks, screening. But what if someone becomes a threat whilst in the UK afterwards. What if they become radicalised whilst in th UK?

 

You can't fully prevent it

My bold.

The checks are inadequate when grown men come to the country, say they are children and their word is taken for it.

[Delayed]

3 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

They should be detained securely until we know who they are and a decision has been made on their status 

I'm fairly confident that if locking asylum seekers up until their claim is decided (which can take years) was possible, this government would have done it without giving millions to Rwanda 

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

My bold.

The checks are inadequate when grown men come to the country, say they are children and their word is taken for it.

That is just one of many checks. Age is not the biggest security check and it's not at all straight forward when the government rely on experts for age assessments. 

 

Home office staff don't guess their age.