Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Glasgow Boards/Forums _ Glasgow News Blog _ Asylum Seekers Face Glasgow Exodus

Posted by: GG 14th Nov 2010, 11:19pm

Up to 1300 asylum seekers currently resident in Glasgow could be forced to leave the city as early as this week after the UK Border Agency (UKBA) said it would no longer pay Glasgow City Council to house them. The dramatic move follows a breakdown in the deal, currently worth almost £10m annually, which saw Glasgow take tens of thousands of asylum seekers since 2000 under the UK Government's asylum dispersal scheme.

The Home Office last week cancelled the contract with the city council to house and support asylum seekers because, it claims, the council sought an increase of almost 50% in the funding over two years from the government body.

According to one Glasgow MSP, Anne McLaughlin, asylum seekers had already received letters instructing them to prepare themselves for relocation to other areas in Sotland outside Glasgow.

Ms McLaughlin said:

QUOTE
"I have been contacted by teachers, support workers and asylum seekers all desperately worried by this news. This happened only on Friday and already asylum seekers are getting letters telling them to pack two suitcases ready to leave Glasgow.

Their children are settled in school here and they are just to be plucked out of their communities and sent away. Further disruption will also be caused to those receiving medical help for physical and mental health needs. Many are single mothers with young children who now have to settle somewhere else.

I am shocked at the way people are being treated and call on both sides to get back to negotiations instead of needlessly disrupting the lives of children and families."

In an unexpected twist to the stand-off between the government agency and Scotland's biggest local authority, an un-named 'senior political source' told The Herald over the weekend of their suspicion that the Home Office wants to reduce overall numbers of asylum seekers in Glasgow because of the public outcry when they are removed.

The source said:
QUOTE
"Over the years we’ve had the Dungavel protests, the Ay family, the Glasgow Girls, Precious Mhango, and the demonstrations about the dawn raids. This doesn’t happen elsewhere in the UK and you’ve got to ask whether it is less hassle for UKBA to have Glasgow’s asylum seekers elsewhere."

A Glasgow City Council spokesman said:
QUOTE
"It's a matter of great regret that the UKBA has terminated its contract for the council to receive asylum seekers. Asylum seekers have brought welcome diversity to the city and added new life to many of our communities.

We have made numerous attempts to renegotiate the contract since numbers fell below contractually accepted levels but the UKBA has refused to accept our position. We can't subsidise another public body as they seek to fulfil their legal duties. A local authority would be acting beyond its powers if it did so."


GG.

Posted by: GG 14th Nov 2010, 11:28pm

If you wish to comment on this story please remember that asylum seekers (and their families) are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Please be considerate and respectful in your comments, mindful that many of these very unfortunate people are fleeing unspeakable horror in the countries of their birth.

GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 15th Nov 2010, 12:53am

Ive just watched an 18th century TV drama called Garrows Law involving a case (I believe based on fact) where a large number of slaves from Africa were thrown off a ship because they were costing too much.
Then I read this report and it looks as though the people caught in the middle of this situation are being treated in a similar manner and being uprooted,I assume before their asylum applications have been processed for financial reasons.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 15th Nov 2010, 12:55am

I don't know the political ins and outs, or the local feeling, of the asylum seekers billeted in Glasgow but my own feelings are that if families are given asylum in Glasgow and have nestled into their communities with their children attending schools then they cannot be blamed for feeling that the City of Glasgow is caring, and being responsible, for them.
The City of Glasgow should maintain it's care for these families.
Glasgow should go to the line with the Home Office on this.
Just an opinion of course.

Posted by: Jazzsaxman 15th Nov 2010, 01:42am

The votes say what the majority think.

Posted by: weebren3 15th Nov 2010, 05:48am

I believe,yes under bad area's of the world should be given safety in any part of the country of scotland,just as long as they begin with our own poverty,health issues and people who are in need of jobs etc. Then maybe we could give more of ourselves to help with needs.I dont no of any in Glasgow who would not care to give the shirt off there backs to lend A hand. It is A touchy subject and I wish everyone well with the outcome.

Posted by: Guest 15th Nov 2010, 06:17am

I used to stay in Glasgow for about 2 years. Now I am in my own country China. I think for those bad-areas people, they should have more jobs to do. It is better for them to make their own lives instead of raised by the council. What do you think?

Posted by: irrie 15th Nov 2010, 08:25am

Surely these families esp.childrens lives have been disrupted enough if they were led to believe that hey could settle in Glasgow or anywhere else for that matter then thats the way it should be. If the powers that be want to make different rules for new settlers thats different but to make kids leave their schools and pals is just plain wrong in my opinion

Posted by: boots 15th Nov 2010, 08:34am

I agree with what Tee hee hee has said and don't think I have anything to add except to say I am disgusted that people are being used as pawns in a standoff between two levels of government.

PS Thank you THH

Posted by: jcjamieson 15th Nov 2010, 08:37am

I agree with you all the way ! Britain is too soft believing all the sob stories and granting asylum.
I'd get rid of the lot of them. We have too many of our own waiting for houses and needing help but it seems to make the Government and Council feel like saints giving "the poor asylum seekers" houses, benefits and all that's going.
As soon as they settle in they seem to want to implement the laws they had supposedly fled from to be implemented here!

Posted by: Melody 15th Nov 2010, 08:48am

I think that this is absolutely shocking. Many of these families are already well settled with children in school. Many of these children and young people have already suffered unspeakable horrors in their own countries and are very high academic achievers they are a credit to their families. Whatever happened to big hearted Glasgow, I'm ashamed to have this done in my name. We are watching the destruction of all that is good in our country in this current climate. A current climate which is not the fault of the ordinary person in the street.

Posted by: ashfield 15th Nov 2010, 09:23am

I completely agreed with your sentiments Melody, is it just a coincidence that this issue coincides with the demolition of the Red Road flats where many of the asylum seekers are housed?

Posted by: *red rooster* 15th Nov 2010, 09:36am

Why was the council asking for an increase of 50% from a government who are heavily in debt?

Posted by: Guest 15th Nov 2010, 09:50am

Sorry, charity begins at home.

Posted by: Melody 15th Nov 2010, 10:01am

I wouldn't be at all surprised Ash. This so called government are capable of anything.

Posted by: Old Sailor 15th Nov 2010, 10:19am

Scotland's histoy shows how badly it's people were treated by a tyranical monarch and elitist Clan Chiefs, then ultimately rounded up, transported into slavery to colonize the plantations of Glasgow's rich tobacco lords. Scotland is one country that should pay more than lip service to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The mixed ethnicity of a community is an asset to cherish not just for philosophical reasons but because we made a commitmant in WW2, when our brave men and women, my comrades, fought and died in battles to preserve a safe haven for all peoples. I now live in Canada where a mosaic of races and cultures survive, many who came seeking asylum, but I fought for five years under a British flag and assured safety to all. Are we to replace the tyrant by unsettling the people to whom we offered help, if we are then you are betraying the principles we once acclaimed, and as a Veteran you are betraying me.

Posted by: droschke7 15th Nov 2010, 10:30am

Surely the point of this is that they are "Asylum Seekers" and therefore haven't yet been given Asylum? We don't know how many of these people really need asylum or are just Financial Asylum Seekers. Surely Charity begins at home? As a disabled ex Serviceman, in Winter, I often have to choose between eating and heating, so for me to hear no complaints about that but an uproar about "Asylum Seekers" and that the Government is increasing international aid to Middle Eastern Countries that are training and Funding the Terrorists killing people all over the World, is a real slap in the Face. I'm almost being treated as a criminal by the Benefits Agency's (and I know of Many others in the same position) and no one complains, but when they want to move a couple of "Asylum Seekers" to another part of Scotland there is a Public outcry. Thanks guys.

Posted by: benny 15th Nov 2010, 11:21am

Locating so many asylum seekers in Glasgow - and usually in the less well off parts of Glasgow - was a mistake from the beginning. In many instances it has created what are virtually modern ghettoes. Not far from where I live, there are several blocks of multi-storey flats which have been used to house asylum seekers. Some of the blocks now have no local residents at all, but are filled entirely with asylum seekers. This is not a good idea in an area which already has many social problems. The inevitable result is that many local people feel unhappy - to put it mildly - with the situation.

I have no doubt that many asylum seekers are genuinely fleeing from opression of one form or another, but why should the ordinary citizen of Glasgow, or any other Scottish city, shoulder the burden of catering to their needs? The decision to accept asylum seekers is one taken by central government, and central government should be funding whatever measures it deems necessary, not the local council taxpayer.

I have an idea. Most genuine asylum seekers are here because of opression in their own countries, mostly because of civil wars, or megalomaniac dictators. To carry on a civil war or a career as a dictator, you need things like guns, tanks, aeroplanes, etc. Why don't we just stop selling arms to the regimes which are doing the opressing, or tax the armaments manufacturers to pay for the asylum seekers?

Posted by: farci 15th Nov 2010, 11:22am

QUOTE (Jazzsaxman @ 15th Nov 2010, 02:28am) *
The votes say what the majority think.

As every politician knows you manipulate the question to get the answer you want. I don't accuse GG of manipulation in this case, rather an absence of forethought in framing the question.

If Jazzsaxman is referring to a No vote for increasing the amount of money he may find a lot of support for better management of the funding. If this is shorthand for get rid of the asylum seekers - that's quite another matter. Glasgow, having decided to take the Queen's Shilling owes a duty of care which I think they still want to exercise.

The villain of the piece is the UK Border Agency whose actions presumably have political blessing. Anyone who has had dealings with this bunch will have tales of crass management of eg. student visas, citizenship applications. There are no votes in asylum seekers.

Posted by: longbeach 15th Nov 2010, 11:56am

I to feel sorry for people who are being mistreated in their native country,and are looking for some safety in their's and their families lives. But I also feel an empathy with the working class in my own country people who have worked from the day they left school and payed into the system all their working lives. Now the goverment want these people to work longer, I have worked for 38 years and due to circumstances with a family member I had to give up working after 38 years to care for her. I do not have any objections to a person working over their pensionable date but it must be a voluntary and not be forced on them by a goverment that in my mind has lost the place. They are punishing the people who have payed in for a better life when their working days are over, why do the puplic in this country have to take the blame for goverments in the past and present. Only one section of the people have let this country down and that's the ones that where put in a postion to look after and protect their people. We have a foreign policy of aid to payout to others (I do not object to) but only if our own people are looked after first, we have people of our own who have never worked, but have drawn money from the state, and I do not mean the people who legitimately have a reason why they cannot work. Instead of bringing in a foreign work force get the people who have never worked and are able to, out into the community and earn and pay back into their country. We as a country must start looking after our own before we look after others.

Posted by: Ken 15th Nov 2010, 12:58pm

I have to agree with jcjamieson. I must ask the question, will I be able to adhere to my traditional way of life in 10 - 20 years time or will I end up as a second class citizen in my own country?

Posted by: billyr 15th Nov 2010, 01:40pm

Hopefully they will cut ALLthe funding so they will ALL have to leave.....start giving help to our own poor people insted of others

Posted by: Ann Reilly 15th Nov 2010, 01:48pm

QUOTE
Up to 1300 asylum seekers currently resident in Glasgow could be forced to leave the city as early as this week after the UK Border Agency (UKBA) said it would no longer pay Glasgow City Council to house them. The dramatic move follows a breakdown in the deal, currently worth almost £10m annually, which saw Glasgow take tens of thousands of asylum seekers since 2000 under the UK Government's asylum dispersal scheme. ...

Posted by: albageorgia 15th Nov 2010, 02:04pm

birmingham have cancelled there agreement as well, aye its a shame for a lot of asylum seekers, but you can be sure many of them are just playing the system and couldnt care less if they were in glasgow doncaster cardiff or belfast, as long as they were getting housed and fed, I moved to london 37 years ago and when we moved into our council flat there were no immigrants, couple of years later a family from pakistan moved opposite us, they done their best to integrate and got along with all the neighbours, over the last 15 years the estate has just about been taken over with immigrants/asylum seekers, who dont want to integrate, this is where it goes wrong, instead of spreading them about the council put them altogether and the place eventually becomes a ghetto, not just a ghetto but a filthy ghetto, as one of the comments said earlier, charity SHOULD begin at home

Posted by: Alex Saville 15th Nov 2010, 02:54pm

This is another issue that has been buried for far to long.
As a Springburn (And Glasgow) resident, I am not supportive of Asylum Seeker's, and of those who have failed in their application, Illegal Immigrants.
I have nothing against them a individuals, collectively, however, there are far too many of them.
There are many local issues about this subject.
There is a shortage of social housing, for example. Local people and their grown up family should have first call on any spare housing, not asylum seekers.
My doctor moved from the health centre to Fernbank St, got financial assistance from the Labour Scottish Government when they were in power and employed two more doctors to look after Asylum Seekers.
If I want to see the doctor, I have to take a day off work and lose a days pay as the practice does not open at night or a Saturday morning to accomodate local working people.
That makes me a second class citizen in my own country.
At the last general election, I spoke to Willie Bain about the subject.
His view was that a method of quickening up the asylum procedure's was needed.
I disagree!
What is needed is the door shut tight and ONLY applications from OUTSIDE the UK to be processed.
Why should the UK taxpayer fund asylum applications?
And why should the same taxpayer's pay for years of appeals by illegal immigrants at the behest of the politically correct, making lawyers rich at our expense?
Recently in Tesco St Rollox I watched as two of these individuals paid for A) £50 for a phone top-up, (B £80 for a gift card, with cards provided by the UK taxpayer.
Truly this is the land of opportunity, but not for us working folks!
As for vunerable members of our society, we have plenty of the home grown variety. Consideration & respect, by the politically correct and their hangers-on, towards the local community is sadly lacking.
John Reid, the former MP & Labour Government Minister, said it was not racist to discuss immigration. Therefore, logically, it is not racist to discuss Asylum Seekers and Illegal Immigrant's.
The politically correct, in the shape of Robina Qureshi of Positive Action on Housing, would have it otherwise, of course. She runs an organisation where positive action is detrimental to locals looking for housing.
No doubt she also gets handouts from Council Tax payers and UK taxpayers to operate her anti local housing policies.
Finally, the poll says it all!

Alex


Posted by: jamjar51 15th Nov 2010, 03:41pm

Gamu would be typical of people seeking to stay here under asylum. She may very well be a great singer who was ejected from X factor on visa irregularities but because she can sing is no right for her to claim asylum.

Her lawyer and Gamu told how their was a bullet waiting for her back in Zimbabwe if she was refused leave to stay in Britain. She didn't worry about bullets as she had previously returned on holiday. It shows that we are prone to sob stories. We are told these are some of the most vulnerable people fleeing persecution. Surely you would stop where you felt safe in neighbouring countries instead of fleeing thousands upon thousands of miles where you can get a free life for free.
Some of these people may be vulnerable but a lot of them won't be vulnerable, they instantly know to claim asylum, lose any identification and all rules of engagement with border officers.

They are here because they know they will get everything before the vulnerable people born and bred here and who worked all their lives.

Posted by: Elizabeth H 15th Nov 2010, 04:11pm

The Scottish Government must have know this was coming well in advance, and it is a bit late now when an awful lot of the Asylum Seekers are either married to or have children born in this country who are by rights Scottish. and entitled to be protected by scottish law. I am not altogether in favour of "Asylum Seekers rights", but there are some very decent people amongst them who do need help away from their own country; by the same token we have people born and bred in this country who should be shipped out as they are nothing but wasters, who contribute nothing to Scotland, and think it is their right that decent people should go out and work to keep them.

It would be interesting to see how they would react if told pack your bags we are not paying for the roof over your head any longer; or you will need to assist the Government by doing whatever job we allocate to you.

Whatever decision is made will affect us all, as it is obvious to all in Scotland that something has to give, the situation is really bad, with decent people losing jobs, businesses closing down, and having to have financial help from families and friends to feed and cloth their children. How can we expect to continue to keep people from another countries here when we are in such a mess ourselves.

Posted by: bigdrew 15th Nov 2010, 04:13pm

I'm sorry but asylum seekers were the 'flavour of the month' for many councils in Britain, simply because they got Government cash, to upgrade and modernise housing stock that would have been demolished as 'unusable'.
At the same time Social services departments moved into the 'lucrative' scene moving staff and cash from drug and alcohol abuse, into this new 'trendy problem'.
Yes we all bent over backwords to accomodate refugees who arrived at our shores, from troubled countries, but quickly began to see a whole picture developing that was not as we had been informed.
I was never great at geography but I do know that in order to get to GB then on to Scotland, you must pass through other Euro States, whose customs are the same as ours and should have stopped many before they got here.....but this did not happen.
Most arrive legally and are offered support from the Government, pending case assessments, some simply dissapear into the mist, and others arriving illegally work in shops and stores hidden by fellow countrymen, who abuse them.
All this we know......
But to start a dialogue about someone who appeared in the X Factor as 'more worthy. than the next person, beggars belief.....!
In order to fully accomodate all the various cultures, every effort is made to allow them to follow their own religions, special schools are opened, culture centres are opened....and 'support agencies' buzz around looking for 'problem families'.
OK....but these people isolate themselves from us by refusing to learn to speak any English, and cause bigger problems by demanding more and more separatist lifestyles in legal cases, religious culture, clothing and acceptable behaviour from GB residents that they themselves refuse on ethnic and religious grounds.
This is a country that can only absorb so much, before the GB that we know, and the GB that these people came here for........will go the way of the dodo.....Time to step back and smell what the politicians and support agencies are shovelling.....!

Posted by: jamjar51 15th Nov 2010, 06:27pm

QUOTE (bigdrew @ 15th Nov 2010, 03:59pm) *
... But to start a dialogue about someone who appeared in the X Factor as 'more worthy. than the next person, beggars belief.....!

I certainly did not give that as someone more worthy, I gave it as an example of the 'Vulnerable people' So vulnerable that she and her lawyer both claimed there was a bullet with her name on it and she would be shot with that bullet if they were to return home to Zimbabwe. She was so worried by such a scenario that this vulnerable person went home on holiday on different occasions.

What beggars belief is that so much taxpayer's money can be abused to keep these chancers in so many last chance saloons. No matter how often their appeal is rejected there is always another taxpayer funded avenue for them to travel and the only direction they don't travel is home.

Posted by: Duettists 15th Nov 2010, 07:01pm

If these people are genuine asylum seekers, they have already been through a great deal of hardship in their own countries which motivated them to try to make a better life for them elsewhere. I feel particularly sorry for the children who will be uprooted from their schools at a moment's notice and sent on somewhere else. It is difficult enough to settle in a strange country without being shoved from pillar to post.

Posted by: jcjamieson 15th Nov 2010, 07:09pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 15th Nov 2010, 10:16am) *
Surely the point of this is that they are "Asylum Seekers" and therefore haven't yet been given Asylum? We don't know how many of these people really need asylum or are just Financial Asylum Seekers. Surely Charity begins at home? As a disabled ex Serviceman, in Winter, I often have to choose between eating and heating, so for me to hear no complaints about that but an uproar about "Asylum Seekers" and that the Government is increasing international aid to Middle Eastern Countries that are training and Funding the Terrorists killing people all over the World, is a real slap in the Face. I'm almost being treated as a criminal by the Benefits Agency's (and I know of Many others in the same position) and no one complains, but when they want to move a couple of "Asylum Seekers" to another part of Scotland there is a Public outcry. Thanks guys.

I agree with you all the way. I sympathise with you regarding you being an ex serviceman and getting the third degree from from the benefits agency. The money that could be so wisely spent helping our wounded troops and helping the people in the UK, who really need it, is being sent to terrorist groups, funding phoney asylum seekers and dishing it out to illegal immigrants!
We know ,but how long will it be before the politicians get their noses out of the trough and stop funding these mobs?

Posted by: Guest 15th Nov 2010, 08:08pm

Advocates of multiculturalism are destroying western civilization all over the world. Asylum seekers prepared to "fit-in" to western democracies should be welcomed. Others should be seen for what they are. Merkel just admitted this in Germany that multiculturalism doesn't work and ultimately destroys societies.

Posted by: John Todd 15th Nov 2010, 08:39pm

QUOTE (Guest @ 15th Nov 2010, 09:36am) *
Sorry, charity begins at home.

HEAR HEAR. lets start looking after our own before we start taking in others from so called "poor countrys"...!!!

Posted by: GG 15th Nov 2010, 08:59pm

An update on this story today:

Phil Taylor, regional director of the UK Border Agency, has said that the agency is working with other housing providers, such as YMCA (now known as Ypeople) and the Angel Group, to ensure asylum seekers are properly accommodated while their asylum claims are considered and court appeals to the are concluded.

Mr Taylor added:

QUOTE
"Letters have been sent to all asylum seekers currently housed by Glasgow City Council, explaining what could happen if they are required to move accommodation and further communication is planned to keep asylum seekers advised of future developments.

We are very hopeful that the majority of the asylum seekers affected by this change of contract will remain in their current accommodation.

If a move to new accommodation is required we will aim to give at least 14 days notice, where possible, and the costs of the move will fall to the new accommodation provider and not to the asylum seekers themselves."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11756738

GG.

Posted by: Dylan 15th Nov 2010, 09:11pm

An emotive subject .

I have listened to all the arguments for and against and most have raised or stated pertinent questions and comments.

Again I think it is a question of personal conscience.

My position is that we have a duty to look after these people untill they are judged to be genuine or not.

They are given vouchers and money because they are not allowed to work. I believe that most of them want to work.
If we did not give them money and shelter they would starve and or freeze to death. I know that is a simplistic analogy but it is simple truth.

They have a right to buy phones for the same reason we buy them , ie., the need to communicate ,they may not have land lines .This is not a luxury.!

Charlty may very well begin at home but for me it does not end at home.

Did someone not say that between Faith Hope and Charity the greatest is Charity ( I paraphrase )

They have my sympathy and my support.

Posted by: Janetta 16th Nov 2010, 12:35am

"Glasgow's Miles Better" - we embrace equality and diversity for all and that's why asylum seekers feel at home here. We should be honoured that different cultures want to be part of our city, and stand with them in their fight to stay in the City of Glasgow!

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 16th Nov 2010, 01:01am

You took your time there Janetta tongue.gif
Welcome to the boards biggrin.gif

Posted by: weebren3 16th Nov 2010, 04:42am

I forgot to say,I agree about the goverment,it is all to do with getting votes too during elections. I will add why give them false hope,when glasgow have so many job cuts.How do we know if they get education they will go back to were they come from and not pay back what was given as freedom,use it to cause harm to others.who is going to pay there rent? the tax payer who is having A hard time living from day to day for food.I would share what I have, but there is A fine line,we must look after our own Country,and by the way I dont believe phones they do not need,buy food,pay rent or work for the coummunity to give back.

Posted by: Bren 16th Nov 2010, 05:45am

It is interesting to note that last month councillors in Birmingham stood up and took their own decision to end their city's contract with the UK Border Agency because there was "a long waiting list for homes" and insisting that the city needed all its properties "for our own people".

Why do we never hear such open and honest language from councillors in Glasgow? Why are our councillors so reluctant to stand up for the needs of the city's "own people" when thousands of long-term residents are waiting for decent accommodation in the city they have called home for generations?

Posted by: Dylan 16th Nov 2010, 09:41am

QUOTE (Janetta @ 16th Nov 2010, 01:21am) *
"Glasgow's Miles Better" - we embrace equality and diversity for all and that's why asylum seekers feel at home here. We should be honoured that different cultures want to be part of our city, and stand with them in their fight to stay in the City of Glasgow!

I like that Janetta. !!

Posted by: benny 16th Nov 2010, 10:47am

QUOTE (Janetta @ 16th Nov 2010, 01:21am) *
"Glasgow's Miles Better" - we embrace equality and diversity for all and that's why asylum seekers feel at home here. We should be honoured that different cultures want to be part of our city, and stand with them in their fight to stay in the City of Glasgow!

Welcome to the board, Janetta. I can't say that I agree with you though. Like many others on the board, I believe we should look after our own before we attempt to solve the problems of the larger world.

I'm interested to know exactly who the "we" in your statement refers to. Most of the "we"s that I know, are definitely not in favour of having large numbers of asylum seekers plonked down in their locality.

Posted by: bigdrew 16th Nov 2010, 11:44am

OK let us embrace the Glasgow Smiles Better campaign again.....but remember, when these people come to live in amongst us all, they, and not us have to become part of the overall community.
And oppose with zest, current attempts to form 'communities within communities' creating zones where we, as native Scots feel threatened by going into 'Islam and Muslim areas' and feeling that we had no right to do so......
The Glasgow experience has always been to incorporate all factions and minority groups into our community, but many of these groups are now demanding, and getting, separate living conditions and support suitable to their 'ethnic needs'.
Therefore they will never become full members of the Glasgow Community, as part of their own doctrine is to exclude sections of Scottish culture as 'alien'...
So there will have to be a time when we have to say....."enough is enough"
You left Nigeria under threat, you left Iran under threat, you left wherever under threat, and we helped you.....but that does not mean you can form your own country within this land, and become antagonists within the country that 'saved you from violence or whatever'.
Comments about these people buying phones and having influence after appearing on TV programmes, as being 'the norm' is farcical as the same people would not have the cash or support in their own country to get the same items.
I agree with the ex-serviceman complaining about the Benefits Agency and its processes that tend to stop genuine claimers getting help, at the same time knowing that Support Agencies playing the Race and At Risk card for asylum seekers......get as much from the system as possible...!
Such lop-sided support will eventually lead to trouble and violence, as 'Native Residents' begin to question the entire system, and who gets what is finally brought into the open.....

Posted by: *red rooster* 16th Nov 2010, 02:00pm

Wouldn't it be "right on " and so politically correct if Newton Mearns & Bearsden could be given the chance of embracing a few thousand members of the asylum seeking community, I'm sure it's only fair that they too should enjoy the benefits and life enriching experience that the multicultural paradise of Govanhill enjoys.

I'm sure the warm hearted citizens who are enlightened enough to embrace diversity would be willing to pay a supplement to the council tax to raise money for some nice low cost accommodation, temples, mosques, community centres etc to be built in the aforementioned culturally and diversity challenged areas.

Anyone opposing the idea can receive the ultimate sanction of being branded racist.

Lets spread the goodness and generosity to all areas.

As far as charity begins at home why not allow the at risk and vulnerable members of the sink estate community claim asylum in Newton Mearns.

Posted by: ashfield 16th Nov 2010, 03:51pm

I watched a programme on BBC this morning about the 60s and how the decade influenced the future. They showed archive film from 1962 of people reacting to immigrants moving into Brittain with comments like, "they're dirty", "they want to live beside us in our streets", "they don't understand the English way of life", "they're taking our jobs".

Well, we've learned a lot then.

Posted by: wee davy 16th Nov 2010, 06:25pm

There's something all a bit sad and distasteful about this sorry situation.
1500 people being given notice of eviction, just before Christmas? hmmm

Posted by: jamjar51 16th Nov 2010, 06:56pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 16th Nov 2010, 06:11pm) *
There's something all a bit sad and distasteful about this sorry situation.
1500 people being given notice of eviction, just before Christmas? hmmm

About 1480 will probably be over the moon to get moved out of Glasgow, they will probably demand relocation to the Costas for some sunshine and sangria. Glasgow will be smiles better when they see Glasgow smiles behind them. Free house and free money but would it make you want to stay in Glasgow.

We're all off to Sunny Spain Eh Viva el Bilbo we're gonnae take up half yer hame eh Viva por favor.

Spelling no much cop in Spanish..........no much better in English but that's another story.

Posted by: Guest 16th Nov 2010, 07:23pm

Personally, I could not care. I have been on the housing list for 12 years now and not been offered a house yet. Reasons: I am not a destitute refugee, asylum seeker, single parent, drug or alchohol abuser. The list goes on.....

Perfectly fit and working with no criminal record, and no dependants seemingly is not good enough to be offered a house at no cost to the government.

The border agency is quite right to stop these payments. If they can't afford the housing, they should not be here. I am at risk every time I leave my home as there are so many drug and alchohol abusers in the area along with the local neds who will stab, mug, or whatever just because you happen to be there. Give money to police the areas, not to refugees/asylum seekers who seem to take our country for granted. By all means, they are not the only ones working the system but the government are doing something hopefully to put a stop to it or get the numbers of spongers down. What we do not need is money being spent on the many asylum seekers. Do what Australia does. Have to have so much money in account to show you can support yourself long enough to find a job and pay for their own house whether it be buying or renting before they get entry to the country and who is giving these people visa's or whatever to enter the country?

Sorry, I need a house and not getting one before people who can't even pay the rent, then it makes me very unsympathetic towards anyone getting a house before me. Not to mention all the other help they get.
Why have I not been offered a house in 12 years, but "immigrants" can get a house almost right away? Where are these houses?

Posted by: bilbo.s 16th Nov 2010, 07:33pm

Hauf ma hame ? A could be daein´wi the rent money richt eneugh. Bring it on !

Bilbo S. Rachman cool.gif

Posted by: GG 16th Nov 2010, 11:58pm

QUOTE (*red rooster* @ 16th Nov 2010, 01:46pm) *
Wouldn't it be "right on " and so politically correct if Newton Mearns & Bearsden could be given the chance of embracing a few thousand members of the asylum seeking community, I'm sure it's only fair that they too should enjoy the benefits and life enriching experience that the multicultural paradise of Govanhill enjoys. ...

Posted on another topic:
QUOTE
Academic wants refugees in middle-class areas - The Scotsman
June 2001

One of the country's top racism experts has reignited the asylum seekers issue by calling for them to be moved into middle class areas - and has offered a basement flat where he lives in order to lead by example.

Academic Alistair McIntosh attacked the Home Office and Scottish councils for fuelling violence in deprived areas of Glasgow by using them as "dumping grounds" for asylum seekers. ...

Mr McIntosh said: "Dumping asylum seekers in areas of social deprivation is the wrong decision. These areas have enough problems of their own.

"Asylum seekers need to be spread throughout Scottish society into the more des res areas - and it needs more of us who live in des res areas to stand up against racism. That is why I contacted my council offering the empty flat next to us." ...

Despite recent events Mr McIntosh said he believed refugees should continue to come to Scotland, but that more should be done to help them.

He said: "Scotland should be taking as many refugees as it can possibly absorb.

"The Home Office and councils have made some bad decisions by trying to focus asylum seekers into certain communities. It was bound to be asking for trouble."

The Scottish Refugee Council (SRC) yesterday said they supported Mr McIntosh's comments on standards of accommodation and added that asylum -seekers should have access to "the housing options of any other citizen".

A spokesman for the Home Office denied that asylum seekers were being deliberately dumped in poor areas. He added: "When we are procuring accommodation we have a legal obligation that providers acquire suitable properties in areas approved by the National Asylum Support Service. NASS has rejected and will continue to reject properties which are considered unsuitable."

Yesterday a spokesman for the Scottish Conservative Party gave the call to move asylum seekers into middle class areas a lukewarm response.

The spokesman added: "It is a fact that sufficient accommodation for 2,000 families can only be found in areas like Sighthill.

"We would question if the housing exists in what is termed middle class areas, but we would also question why so many families need to be housed in the first place. ...

GG.

Posted by: Melody 17th Nov 2010, 10:00am

I wish they would house many of these poor families in the more upmarket areas. It may help to educate some of the very comfortable twee people who live in them and help to brighten up their lives. Given half a chance the children of those poor families blossom and learn English so quickly it is staggering. Many of them would make you extremely humble.

Posted by: nippynell 17th Nov 2010, 10:38am

I really feel sorry for these people. .. sad.gif

I also see people, born and bred in Glasgow who are treated every bit as bad, there is an old saying, and I along with MANY others beleive in it " CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME " ... lets help our own folks first. Perhaps, then Glasgow can AFFORD to be more " Charitable " towards these people....

Posted by: Melody 17th Nov 2010, 10:46am

I agree with you Nippynell in that we need to look after our own. We see deprivation all around us here too. It makes me very angry, but people are just people no matter where they come from. Each any every one of them needs compassion and support when needed. Sadly we live in a world these days which feeds selfishness and greed. We can only expect that the measure we give is what we can expect to receive.

Posted by: wee davy 17th Nov 2010, 10:59am

A wee 'dose' of education wouldn't go amiss wi some posters, oan this thread. They talk about living in fear of drug abuse, stabbings & muggings. We ALL do to a greater or lesser extent.

How about watching your loved one's lose limbs or their eyes right in front of you - just to 'teach you a lesson'? How about waking up to find your village burnt down - and/or being given 24hrs to leave your home - with whatever you can carry in a binbag?

How about members of your family (or your WHOLE family) disappearing off the face of the earth - never to be seen again - as a warning for you to conform to a regime?

QUOTE
Personally, I could not care

Wrote a guest. Says it all really. At least their being honest.

I sympathise with their 12years on a housing list - but something tells me theyre not telling the full story - wherease some of the experiences asylum seekers have to relate, make your hair curl - and your skin crawl.

Posted by: Jupiter 17th Nov 2010, 11:07am

I live in an area where the vast majority of residents go out to work.In my vicinity there are doctors,opticians lawyers as well as many self employed business people.In reply to Melody and Red Rooster there is a large number of those residents from varied ethnic backgrounds.With regards to education the children of all groups, on the whole embrace it 100% and the local authority secondary schools consistantly do extremely well in the results tables.
Twee? Ive yet to come across any of them.What I have encountered are many who are up with the lark getting to work and enjoying the fruits of their labour.Maybe thats twee in some eyes.There are amenities enough here to brighten any life.
With regards housing Asylum Seekers the only reason they are not here is that there is no suitable housing available.Social housing is a thing of the past and there is no prospect of any new builds.
The area itself attracts premium prices for rented housing much of which is utilised by companies and as is evident even the most humble accomodations in Glasgow are now too expensive so what chance of paying for a five bedroomed house here?I am really touched at Red Rooster and Melodys`thoughts that some people are missing out but would reassure them not to get too cut up about it.

In conclusion the only thing that prevents Asylum seekers being housed in the upmarket, right on, twee lined leafy suburbs is money.

Posted by: red rooster 17th Nov 2010, 11:15am

QUOTE (GG @ 16th Nov 2010, 11:44pm) *
Posted on another topic ...

OMG

I thought I was being light hearted and ridiculous

There's actually people getting European grants, speaking engagements, book publishing, cushy uni jobs et all, by spouting guff like this.

Right on PC industry, these guys will haul us out of recession.

Human Ecology, what a gig, pure genius, bet with the money spent on this you could accomodate 100,000 asylum seekers in 5 star hotel.

Posted by: enrique 17th Nov 2010, 11:26am

Although i can see the arguement from the look after oors first brigade , we as scots are to be found in every country in the world , and we didnt go there by choice , going back to the Highland Clearences, some of our great clan cheifs were selling there kinsmen to the Carolinas, most others left because oor great wee country couldnae feed them or give them decent wages or jobs, 30,000 emigrated to Poland in the 17th century, one guy became the first mayor of Gdnask, his name was Czamer, but his scots name was Chalmers, ther are still scots names and sayings all over Poland, such as Nowa Szkocja,Scot Nagora, Pasa Sjkocki(scottish passage)Brama Douglas (douglas gate ) and even Skapy jak Szkot (as mean as a scot) so although it might sound like a history lesson, sometimes history comes back to haunt you and it might just be our turn to help those who are trying to improve there lives for themselves and family, so next time you moan at the Poles you might just be moaning at one of yer ane.

Posted by: bilbo.s 17th Nov 2010, 12:05pm

Interesting post, Enrique. As I have said before, we are all immigrants - just depends how far you have to look back. How many opponents of immigration to Scotland or UK are comparatively new to the country, some still with resentment of injustices, (real or imagined ) due to their status.

I am a recent immigrant to my present country, but fortunately have no complaints about my treatment. I might feel differently if I were of an ethnicity perceived as non-contributors to the economy, or "job thieves".

Posted by: Jupiter 17th Nov 2010, 02:08pm

RedRooster,welcome to the boards.Its always good to see a new name and fresh opinions,talking of which could you give us a wee idea what your 12.01 post is about.Is there some other posts by yourself on the same subject preceeding it?
Cheers.
Joop.

Posted by: ashfield 17th Nov 2010, 02:09pm

A couple of the issues raised on this thread are about housing lists and how people are treated by the benefits agency. Neither of these have anything to do with the plight of asylum seekers. The lack of social housing is a direct result of the right to buy policy, the SNP have been discussing repealing that right in Scotland. I applaud them for considering it and, if they succeed, it will gve me a big headache about who to vote for at the next election. The treatment of all claimants at the benefits agency will inevitably become a major matter as the cuts are implemented across the country, again this is nothing to do with asylum seekers. Whether they are forced to leave or not, the imprint of poverty has been here in Glasgow for generations and that won't change anytime soon.

Posted by: wee davy 17th Nov 2010, 02:47pm

Wiz jist sayin as much tae the wifie the other day, ash.

The right tae buy wiz a good idea - as far as it went - but it should've never huv been a 'free for all'. An infrastructure ought to have been maintained and in the future, there will be even MORE need - not less.

For a lot of people it was a wee 'get modestly rich' temporarily scheme. I'll bet you many of them wish they hadn't taken the option - after spending it all on repairs, etc!

Posted by: jamjar51 17th Nov 2010, 04:49pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 17th Nov 2010, 10:45am) *
QUOTE
Personally, I could not care

Wrote a guest. Says it all really. At least their being honest.

I sympathise with their 12years on a housing list - but something tells me theyre not telling the full story - wherease some of the experiences asylum seekers have to relate, make your hair curl - and your skin crawl.

And some of these asylum seekers have been proven not to have been telling the full story, in fact a hell of a lot of them have been telling tall tales. In other cases if they were truly fleeing such horrors why travel through so many friendly European countries to get here. It is a simple question but every time it is aired there is never a relevant reply. Some of the fanciful stories aired by these people make my skin crawl.

Gamu proved how the horror story is invented, there is a bullet waiting for her if she returned to Zimbabwe, then it turned out she was going back on holiday when it suited her, lies, lies and damned statistics is what basically sums up the vast majority of Asylum seeking chancers.

There are many people sitting on the housing lists for many many years and that is why Birmingham decided that our own come first in housing.

Posted by: wee davy 17th Nov 2010, 06:12pm

QUOTE
lies and damned statistics is what basically sums up the vast majority of Asylum seeking chancers.


jj I have to take issue with you here - there is no basis of truth to make the assumption that the majority of asylum seekers are liars or 'chancers'.

You can accuse people from the 'relative' comfort of your 'relative' safety here in the UK - - but are you so blind, as you cannot see? Fact - at any one time, there are something like 134 wars/conflicts going on, around the world (consistently since the end of WWII). Do you honestly advocate we should pull the drawbridge up, turn all asylum seekers right around, at the airports, and ferries - and send them back to an uncertain future?

Of course its open to abuse, but surely you must concede there are many genuine cases for consideration? Or do you not believe your own eyes, when you see countless reports of abuse around the world? Are we to just switch off, and leave them to it?

I'm proud of the fact, this island has compassion for those less fortunate.
I wouldn't have decided to stay here all these years, and pay inflated tax if we were any different.

Posted by: red rooster 17th Nov 2010, 07:02pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 17th Nov 2010, 01:54pm) *
RedRooster,welcome to the boards.Its always good to see a new name and fresh opinions,talking of which could you give us a wee idea what your 12.01 post is about.Is there some other posts by yourself on the same subject preceeding it?
Cheers.
Joop.

Jupiter
Thanks for the welcome to the board
The quote reference on my 12.01 post should give you a wee idea what the post is about, if you refer to the quote ref. on this post it will tell you I am referring to your post of 1:54.



Posted by: Jupiter 17th Nov 2010, 07:23pm

Red rooster,just assume Im a thicko.Youve lost me.

Posted by: Dylan 17th Nov 2010, 07:33pm

So I am not alone--phew !!

Posted by: jamjar51 17th Nov 2010, 07:53pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 17th Nov 2010, 05:58pm) *
jj I have to take issue with you here - there is no basis of truth to make the assumption that the majority of asylum seekers are liars or 'chancers'.

You can accuse people from the 'relative' comfort of your 'relative' safety here in the UK - - but are you so blind, as you cannot see? Fact - at any one time, there are something like 134 wars/conflicts going on, around the world (consistently since the end of WWII). Do you honestly advocate we should pull the drawbridge up, turn all asylum seekers right around, at the airports, and ferries - and send them back to an uncertain future?

Of course its open to abuse, but surely you must concede there are many genuine cases for consideration? Or do you not believe your own eyes, when you see countless reports of abuse around the world? Are we to just switch off, and leave them to it?

I'm proud of the fact, this island has compassion for those less fortunate.
I wouldn't have decided to stay here all these years, and pay inflated tax if we were any different.

Not so blind to see they come here for one reason only, they can get more for free here.

I'm not too blind to see the genuine cases never get near these shores, they either die or they get to the first safe port of call.

I don't say pull up the drawbridge, simply block the tunnel. I'm not too blind to see they can't be ersed to stay in France which is no danger to them. They will try anything to get to Britain because they know we are a soft touch.

The genuine cases get no where, the spongers and chancers are handsomely rewarded. I'm also not too blind to see the Sangatte camps where the chancers are fed and watered as they make their attempt to get in here.

Let their asylum claims be decided in the nearest safe country and then percentage wise they can be allocated a country. The majority of people have had enough of watching these chancers arrive while the genuine cases are left in destitution and misery.

We all have compassion for the genuine cases, the vast majority of cases, as proved by refusal rates, as not genuine. And our elderly and vulnerable are suffering because of these chancers. Time to get rid of them.

Posted by: Jupiter 17th Nov 2010, 07:56pm

Hey Dylan, we will be in the asylum trying to decipher that unsure.gif Joop

Posted by: wee davy 17th Nov 2010, 08:16pm

I believe your talking about illegal immigrants - not asylum seekers, jj

illegal immigrants can (and do) often try the asylum route.
Thes are the 'refusals' you refer to. Those who appear to have a genuine case - are looked at sympathetically - treated with a modicum of respect whilst they're individual circumstances are investigated.

I'm talking about genuine asylum seekers - for which we have specific and stringent guidelines. I'm not talking about the huge immigration problem Europe has dug for itself, in recent years! In particular our own headache.

There is (or should be) a clear distinction made, between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants (the chancers you refer to).

I have de ja vue right now - because I've had this discussion before with someone lol I say it again - genuine ASYLUM SEEKERS should be afforded every assistance - whilst they are 'at risk'. Like the rules for benefits are quite clear - if circumstances change - we should be looking to repatriate them, (if at all possible) at the earliest opportunity - or looking towards an alternative accomodation (ie find another place willing to take them).

(Good idea about the tunnel, btw!)

Posted by: wee davy 17th Nov 2010, 08:22pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 17th Nov 2010, 07:42pm) *
Hey Dylan, we will be in the asylum trying to decipher that unsure.gif Joop

I think it wiz done oan thon enigma machine joop!

probbly means WWIII is about to start! unsure.gif

Posted by: Dylan 17th Nov 2010, 08:33pm

Joop & Wee Davy,

My Brain hurts, a sure sign the bleeding has started again.

There's a battle outside and it's ragin.!!!!

More Bowmore under consideration. Decided against dark room as I keep missing my mouth.

Am I making sense ? Does it matter ?

Posted by: Jupiter 17th Nov 2010, 09:18pm

You better start swimmin.

Posted by: Jupiter 17th Nov 2010, 09:19pm

Im right onto Ebay to see if there are any Enigma machines on the go.

Posted by: wee davy 17th Nov 2010, 09:39pm

hahahahaha wink.gif LMAO

Posted by: jamjar51 17th Nov 2010, 09:52pm

The biggest problem wee davy is that even when all avenues have been exhausted and by god you need an A to Z to count all the taxpayer funded roads to get staying here, no one gets sent home. That is what really riles people. The majority of people are very much compassionate but compassion starts to wane when you see how, muggers, rapists, murderers can snub the system and they stay while bleeding the system and the taxpayer dry. The majority of cases are refused right to stay, the vast majority just stay anyway and people know the UK is a shambles in this situation so they all head for the promised land.

Posted by: wee davy 17th Nov 2010, 10:28pm

Wonder what the estimate would be (if we had any idea whit the numbers of illegals were!) of the ill gotten benefits cost to the nation, eh? Wouldn't mind betting, it would account for a huge swathe of the bill to the taxpayer.

You make some very good points, jj.

However, you or I have no way of knowing exactly how many of those 1500 are illegals - or are asylum seekers. It seems to have been left up to the toss of a coin for far too long.

There is no doubt we have been soaking up far too much of the 'dross' for far too long - the new government have yet to address this issue properly.
Simply having a 'showboat' eviction, isnt even TOUCHING the real issues.

Posted by: wombat 17th Nov 2010, 11:11pm

QUOTE
Wonder what the estimate would be (if we had any idea whit the numbers of illegals were!) of the ill gotten benefits cost to the nation, eh? Wouldn't mind betting, it would account for a huge swathe of the bill to the taxpayer.

How much wid it cost britain or the US per day militarily? simple arithmetic "stop killin each ither" smile.gif END

Posted by: red rooster 18th Nov 2010, 03:06am

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 17th Nov 2010, 07:09pm) *
Red rooster,just assume Im a thicko.Youve lost me.

Jupiter

This post refers to your post date - 17th November 2010, 07:09PM.

Posted by: Melody 18th Nov 2010, 08:01am

What a good idea Wombat, easy peasy just don't kill other folk.

Posted by: wee davy 18th Nov 2010, 08:19am

QUOTE (red rooster @ 18th Nov 2010, 02:52am) *
Jupiter

This post refers to your post date - 17th November 2010, 07:09PM.

It would helpful to provide a link to it, red - then we could all be 'in' on it? Unless of course you want it to be private, then you could simply PM them?

regards, davy

Posted by: GG 18th Nov 2010, 08:41am

It has been reported today that the UK Border Agency (UKBA) has backed away from its threat to move asylum seekers from their homes in Glasgow to elsewhere in Scotland, in the short term at least.

The Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee is to look into the background of the stand-off between UKBA and Glasgow City Council. The committee will hold hearings in Glasgow and London to investigate the circumstances of the dispute.

Senior officials from UKBA are also to meet Glasgow MPs to discuss the matter prior to any action being taken.

The turnaround comes after SNP MP Pete Wishart lodged a series of parliamentary questions at Westminster, having been alerted by party colleague and Glasgow MSP Anne McLaughlin.

GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 18th Nov 2010, 08:42am

Reports today in the press by an Oxford professor suggests that white people will be a minority in GB by 2066.
Source:Prospect Magazine


Posted by: Melody 18th Nov 2010, 08:44am

That's good news Martin. Hopefully sense and compassion will prevail.

Posted by: Jupiter 18th Nov 2010, 08:50am

WeeDavy,I dont know about you,but Id like to be in on it.
Who is Martin?

Posted by: Melody 18th Nov 2010, 08:52am

Martin is GG and our board moderator Jupiter.

Posted by: Old Sailor 18th Nov 2010, 11:10am

QUOTE (jcjamieson @ 15th Nov 2010, 11:55am) *
I agree with you all the way. I sympathise with you regarding you being an ex serviceman and getting the third degree from from the benefits agency. The money that could be so wisely spent helping our wounded troops and helping the people in the UK, who really need it, is being sent to terrorist groups, funding phoney asylum seekers and dishing it out to illegal immigrants!
We know ,but how long will it be before the politicians get their noses out of the trough and stop funding these mobs?

Don't blame Asylum seekers for the inequities of the Social System and the treatment of Veterans. This country has been denying and mistreating ols soldiers since after the WW2, long before these people got here and before many of you were born. Your comment is vindictive and without merit.

Posted by: bilbo.s 18th Nov 2010, 11:38am

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 18th Nov 2010, 10:28am) *
Reports today in the press by an Oxford professor suggests that white people will be a minority in GB by 2066.
Source:Prospect Magazine



What is your point exactly?

Posted by: Jupiter 18th Nov 2010, 12:36pm

My point is that as we are all on here basically chewin the fat this is another point to chew over and that many of the asylum seekers here today given leave to stay will no doubt help to swell the numbers.

Posted by: Melody 18th Nov 2010, 01:02pm

Jupiter I think we realise that the Asylum Seekers and Refugees of today are likely to have families in the future. I don't see what difference it makes if white folk are in the minorty in 2066. Not many of us will still be here to find out what happens.

Posted by: bilbo.s 18th Nov 2010, 01:12pm

Should I be concerned about the colour of my neighbour´s skin? Should the population of Coatbridge , for example, have been warned in the 19th century that , in a few decades, people of Irish extraction would be in the majority.

What should be done about the former and should have been done about the latter, if anything?

I should be interested to know.

Posted by: Jupiter 18th Nov 2010, 01:21pm

It certainly wont make any difference to me but my year old grandaughter might look back in years to come and think,"Why am I different?"
By inserting the post I am merely attempting to expand the topic and Im sure many will not be as perceptive as Melody in realising that some of the refugees and asylum seekers here today will have families in the future.

Posted by: bilbo.s 18th Nov 2010, 01:38pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 18th Nov 2010, 03:07pm) *
It certainly wont make any difference to me but my year old grandaughter might look back in years to come and think,"Why am I different?"
By inserting the post I am merely attempting to expand the topic and Im sure many will not be as perceptive as Melody in realising that some of the refugees and asylum seekers here today will have families in the future.

I think most people will have realised this and I am equally sure that many will be unhappy about it.
I am at present surrounded by people of a different culture, religion and language and certainly not bothered. Admittedly I chose my situation.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 18th Nov 2010, 02:14pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 18th Nov 2010, 01:07pm) *
It certainly wont make any difference to me but my year old grandaughter might look back in years to come and think,"Why am I different?"
By inserting the post I am merely attempting to expand the topic and Im sure many will not be as perceptive as Melody in realising that some of the refugees and asylum seekers here today will have families in the future.

Actually I think it's a bit of a provocative post.
I was immediately reminded of an occasion when I was driving with my wife and kids and my mate from Lincoln to his home in Cornwall and had the kids counting particular cars or whatever to keep then occupied and passing through Leicester my mate says to the kids, "See who can spot the white faces!"
I could see his point, of course, but I couldn't see why he had to make his point.
I think this migration thing started off quite a long time ago: somewhere near the East African Rift Valley if I'm not mistaken; and we might all have been the same colour back then and I don't think it was white.

Posted by: jamjar51 18th Nov 2010, 02:33pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 17th Nov 2010, 10:14pm) *
However, you or I have no way of knowing exactly how many of those 1500 are illegals - or are asylum seekers. It seems to have been left up to the toss of a coin for far too long.

That may be where we are going wrong and this lot are using a double headed coin.

Posted by: Jupiter 18th Nov 2010, 02:38pm

THH, Is conversation and debate not about provoking further conversation and debate?
Is a hypothetical question set fifty odd years hence causing offence?
Ive travelled about a wee bit and visited many large cities in North America,Europe and Oz and have noticed that in the main they are melting pots of all creeds,colours and races.
Many cities in England have developed in the same way but my view is that Scotland and in particular Glasgow (as thats what we are talking about) has not had this particular mix historically.
In the past 10-15 years there has been a massive influx of peoples from all over the place.I for one do not have any issue with that,none whatsoever.What I was introducing into the topic was the change in demography which is predicted as a result of this.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 18th Nov 2010, 05:43pm

QUOTE
THH, Is conversation and debate not about provoking further conversation and debate?

Absolutely. wink.gif

QUOTE
Is a hypothetical question set fifty odd years hence causing offence?

Absolutely not. wink.gif

Posted by: Jupiter 18th Nov 2010, 05:53pm

Great,lets bang on then
Joop smile.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 18th Nov 2010, 05:55pm

big bass drums at the ready!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 18th Nov 2010, 05:59pm

QUOTE (TeeHeeHee @ 18th Nov 2010, 02:00pm) *
I could see his point, of course, but I couldn't see why he had to make his point.

This is what I hoped would provoke further debate.
BOOM! BOOM! laugh.gif

Posted by: Jupiter 18th Nov 2010, 06:24pm

THH,"Quip" springs to mind.Nothing malicious just a one liner.

Posted by: *Georgina* 19th Nov 2010, 05:27am

Council property should be for people who are already in the UK, with permission to stay - there are too many on the waiting lists to house people coming in from abroad like this. There are too many local authority homes tied up in this way. There are plenty of cheap providers - let them do it.

Posted by: Jupiter 19th Nov 2010, 08:42am

Georgina,who are the cheap providers you are referring to? Where would you propose as the best place to accomodate asylum seekers?
As far as Im aware,and Im happy to be corrected,any EU citizen coming to the UK has the same rights as UK citizens and so after the formalities with the immigration,customs etc are completed they can apply for a council house wherever they like.

Posted by: hope 19th Nov 2010, 10:15am

QUOTE (Guest @ 15th Nov 2010, 09:36am) *
Sorry, charity begins at home.

Asylum seekers who can afford to travel half way across the world to the UK and it seems they only want the UK... you only have to look at what they have done to the UK and its not good ask the public.

By law they should have went to the nearest country to where they come from.

Posted by: Jupiter 19th Nov 2010, 03:40pm

Hope, What have "They" done to the country?

Posted by: Scotsman 19th Nov 2010, 06:02pm

I applaud the work of the SNP elected representatives who have sought to bring this matter to the attention of Westminster and Holyrood. Quite clearly the councillors at City Chambers are not up to the job (see the story in The Sun today!).

Glasgow has received hundreds of millions of pounds as revenue from the 'asylum industry' but where exactly are the benefits to the city? The social housing stock is so dilapidated (we are told) that the GHA is busy demolishing 30,000 homes in the city - almost 40% of its stock. And this at a time when rancid economic conditions will throw more and more families onto the scrapheap of poverty and homelessness.

At the same time performance in the city's schools, already the lowest, is sinking faster still.

Surely some of the 100s of millions paid by the Home Office should have been targeted at improving housing and education? It seems not.

The truth is that members of Glasgow City Council thought they could take the UK Government for a ride and by all accounts it did when both were under Labour control. Now the new government has signaled its intention that it will not be held to ransom by local politicians wanting to wring ever-more money from Westminster for providing a service that apparently every other council in the UK (except London) can (and will) do cheaper.

Maybe Glasgow councillors should be paying more attention to the thousands of Glaswegians who are effectively homeless and are desperate to get on the housing ladder. In these straitened it is important that we look after our own. Charity begins at home!

Posted by: Scotsman 19th Nov 2010, 06:08pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 19th Nov 2010, 03:26pm) *
Hope, What have "They" done to the country?

It's not what "they" have done to the country - it's what our politicians have done to the country. It is only natural for the world's poor, needy and frightened to want to come to the UK. It's the job of politicians to manage and control this process so that our efforts to help the downtrodden are within our ability to do so. And to make sure also that our own poor, needy and frightened are cared for. Unfortunately our politicians have completely failed in both respects.

Who knows what the long-term consequences will be for us all?

Posted by: wee davy 19th Nov 2010, 07:16pm

I'm beginning to get a little confused by this thread (not difficult right now) but if you want to discuss IMMIGRATION, would you perhaps start another thread?

If you want to discuss the Asylum Seekers issue - then please do - however I believe it is a non-issue as the government (Whitehall) has more than likely realised their getting into a bit of a fankle with the whole thing!

Immigration has its own specific problems blaming asylum seekers doesn't
even BEGIN to address the immigration issues. I will say it AGAIN - they do not even know HOW many illegals are already IN the country over the last ten years - and how many continue to arrive each piggin DAY!

Student numbers, and official figures for immigrant workers doesn't give us a CLUE - so what about family members who arrive - legitimately, and don't go back, for example?

Illegal Immigration is a MASSIVE problem in this country most immigrants will tell you that! grrrr

(Welcome to the boards Scotsman, if I haven't already done so! are you a 'banished' Glaswegian then? lol)

Posted by: ashfield 19th Nov 2010, 07:32pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 19th Nov 2010, 06:48pm) *
I applaud the work of the SNP elected representatives who have sought to bring this matter to the attention of Westminster and Holyrood.

I agree Scotsman.......... but why did it take so long for Alex Salmond to make a statement on the issue, after all, Nicola Sturgeon is a Glasgow MSP and must have been aware of the situation from the outset. It was odd seeing menbers of Glasgow City Council taking part in the asylum seekers protest rally in George Square, they were clearly blaming the UK border agency for situation.

Posted by: jamjar51 19th Nov 2010, 11:12pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 19th Nov 2010, 08:28am) *
Georgina,who are the cheap providers you are referring to? Where would you propose as the best place to accomodate asylum seekers?
As far as Im aware,and Im happy to be corrected,any EU citizen coming to the UK has the same rights as UK citizens and so after the formalities with the immigration,customs etc are completed they can apply for a council house wherever they like.

EU citizens are not Asylum seekers, ie the Poles came and had to work, they didn't get top of the housing lists. These people are financial migrants and willing to work, assimilate and they pay their way because they don't qualify for benefits or housing for 12 months.

The problems arise from the Asylum seekers who say they are fleeing all sorts but keep fleeing until they get to Britain. If there was no benefit to get to Britain they would all have stopped in Europe. They get housed first before people born, raised and working here.

Posted by: Mathieson 20th Nov 2010, 12:41am

QUOTE (*red rooster* @ 16th Nov 2010, 02:46pm) *
Wouldn't it be "right on " and so politically correct if Newton Mearns & Bearsden could be given the chance of embracing a few thousand members of the asylum seeking community, I'm sure it's only fair that they too should enjoy the benefits and life enriching experience that the multicultural paradise of Govanhill enjoys.

I'm sure the warm hearted citizens who are enlightened enough to embrace diversity would be willing to pay a supplement to the council tax to raise money for some nice low cost accommodation, temples, mosques, community centres etc to be built in the aforementioned culturally and diversity challenged areas.

Anyone opposing the idea can receive the ultimate sanction of being branded racist.

Lets spread the goodness and generosity to all areas.

As far as charity begins at home why not allow the at risk and vulnerable members of the sink estate community claim asylum in Newton Mearns.

What have you got against the people of Newton Mearns? Was it them who brought all the asylum seekers into your area? I think not. If you're looking for somebody to blame then take a look at Glasgow's Labour Council who brought all these people in so as to avail themselves of the reward money in the shape of grants they got for doing so. In fact, don't just blame them, blame the people who voted them in.

It now seems the money has run out and the asylum seekers have served their purpose so the council's benevolence is evaporating along with it.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 20th Nov 2010, 01:30am

That's a good take.


(Off topic; this is for weedavy ... that was post #6666. Is that good or bad unsure.gif rolleyes.gif )

Posted by: GG 20th Nov 2010, 08:42am

Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow, yesterday criticised the decision (now postponed) to move 1300 asylum seekers from Glasgow. His comments, coming on the eve of a second organised protest by asylum seekers in Glasgow, highlighted the "pain" and "distress" caused by the letters sent by the UK Border Agency.

Archbishop Conti said:

QUOTE
“There must be a solution to the financial issues behind this decision which does not involve such human suffering.

I call upon the UK Government, the Scotland Office and the Home Office to call a halt to this dreadful decision which, if allowed to stand, will cause untold distress and pain.

Few of our fellow Glaswegians are as vulnerable as those brothers and sisters of ours who have come to the city as asylum seekers. Their dignity and rights cannot be trampled upon without doing damage to our best traditions of care and compassion."

At Holyrood, Furst Minister Alex Salmond was asked by Glasgow MSP Anne McLaughlin if he would intervene and discuss the matter with the Home Office.

In response, Mr Salmond said:
QUOTE
"I would condemn the nature of the letter asylum seekers received. They should be treated with respect and with dignity.

The letter was inappropriate and I will make these views known to the Home Secretary.

Negotiations between the UK Border Agency and Glasgow City Council should be re-opened immediately."

In a separate development, pupils from Lourdes Secondary, Cardonald, handed a petition with over 1000 signatures to Mr Salmond. The petition called for all asylum seekers in Glasgow to be allowed to stay in the city.

GG.

Posted by: jamjar51 20th Nov 2010, 10:37am

QUOTE (GG @ 20th Nov 2010, 08:28am) *
In a separate development, pupils from Lourdes Secondary, Cardonald, handed a petition with over 1000 signatures to Mr Salmond. The petition called for all asylum seekers in Glasgow to be allowed to stay in the city.

GG.

The same pupils will soon be looking for jobs and housing soon only to find all the money has been spent on the asylum seekers they have been indoctrinated into supporting. As the saying goes 'Education is wasted on the young.'

Posted by: Mathieson 20th Nov 2010, 10:46am

QUOTE (GG @ 20th Nov 2010, 09:28am) *
Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow, yesterday criticised the decision (now postponed) to move 1300 asylum seekers from Glasgow. His comments, coming on the eve of a second organised protest by asylum seekers in Glasgow, highlighted the "pain" and "distress" caused by the letters sent by the UK Border Agency...

That's fine then, maybe Mario's church can dip into it's billions in assests world-wide and pay for their keep. Won't hold my breath though.

Posted by: GG 20th Nov 2010, 12:07pm

Agcording to Linda Dempster, deputy director for the UK Border Agency in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the delay in re-housing asylum seekers in Glasgow is only temporary and the dispersal programme will still go ahead.

Speaking to the BBC today, Ms Dempster said:

QUOTE
"We share the city council's wish that these changes are handled sensitively taking full account of individual circumstances.

We will continue to work closely with the council, who we met this week, to ensure the transition is handled as smoothly as possible and disruption is kept to a minimum."

GG.

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 20th Nov 2010, 06:41pm

They're transferring a contract and Ms Dempster appears to have less knowledge of TUPe than the Ms. McSheffrey (UKBA Contract manager) who caused the fracas in the first instance.

Ms McSheffrey had not even spoken to Ypeople (The YMCA without the Christianity) before advising the council that's who their replacement would be.

Some of us on this board pay UK taxes which pays for the Borders Agency and we could identify a couple of senior public servants who should be removed thus saving us some money.

Posted by: wee davy 20th Nov 2010, 07:07pm

At LEAST a couple Dexter. EACH!

Posted by: jamjar51 20th Nov 2010, 07:53pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 20th Nov 2010, 06:53pm) *
At LEAST a couple Dexter. EACH!

Hear Hear Sir!

Posted by: Scotsman 21st Nov 2010, 06:18pm

QUOTE (ashfield @ 19th Nov 2010, 07:18pm) *
I agree Scotsman.......... but why did it take so long for Alex Salmond to make a statement on the issue, after all, Nicola Sturgeon is a Glasgow MSP and must have been aware of the situation from the outset. It was odd seeing menbers of Glasgow City Council taking part in the asylum seekers protest rally in George Square, they were clearly blaming the UK border agency for situation.

You'd probably need to ask Mr Salmond that Ashfield, but it has been a very busy week for him with the budget and the Tartan Tax stuff. As for the cooncillors, they're probably protesting the loss of a nice little earner for the city coffers - probably helped pay for their fleet of limos! smile.gif

Posted by: Scotsman 21st Nov 2010, 06:28pm

QUOTE (Dexter%20St%2E%20Clair @ 20th Nov 2010, 06:27pm) *
They're transferring a contract and Ms Dempster appears to have less knowledge of TUPe than the Ms. McSheffrey (UKBA Contract manager) who caused the fracas in the first instance.

Ms McSheffrey had not even spoken to Ypeople (The YMCA without the Christianity) before advising the council that's who their replacement would be.

Some of us on this board pay UK taxes which pays for the Borders Agency and we could identify a couple of senior public servants who should be removed thus saving us some money.

A lack of knowledge about the intricacies of TUPe'ing didn't stop a certain ex-cooncil leader jetison 1000s of council jobs into the hands of the pseudo-private sector. Why should it stop UKBA? How do you know UKBA failed to meet its pre-transfer contractual obligations?

As for Ypeople, well, they're under no obligation post-transfer - so I can't see them worrying about the arrangement!

Posted by: bilbo.s 21st Nov 2010, 07:30pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 21st Nov 2010, 08:14pm) *
A lack of knowledge about the intricacies of TUPe'ing didn't stop a certain ex-cooncil leader jetison 1000s of council jobs into the hands of the pseudo-private sector. Why should it stop UKBA? How do you know UKBA failed to meet its pre-transfer contractual obligations?

As for Ypeople, well, they're under no obligation post-transfer - so I can't see them worrying about the arrangement!

TUP ? UKBA? Ypeople ? Aldous Huxley had nae idea. unsure.gif

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 22nd Nov 2010, 12:02am

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 21st Nov 2010, 07:14pm) *
How do you know UKBA failed to meet its pre-transfer contractual obligations?


[A senior official within GCC] told me.

[Edit: Name provided, but removed to protect privacy, GG.]

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 22nd Nov 2010, 06:03pm

The house that Jack (the British tax payer) built.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332086/Romanian-gypsy-stole-113-000-British-taxpayers-jailed-years.html

Posted by: benny 22nd Nov 2010, 06:35pm

Aye, that'll larn him, eh? A whole 3 years fur swindlin over a hundred grand. Nae doubt he'll study furra degree while he's inside, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 22nd Nov 2010, 07:15pm

Back on topic.

Is this the real reason for removing the contract.

QUOTE
One senior political source yesterday told The Herald of growing suspicions that the Home Office wants to wind down the overall numbers of asylum seekers in Glasgow because of the public outcry when they are removed.

The source said: “Over the years we’ve had the Dungavel protests, the Ay family and the Glasgow Girls, Precious Mhango and the demonstrations about the dawn raids.

“This doesn’t happen elsewhere in the UK and you’ve got to ask whether it is less hassle for UKBA to have Glasgow’s asylum seekers elsewhere.”

In the traditions of The Glasgow Rent Strike, its support for the miners and Upper Clyde shipbuilding I'd say.

Posted by: wee davy 22nd Nov 2010, 07:18pm

re; our romanian 'friend'

Whats muddied the waters here, even more, was the fact that Romania got full membership of the European Union in - guess when? - 2007! He would have no longer had asylum seeker status, with indefinite leave to remain - but full EU citizenship! What I find incredible is this scumbag (dealing in child beggars will seal his fate for a VERY long time) managed to do all this on a FALSE identity!

Its a complete farce.

He was and is, an illegal immigrant, and always will be - simple as that. Using asylum should be a serious offence, in its own right.

Hence deportation when he's finished his term here - as he has no status.

Lets just hope he doesn't make it back again - which appears to happen all to often, as well.

The UK's immigration system is clearly totally inadequate, yet we persist with it.

Wonder if all his 'family' share the same false named identity?

(btw I would say, very MUCH relevant to the current topic!)

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 22nd Nov 2010, 07:42pm

I'm a Glaswegian here to talk about Glaswegians who are being evicted because of nonsense going on in a publicly funded body and i can spot an interloper regardless of their current abode and accent.

Anything to say on UKBA's handlong of this? Anything to say to Glaswegians working at Blindcraft who are caught in the crossfire?

Anything to say to the young Glaswegians who see their friends being moved from their school and forced to live elsewhere in Scotland because they ain't being sent back to their country of origin.

What is people say in the part of the country you moved to?

"Tha’ can allus tell a Yorkshireman,
but tha’ can’t tell ‘im much."

Posted by: benny 22nd Nov 2010, 08:46pm

Aye, ah'd like tae say that If ah wis an asylum seeker ah'd be only too bloody glad tae be housed somewhere safe, whether it wis in Glesga or Ecclefechan.

So, OK, they hiv tae make new friends in a different area - thousands of Glasgwegians have done it before withoot bitchin aboot it.

Posted by: Heather 22nd Nov 2010, 08:57pm

Aye Dexter, and what about the thousands of indegenous British on Housing waiting lists, it's them I feel sorry for.

That Romanian should have got ten years not three and his house should be sold to pay back the money he claimed by fraud.

Posted by: Scotsman 22nd Nov 2010, 09:29pm

As a UK taxpayer I am delighted that the UKBA has acted in my interests to avoid having to pay an extra £5M over the next two years. The increased costs are entirely due to the fact that Glasgow Housing Association is bent on a disastrous policy of demolishing tens of thousands of socially rented homes - gone forever - just so that Glasgow City Council can get their hands on the vacant land to flog off to private developers.

I am apparently not alone in my praise for UKBA judging that 70% of the 300 people who voted here do not want UKBA to give the council an extra penny for housing asylum seekers in my home town.

Posted by: Mathieson 22nd Nov 2010, 11:29pm

I think Glasgow City Council should ask for volunteers from the citizenry to give free board and lodgings to these so-called asylum seekers then the people like Dexter who are apparently over-brimming with generous abandon can spoil them to their heart's content in the privacy of their own homes and slap themselves on the back for their benevolence while the rest of us can be thankful we are not paying any longer for people who had been taking us for a ride.

Posted by: wee davy 22nd Nov 2010, 11:49pm

QUOTE (Dexter St. Clair @ 22nd Nov 2010, 07:28pm) *
I'm a Glaswegian here to talk about Glaswegians who are being evicted because of nonsense going on in a publicly funded body and i can spot an interloper regardless of their current abode and accent.

Anything to say on UKBA's handlong of this? Please see earlier posts, Dexter.
Anything to say to Glaswegians working at Blindcraft who are caught in the crossfire? No.

Anything to say to the young Glaswegians who see their friends being moved from their school and forced to live elsewhere in Scotland because they ain't being sent back to their country of origin.

I will assume this was directed at me, also. Yes,... I do have something to say to the young Glaswegians of today - Firstly, 'Never make assumptions'. Secondly, as I said in an earlier post, the initial decision, (such as it was) was a complete travesty.
The point I was TRYING to make, is it is hardly surprising attitudes harden, when we are ALL faced with such incompetence, on such a 'Global' scale (by global, think parochial - ie UK)

Well, as one Gleswegian tae another, Dexter - why don't you tell me I need your permission to discuss something on this forum? (which has wider implications for the rest of the country). Or did ye swally the Oxford Concise this morning, fer breakfast?
Am I to understand I have to ask, before making a comment?
'Interloper'? Supercilious-ness isn't one of your 'better' traits, I have to say, Sir.

As one who had to fight in defence of a wee friend of mine, who happened to have different coloured skin ( something of 'wonder' when I was at school, in Glasgow pal), when he wiz being bullied - I think you've got quite a cheek.


I'll just treat your last comment, with the complete contempt it deserves.
You neither know me - OR the reasons why I now find myself living where I do.
As for being a yorkshireman - I'd rather be a stubborn one of them, than a pompous bully.

(Ye goat ma dander up, awright pal)

Posted by: *Jenny* 23rd Nov 2010, 05:22am

Very well said Davy.... it's good to see that you stood up to bullies then.... and that you continue to do so today! Ey up, lad! smile.gif

Posted by: GG 23rd Nov 2010, 08:45am

QUOTE (Dexter St. Clair @ 22nd Nov 2010, 07:28pm) *
I'm a Glaswegian here to talk about Glaswegians who are being evicted because of nonsense going on in a publicly funded body and i can spot an interloper regardless of their current abode and accent. ...

We are all Glaswegians on these boards – regardless of where we currently live – and we are here to discuss our great city. If you take the time to read what people write on here, you will find that many Glaswegians were saddened, but compelled, to leave the city of their birth in search of a better life elsewhere. Is this a reason for you to attack them in such a pernicious manner? Do you see the irony here?

Back 'on topic' now...

GG.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 23rd Nov 2010, 10:44am

QUOTE (GG @ 23rd Nov 2010, 08:31am) *
We are all Glaswegians on these boards – regardless of where we currently live –

... and some of us thought we'd be back some day - but life's not always like that, is it?

Posted by: glasgow lass 23rd Nov 2010, 01:09pm

I relocated myself and family at least four times in my life, just a bother and lots of work but no big deal. Once kids make a few new friends , they're usually fine. Will the asylum seekers have jobs to go to when they are relocated? Sorry, but I have't had time to read everything on this.

Posted by: wee davy 23rd Nov 2010, 01:54pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11800778

Have a read of this news report, lass - 20th Nov, relatively up to date.

Posted by: Jupiter 23rd Nov 2010, 02:49pm

If and when the asylum seekers pack up and move on will they be replaced by our near neighbours in Eire where the economic and work situation is dire?

Posted by: Guest 23rd Nov 2010, 05:44pm

QUOTE
If and when the asylum seekers pack up and move on will they be replaced by our near neighbours in Eire where the economic and work situation is dire?

No need for them to come here. We are already bailing them out to the tune of £7 billion. No doubt there are some who will say it is worth it to keep them on their side of the Irish Sea.

Posted by: glasgow lass 23rd Nov 2010, 07:36pm

Thank you for that read davy, Im truly sorry for the dificulties these people have had to endure in the past and some still on -going with emotional problems, but its not as if they are being sent back to the country that they fled from.

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 23rd Nov 2010, 11:36pm

QUOTE (Heather @ 22nd Nov 2010, 09:43pm) *
Aye Dexter, and what about the thousands of indegenous British on Housing waiting lists, it's them I feel sorry for.

There's a waiting list for houses in Castlemilk? Really?

Nae waiting list in the West End.

https://homechoice.gha.org.uk/SearchResults.aspx?q=%22Area%22%3d%27West%27

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 23rd Nov 2010, 11:38pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 22nd Nov 2010, 10:15pm) *
I am apparently not alone in my praise for UKBA judging that 70% of the 300 people who voted here do not want UKBA to give the council an extra penny for housing asylum seekers in my home town.

Aye Edinburgh folk know how to offer a warm welcome.

You'll have had your tea!

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 23rd Nov 2010, 11:42pm

QUOTE (Mathieson @ 23rd Nov 2010, 12:15am) *
while the rest of us can be thankful we are not paying any longer for people who had been taking us for a ride.

You will continue to pay for immigrants to this country till they're eligible for employment regardless of where else in Scotland they abide.

Any advice for the workforce at Blindcraft?

Or in your view are they too taking us for a ride?

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 24th Nov 2010, 02:21am

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 23rd Nov 2010, 02:35pm) *
If and when the asylum seekers pack up and move on will they be replaced by our near neighbours in Eire where the economic and work situation is dire?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332360/IRELAND-BAILOUT-David-Cameron-predicts-influx-Irish-jobseekers.html

Posted by: Scotsman 24th Nov 2010, 08:33am

QUOTE (Dexter St. Clair @ 23rd Nov 2010, 11:22pm) *
There's a waiting list for houses in Castlemilk? Really?

There are up to 200,000 people on housing waiting lists across Scotland - 1.8 million across the UK. In Glasgow the figure (up to 20,000) is difficult to judge because of the number of local housing organisastions and the council's failure to implement a Common Housing Register despite promising to do so for years. None of this will bother the city's Labour councillors of course as Labour - when in power - tried to destroy social housing by reducing the number of socially rented homes built while also increasing the number of council homes demolished in order to drive up rental prices for wealthy buy-to-let chancers.

So.... there are many people in Castlemilk waiting for a decent home.... just like in Springburn:

QUOTE
A local unemployed man agrees to talk. He points over at the newly refurbished flats on the other side of the roundabout [from the Red Road flats in Springburn]. "Before they were renovated, we got a petition going about the unfair allocation of the flats," he says. "We got 500 signatures. All the asylum seekers were getting them. We put the petition to the council, but I was told I was being racist. But they are coming into this country and getting everything they want." Twenty minutes later, he comes back to show us the petition. And he asks us not to use his name, because he fears that if the council finds out he's been complaining, he'll lose his chance for a house.

Source: Scotland on Sunday newspaper from October 2009.

Posted by: jamjar51 24th Nov 2010, 11:37am

QUOTE (Dexter St. Clair @ 23rd Nov 2010, 11:28pm) *
You will continue to pay for immigrants to this country till they're eligible for employment regardless of where else in Scotland they abide.

Any advice for the workforce at Blindcraft?

Or in your view are they too taking us for a ride?

And we'll be paying for them even when they are eligible as they will be firmly entrenched in the black economy, claiming benefits and paying no tax.

As we have to have cutbacks in every aspect of life why not a cutback on these people. The vast majority of people are fed up listening to the same old story of persecution etc etc. They fled their homes with nothing.............. Yet still they manage to travel half the planet for free to end up where they win a house and get paid for evermore at taxpayers expense.

No sympathy for any of them.

Posted by: *peter* 24th Nov 2010, 12:13pm

Shame on you Glasgow and London.

Posted by: jamjar51 24th Nov 2010, 02:07pm

QUOTE (*peter* @ 24th Nov 2010, 11:59am) *
Shame on you Glasgow and London.

Shame for what, shame for stopping funding a sham? Plenty other far more worthwhile causes than constantly throwing good money after bad.

Posted by: Guest 24th Nov 2010, 06:19pm

I totally disagree with the Administrator, I believe that the majority of these so called "asylum seekers" in Glasgow and elsewhere are no more than economic migrants and I have no sympathy for them at all.

Posted by: Heather 24th Nov 2010, 10:26pm

Asylum Seekers should not be given house's. They should all be put in to Holding Centre's where families could all be kept together.
Teachers should be provided to teach them English in the event they are allowed to stay.

If they are allowed to stay, then they should be put on the Housing List at the bottom like anyone else waiting for a house and not at the top.

Posted by: wombat 24th Nov 2010, 10:43pm

heather sezz: They should all be put in to Holding Centre's where families could all be kept together.

rolleyes.gif we've got they "holding centres" ower here heather ,
they're called "detention centres"people suicide in thim,tragic really.


Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 11:45am

clearly the spirit of christmas hasn't quite kicked off on this thread yet!

(1)
asylum seekers = individuals or families, needing protection or safety, especially that given by a government to foreigners who have been forced to leave their own countries for political reasons

(2)
illegal immigrants = anyone who goes to live or work in another country when they do not have the legal right to do this

If this thread is about (1) we should be treating them with compassion.
If its about (2) then they should be dealt with using the full FORCE of the LAW!

Posted by: jamjar51 25th Nov 2010, 12:11pm

The problem is even when people are declared as number 2 they find someone else who continues to declare them as no 1 and so the taxpayer continues to line the pockets of legal beagles dishonestly abusing taxpayer's money while fiddling the system.

When illegal immigrants start leaving, then, and only then can you expect people to believe any of this saga. Until then we will continue to look on this as the legal sham that it is funded by us the taxpayer.

Posted by: Alex Saville 25th Nov 2010, 12:26pm

It is a myth that Glaswegians welcome Asylum Seekers, we have never been asked. As demonstrated by the poll on this site, the majority want them out and funding ceased.
Dexter, of course, being close to the heart of the Labour Party in Glasgow, demonstrates again what official policy is in George Square.
He does so in his own inimital style, showing contempt for anyone who has forsaken the official political line.
Glasgow City Council welcomes the MONEY that comes from OFFICIAL sources into their bank account.
They are more concerned about losing that than anything else!
Of course, we have seen in the past year or so what the Labour Party in Glasgow thinks of Glaswegians, especially those employed by the Council. They are there to be beaten into submission.
Therefore it should come as no surprise to Glaswegians that the Council's first priority is to house Asylum Seekers before it's own citizens. After all, will the Council get any interest in the press for housing it's own citizens? Dont think so!
It's not just the Council that is concerned firstly and foremost about Asylum Seekers before Glaswegians.
I sent an e-mail to the SNP a week ago asking why Bob Doran, Sandra White, Anne McLaughlin & Bill Kidd, all MSP's, along with Clr Dornan of the Council, were so concerned about Asylum Seekers and were they aware of the debate on this forum.
No reply!
I dont expect one, either, as it is clear we ordinary Glaswegians are WAY DOWN THE PRIORTY LIST of concerns.
Why are these MSP's not concerned about the rise in electricity and gas announced by Scottish Power and others recently?
Never heard a word of protest in the press about that from any of them!
I do hear all their noise about Asylum Seekers being removed from a city where the majority of citizens will be glad to see the back of them!
If the Gillian Duffy (Rochdale) affair at the last election did nothing else it highlighted the contempt politicians of all party's have for the views of ordinary people.
The only solution is at the ballot box.
Unfortunately, only the BNP, and them alone, would shock politicians into listening to mainstream opinion.
A step too far for me!
Alex

Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 03:39pm

Alex says,

QUOTE
I do hear all their noise about Asylum Seekers being removed from a city where the majority of citizens will be glad to see the back of them!

I do NOT believe you convey what the majority's opinion is, regarding this issue, Alex.

'Ordinary Glaswegians' (whitever they are!) WILL tend to know if there's an 'ILLEGAL' or not, in the next flat/hoose - and rightly indignant if they appear to be getting away wie murder.

I will say it again - Asylum Seekers are a totally different ball game.

PLEASE do not confuse asylum with immigration.

There are many good people - sound citizens themselves, and grateful for our country's benevolence towards them - who have settled here, for one reason or another.

Many of you who have commented on this thread, have clearly never met or listened to a genuine asylum seekers tale. Never seen the palpable fear in their eyes, as they reflect - and STILL fear for other members of their families.

If any genuine asylum seekers are reading this topic, I for one would like to reassure them that contrary to what has been implied, the 'majority' do NOT assume you are illegal immigrants 'first' - and asylum seekers second.

Inadequacies of our immigration system desperately needs to be tackled for sure, the meantime, these are REAL PEOPLE we are discussing here - and as such should be afforded some respect.

Posted by: droschke7 25th Nov 2010, 04:38pm

Once again I have to reiterate, by European Law and International Law, Asylum seekers have to apply for Asylum in the First friendly Country they arrive in. Are these Asylum seekers all from Holland, France Eire or Belgium? If not then they shouldn’t be here in the first place. As for those that came here on Airlines, if they were that oppressed how did they get the money for the flight and where did they get Passports from? If they can afford to fly and still have their passports and are allowed to leave things can’t be that bad. A bit like that lass from the X Factor claiming asylum because, she said, she would be shot on sight if she went back and then going back on holiday anyway.

Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 06:01pm

QUOTE
allowed to leave


droschke, I've just put a wee piece oan aboot the Highland Clearances - I recommend it to you. Between 1750 & 1850, 100,000 Scots were 'allowed to leave' their homeland - or join an occupational army!
So, historically, we have a lot in common with asylum seekers.
Quoting European or International Law, is a bit like threatening Hitler or Idi Amin with sanctions!

We need to get our OWN act together!

regards, davy

Posted by: bilbo.s 25th Nov 2010, 07:34pm

Davy,

You could also remind "British" folk that they are all of immigrant stock, whether from wave after wave of invaders ( Anglos, Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans etc) - (what the hell did they see in that septic isle , with its bloody awful climate ?) to economic immigrants (Poles, Italians, Irish etc ).

Waste of time- they think they crawled out from under the rocks at the dawn of creation. I guess some did crawl out from under rocks, mind you, but rather more recently. tongue.gif

Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 08:04pm

Indeed, bilbo. Whilst bringing out from under said rocks, their hearts of stone with them! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 25th Nov 2010, 08:19pm

All immigrants arrived here without gaining benefits, they eked out a living and worked their way up. They built the country and now the new immigrant arrives to find he is treated better than the immigrants who built it all. It's not too difficult. Why have they all not stopped in Spain with Blbo, because they can't gain as much as coming to the UK and giving out the spiel. The vast majority have always been found to be illegal immigrants so why are they never deported. See the murderer of that teacher who couldn't be deported because of his human rights is banged up again after robbing someone, when does it end. When do the people born and bred here qualify for human rights?

Posted by: wombat 25th Nov 2010, 08:46pm

jamjar51 sezz: When do the people born and bred here qualify for human rights

ph34r.gif when scotland becomes a free nation again?


Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 08:53pm

QUOTE
The vast majority have always been found to be illegal immigrants so why are they never deported

Totally unfounded statement, jj. Sorry mate.

I grant you there may be a substantial number, but its quite unfair to tar all asylum seekers with the same brush. The trouble is, we simply DONT KNOW the bliddy numbers - look across the pond, the OTHER way for a change - you'll see the US have had similar problems for a long time.

Posted by: wombat 25th Nov 2010, 08:55pm

rolleyes.gif heaps tryin tae get here VIA indosia.

Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 08:56pm

QUOTE (wombat @ 25th Nov 2010, 08:32pm) *
jamjar51 sezz: When do the people born and bred here qualify for human rights

ph34r.gif when scotland becomes a free nation again?

Huv you bin oan the juice again, wombat? tut tut (davy nods his head in disgust) rolleyes.gif

Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 08:57pm

You sure thats no ambrosia, wombat? laugh.gif

Posted by: Heather 25th Nov 2010, 09:05pm

It is complete and utter nonsense to compare the Highland clearance's with Asylum Seekers, there is no comparison.

I have family in America, Australia and Canada and noone gave them a fully furnished rent free house, or money to live on, and everything free they could possibly need to survive as what happens here with Asylum Seekers.

I have lived in Glasgow all my days and all the Glasweigians I know are sick to the teeth with Asylum Seekers. Even when having a conversation with strangers, they say the same thing.

Aye Jamjar, the guy who murdered the Head Teacher served 14 years and got released four months ago and has now been arrested for robbery.

Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 09:15pm

Huz somebody put somethin in the watter up there, overnight?

Heather, read WHY I mentioned the clearances - you will see I was making a simple comparison - I was referring/relating to a previous post which tried to assert if you are 'allowed to leave' somewhere - this means you left of your own free will!

Furthermore, can someone PLEASE tell me what a murderer released four months ago, and been re-arrested, got to do with Glasgow Asylum Seekers ??????????????????????? Is there a connection?

I appreciate your honesty about the strength of feeling towards possible illegal immigrants - but surely NOT directed at genuine asylum seekers??

Those are not the same people I grew up amongst.

Posted by: jamjar51 25th Nov 2010, 09:33pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 25th Nov 2010, 08:39pm) *
Totally unfounded statement, jj. Sorry mate.

I grant you there may be a substantial number, but its quite unfair to tar all asylum seekers with the same brush. The trouble is, we simply DONT KNOW the bliddy numbers - look across the pond, the OTHER way for a change - you'll see the US have had similar problems for a long time.

Well Davy this is from a left wing asylum seeking supporting editorial. The figures used by both labour and the Lib Dems show the vast majority are refused Asylum. I could also throw in the fact that the Extended Leave to Stay is totally and utterly abused and that as many as a quarter of asylum seekers when refused sneak in the back door using that clause.

There is no where you can find that the majority of Asylum seekers are genuine, no where has the majority been given asylum and as I said the vast majority are refused as not being genuine.

I'm sure there are better pages to show even less deserve Asylum but this document proves the case and no matter how Labour spin it their policies are shown are poor border control and a disgraceful unchecked open door policy.

http://http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/johnson-83-per-cent-of-asylum-cases-not-genuine/2074

Posted by: jamjar51 25th Nov 2010, 09:41pm

Well put it bluntly Wee Davy, how many of these so called poor asylum seekers have raped and murdered, in fact we have given them asylum after they have murdered else where. The jails are full of Asylum seekers who have committed crime here. We have imported some of the worst criminals on earth as asylum seekers. Glasgow won't be immune to having them and then we have to pay for life as we feed them and house them in prison.
It all has to be taken in to account not just the nice bits, for every genuine one there are 9 or ten not genune ones and the burden on the taxpayer is a one way street.
No one crawled out from under any stones, we all have differing opinions on the subject. I, like many others, have no sympathy for these people for the simple reason genuine asylum seekers would not be here they would be in Europe.

Posted by: Alex Saville 25th Nov 2010, 09:50pm

wee davey
I suggest you read the two posts that I have made on this matter. When you do so, you will note that I am NOT confused about the difference between Asylum Seekers and Immigration.
I have only mentioned the word IMMIGRATION once (In my first post) and that in respect of FAILED Asylum Seekers!
As to the point you make about the majority of Glaswegians and their opinion's (Including mine.)on Asylum Seekers.
It would appear you haven't looked at the result of the poll on this very subject we are discussing.
70% have made it clear they dont want any more money spent on Asylum Seekers housing in Glasgow.
If, as you claim, the opposite is true, then it would be the exact oposite of the result that sits there for anyone to see.
I also subscribe to the view made elsewhere about them having money & passports to fly here, passing other countries on their way. And as we are on an Island it seems these people go to great lengths to get here.
I wonder why?
I also wonder why someone in Yorkshire feels they have a closer contact with the pulse of this once great city's population than those who live here?
You'll forgive me if I cast aside any feeling for the problems Asylum Seekers have.
I am more interested in the fact that the elderly, the unemployed, the ill and the low paid worry about how they are going to pay for heating this winter.
I worry about the fact that people born in this city cant get any social housing because outsiders seem to have a greater priority in the waiting list's.
I worry about the taxes that I and other Glaswegians contribute to Westminster, Holyrood and George Square that are used to fund organisations like Robina Qureshi's 'Positive Action on Housing' which exclusively lobbies for housing for Asylum Seekers rather than the citizens of Glasgow.
I also worry about the vast sums paid to lawyers to fight lengthy battles for years that keep failed Asylum Seekers (Now called Illegal Immigrants!) in our city.
Enough is enough, I say!
You have absolutely no idea the strain on resources these people create in an area like Springburn.
You also have no idea how much the fact that they are (The Asylum Seekers) here is resented in Springburn.
I suggest you come up here for a week and spend every day in the Springburn Shopping Centre, you could spend every night elsewhere in the city and then, and only then, would you become aware of what Glaswegians REALLY THINK!
Alex

Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 10:07pm

jj - if you were talking about illegal immigrants, you'd probably have won your argument ages ago, with me.
Fact - asylum seeker does NOT equal illegal immigrant.
Fact - because most asylum seekers are refused, does not prove they are all illegally seeking entry.
Fact - my mother was mugged by an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT down in Kent.

Am I angry about that? You bet I am.
I want something done about the lack of protection for our citizens, as much as anyone - but following an 'isolationist policy' is NOT the way forward - that is the beginning of the slippery slope.

Your point about genuine asylum seekers not being here is also erroneous as people can 'do the time' so to speak, in another area of the EU - and get eventually free movement WITHIN the EU. So that blows your theory out of the water.

It is simply not true there is no such thing as a genuine asylum seeker and to claim this, is completely anarchial.
Have you ever met one? TALKED to one?

Your stance is too confrontational jj, for me.

Go and join the BNP.

#Alex - there IS confusion between what constitutes a legitimate asylum seeker, and what constitutes an illegal.

Posted by: jamjar51 25th Nov 2010, 10:22pm

That is exactly how all arguments and debates on this subject end up. If we don't agree with these failed asylum seekers being allowed to stay then we must be wishing to vote for the BNP. That means the majority of people who have voted in the poll wish to see the BNP in power.

It simply means the vast majority have heard enough, seen enough and witnessed enough of these so called asylum seekers. That money could help the pensioners of Glasgow who are not affluent and again I'll use the same words the vast majority. Penisioners are suffering, some of the worst unemployment in Britain is in Glasgow and the surrounding area, these people who have worked and contrbuted to the system are entitled to help.

As for confrontational, accusing detractors as crawling out from stones is what I would consider confrontational, telling someone with a valid differing opinion to vote BNP is most certainly confrontational.

To attempt to twist the facts is also confrontational but I won't retort in similar mode, if that's how you want to debate then that's fine but I feel you might lose credence with such a confrontational manner.

Our taxes are not infinite and people's patience is wearing thin. I'm not going to fall out over a differing opinion but you may feel different.

Posted by: jamjar51 25th Nov 2010, 10:28pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 25th Nov 2010, 09:53pm) *
It is simply not true there is no such thing as a genuine asylum seeker and to claim this, is completely anarchial.

Where have I said anywhere there are no genuine Asylum seekers, could you point this out because I can't find anywhere that anyone in the entire thread has said there are no genuine asylum seekers. Is this a smear or some spin.

Posted by: GG 25th Nov 2010, 10:45pm

Okay, I think we have some entrenched disagreements on the subject, so I think it is better to agree to differ rather than continually attack the position of someone you disagree with.

Moving on, there have been significant developments over the last two days:

Firstly, a good article in the Guardian has attempted to ascertain exactly why asylum seekers are so desperate to remain in Glasgow, even when they could be moved to better accommodation outside the city:

QUOTE
... According to Jones, the decision was triggered largely by a fall in the numbers being sent to the city and the success of the local community in preventing deportations when claims for asylum have been refused by the Home Office. He argues that a long campaign of direct action and political protest has made it virtually impossible to remove failed asylum seekers from the city. "We have created a space in Glasgow where the Home Office is a bit less powerful than it is elsewhere in the UK."

More than 22,000 asylum seekers have been housed in Glasgow over the last decade as a result of Labour's "dispersal policy", which sought to house asylum seekers away from the south-east of England. Now Glasgow has the largest number of asylum seekers in the UK, with around 2,300 housed in the city – 54% by the council.

Statistics are not available by region but most of those 22,000 applications are likely to have been refused. Subsequently, some will have left voluntarily. But hundreds, if not thousands, of failed asylum seekers who have been sent to Glasgow over the last decade may still be living in the city as illegal immigrants. Nationally, there were more than 6,000 forced removals last year. Local charities in Glasgow estimate that perhaps one or two families a week are currently being detained at the Brand Street immigration reporting centre, with some of these being freed on appeal and others deported. ...

Full story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/nov/25/corrections-clarifications

Importantly, the Guardian was forced to make an important correction today to the above story (published yesterday) to include an official response from UKBA which was omitted from publication:

QUOTE
... The story ended with a line saying that the Border Agency had declined to comment. That was incorrect. The agency had, on 17 November, emailed to us comments issued to the media earlier in the week in the name of Phil Taylor, its regional director for Scotland and Northern Ireland. His version of events asserted, among other things, that it was the Glasgow council that "invited UK Border Agency to terminate the contract", after the two bodies failed to agree on a new funding round. ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/nov/25/corrections-clarifications

Secondly, published today in The Herald:
QUOTE
Eviction threat to asylum seekers is dropped

The threat to remove asylum-seekers from homes provided by Glasgow City Council with as little as 48 hours’ notice has been lifted after Labour MPs representing constituencies across the city intervened.

Following an emergency meeting last night with Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, the MPs – Ann McKechin, Gemma Doyle, John Robertson, Margaret Curran, Anas Sarwar, Willie Bain and Ian Davidson – were assured that around 1300 families and single people faced with eviction at short notice would be allowed to stay in their homes after all. ...

Full story here:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/eviction-threat-to-asylum-seekers-is-dropped-1.1070730

GG.

Posted by: Alex Saville 25th Nov 2010, 11:10pm

wee davey

Their is NO CONFUSION about what defines an Illegal Immigrant!
If an Asylum Seeker is refused entry because their application has been denied, they are asked to leave.
At that point, if they dont leave, they become Illegal Immigrants, this is because they have no right to be here and should go.
There are some who have been here for years while our taxes pay lawyers to move the goalposts on a regular basis.
I note you dont comment on the misuse of our taxes.
Nor do you comment on the issue of social housing.
These are issues that concern Glaswegians.
Not that you would know that judging by the concerns of our local poiliticians! They clearly are not interested in the local population, except on polling day!
Alex


Posted by: wee davy 25th Nov 2010, 11:18pm

Two interesting articles.

The first one clears something up for me - which would have been helpful if I were in fact 'more in tune' with my fellow Glaswegians. The resentment appears to be about FAILED asylum seekers, being able to remain. I see this now.

The second one, although I appreciate will hardly be a popular one with the apparent 'majority' (at least of Springburnites, as I have been reliably informed) is the right decision - unless someone can prove to me majority of asylum seekers in Glasgow, are FAILED ones?

I'd say this one is a 'to be continued'.

My apologies if I caused any offence to anyone.
It was BECAUSE of my lack of 'on the ground' information, Alex. Believe me I am very aware of my limitations. Thank you for the invite all the same smile.gif
I am however, MUCH more informed of the situation - and can understand the frustrations.

Thank you, Heather, Alex, and jj

(Note: Glaswegian - always will be - no matter where I roam)

Posted by: droschke7 25th Nov 2010, 11:48pm

QUOTE (Heather @ 25th Nov 2010, 09:51pm) *
It is complete and utter nonsense to compare the Highland clearance's with Asylum Seekers, there is no comparison.

I have family in America, Australia and Canada and noone gave them a fully furnished rent free house, or money to live on, and everything free they could possibly need to survive as what happens here with Asylum Seekers.

I have lived in Glasgow all my days and all the Glasweigians I know are sick to the teeth with Asylum Seekers. Even when having a conversation with strangers, they say the same thing.

Aye Jamjar, the guy who murdered the Head Teacher served 14 years and got released four months ago and has now been arrested for robbery.

I'm with you Heather, as someone who emigrated to Germany before we joined the EU I was extremely insulted by the Germans calling me English, but got over it. I'm Glasgow Born and Bred, Ex Services & disabled. I'm getting treated like a Criminal by the DSS here and people like "Gamu" has people up in arms not to send her home, and she went home on Holiday despite the fact that "she would be tortured and shot if she ever went back" these people are being better trearted than Disabled ex servicemen. So, say what you want I am disgusted with all this fuss. Charity begins at home, and not with Asylum seekers who can afford to travel all through Europe to get here.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 26th Nov 2010, 04:07am

QUOTE (wee davy @ 25th Nov 2010, 11:04pm) *
Two interesting articles.

QUOTE
...l if I were in fact 'more in tune' with my fellow Glaswegians ... I see this now.


QUOTE
The second one ... is the right decision - unless someone can prove to me majority of asylum seekers in Glasgow, are FAILED ones?


QUOTE
It was BECAUSE of my lack of 'on the ground' information, Alex. Believe me.




As we know you Davy, this probably won't stop you from always stating things as
QUOTE
FACT
and we'll still be summoned to
QUOTE
Believe me
when you do. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: wee davy 26th Nov 2010, 10:07am

At least I cannot be accused of being without conviction, THEE! laugh.gif

QUOTE
Believe me, I am very aware of my limitations

Is the accurate quote, THEE - there is NO full stop after 'me'. There perhaps ought to have been a comma, however?
The agonies of being your own proof reader!

However, I still get the point you were making.

Thank you for reminding me yet again, that am, after all, human haha smile.gif

Humbly yours,
davy
(PS I do appreciate your pointing it out - BELIEVE ME! ha ha!)

Posted by: wee davy 26th Nov 2010, 10:13am

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 25th Nov 2010, 09:19pm) *
http://http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/johnson-83-per-cent-of-asylum-cases-not-genuine/2074


Did anybody else have problems with this link? Or was it just me?

Posted by: bilbo.s 26th Nov 2010, 11:00am

[quote name='wee davy' date='26th Nov 2010, 11:53am' post='329100']


Thank you for reminding me yet again, that am, after all, human haha smile.gif


Well, just barely ! tongue.gif Let´s not start a debate on that one.


Humbly yours,

Believe that, if you like, folks.


Posted by: bilbo.s 26th Nov 2010, 11:09am

QUOTE (wee davy @ 26th Nov 2010, 11:59am) *
Did anybody else have problems with this link? Or was it just me?

Author possibly had access to sharp objects denied. There is more than one kind of asylum, ye ken. cool.gif

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 26th Nov 2010, 01:15pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 26th Nov 2010, 09:53am) *
At least I cannot be accused of being without conviction, THEE! laugh.gif

That'll save us from havin' you convicted then Davy. laugh.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 26th Nov 2010, 01:24pm

QUOTE (TeeHeeHee @ 26th Nov 2010, 03:01pm) *
That'll save us from havin' you convicted then Davy. laugh.gif

I knew about his record. They say the needle got stuck. laugh.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 26th Nov 2010, 01:32pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 26th Nov 2010, 09:59am) *
Did anybody else have problems with this link? Or was it just me?

My humble apologies guys, don't know where it went, probably was being used by a failed asylum seeker who has buggered off to work in the black economy, you can't depend on anyone nowadays. Let me see if his cousin or brothers are working the day and ah'll get them to put the link back up. Christ it could be an asylum ah need at this rate, thank god it's Friday, alcohol alcohol wherefore art thou alcohol!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Guest 27th Nov 2010, 07:55am

I am not a member of this forum but I've just spent over an hour reading this topic and I must say it was both interesting and educational. This is obviously a subject where feelings run very high -- for the reasons which emerged as the discussion developed. It makes for a very welcome change to see such (for the most part) reserved consideration, examination and challenging of controversial issues, especially on the Internet. Appreciated.

Posted by: Ali 27th Nov 2010, 12:11pm

The term "Asylum Seeker" is now being used in place of "Immigrant". These people are not Asylum Seekers who were being persecuted or were in fear of death etc. they are people who think they can have a better lifestyle in Britain.

I do not blame them for this but we must face up to the fact that this country apparently cannot afford to provide decent hospital care, pensions, housing, and employment etc for its own population.

I believe that we should direct our very limited resources toward our own people who have contributed to the public coffers for years via high tax and insurance payments and not invite inevitable bankrupcy by allowing more and more immigration into a country without enough jobs already.

Additionally and at the present rate of legal and illegal immigration in the not too distant future the British will be in a minority in their own country.

I am 73 and have worked every week from 15 to 65 and frankly resent my taxes being spent on outsiders while I receive a miserable state pension.

Posted by: wee davy 27th Nov 2010, 06:23pm

With recent projected figures, and at the current 'rate of exchange', we will probably capsize into the Atlantic, by the year 2018 the year I was due the said state pension, but will now not get for another year - at least! The irony is I paid my dues for that, also Ali (with full stamp for 40+ years) but I will jist calmly sit back, whilst what I worked for is ripped out of my hand by Dave the Dick' Turpin, and his happy band! Otherwise known as Dodgy Dave, on these boards. That's already £1171.80 pence I'll probably never see again THIS side ai the millenium, but I can assure you I fully intend to seek justice against UKPLC for it jist the same - with interest and damages for every day they do not pay me what is rightfully and legally mine.
I jist hope everyone else in my position disnae take it lying down, either!

A hertlich wellkommen, Ali - come inside and pull up a chair - were awe in the same 'BIG SOCIETY' pal cool.gif Need the shades in case ai' snowblindness

wee davy

Posted by: bilbo.s 27th Nov 2010, 06:48pm

Gott in Himmel. Davy - get Tomi or me to gie ye some German lessons if ye are gaun tae persist like this. tongue.gif

Posted by: glasgow lass 27th Nov 2010, 09:14pm

laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: wee davy 27th Nov 2010, 09:46pm

I'll haben sie vursteinen, ich bin 'used tae be' eine Britschen Luftwaffen! Pidgeon only habt gesprecht! Or Bernard Mathews Norfolkian mibbe! tongue.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 27th Nov 2010, 10:13pm

Walter ( Pidgeon) woulda bin proud o dat - naebody else but.

Why is it that people with a smidgeon of German always say " SprAchen Sie deutsch?" ??

One of life´s great mysteries to me.

Gute Nacht. Schlafen Sie wohl, Pinkelfritze ! biggrin.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 27th Nov 2010, 10:53pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 27th Nov 2010, 09:59pm) *
Walter ( Pidgeon) woulda bin proud o dat - naebody else but.

Why is it that people with a smidgeon of German always say " SprAchen Sie deutsch?" ??

One of life´s great mysteries to me.

Gute Nacht. Schlafen Sie wohl, Pinkelfritze ! biggrin.gif


That is not the case, I have been in Germany on quite a few occasions and at the end of each event it was always the same, get it up ye's ye might hiv gubbed us but we won the war.

You know I have seen Celtic beaten so often all over Europe like a sado masochistic whore, they seemed to like it so much I'm sure Mr Mosley wants to be the new manager. Anyway I never acquired the skill of conversation in any language, including English. My only foreign language was Eurozone: "Hoi Garcon Fouro Beeros Gratias Amigo." They did like that in Colgne.

Funny wan, well I thought it was, in Bremen before the game we're having a beer and talking with some German boys, ah'm getting the beer and I say: "What do I say to get strong beers."

The boy comes to the bar and says to the barmaid, I swear on my kids lives: "Give us all the brain damage." He spoke perfect english and the barmaid knew exactly what he said, we are the uneducated numpties of Europe.

I was so happy at getting good gear that I instantly asked how to claim asylum, they told me, fly to Gatwick and say Scotland are the best team in the world, they will think you have suffered serious trauma and fleeing the madness of a war torn area like Manchester.

Actually I made the last paragraph up to get back on topic

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 27th Nov 2010, 11:24pm

laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: wee davy 28th Nov 2010, 05:56pm

QUOTE
I was so happy at getting good gear that I instantly asked how to claim asylum, they told me, fly to Gatwick and say Scotland are the best team in the world, they will think you have suffered serious trauma and fleeing the madness of a war torn area like Manchester


This would just as likely get you banged up in Broadmoor for ten years, jj! laugh.gif

Kin jist see the headlines, noo "Mad Jock thinks he's Ally McLeod, re-incarnated!"

Aye - those were the days, my friend

wee davy

Posted by: droschke7 28th Nov 2010, 06:41pm

as someone who lived and worked in Germany for 21 Years and speaks fluent German, I found wee davy's comment "Pinkelfritze" extremely funny.

Posted by: GG 28th Nov 2010, 07:10pm

A motion put before the Scottish Parliament last week by an SNP MSP:

QUOTE
*S3M-7490 Anne McLaughlin: UKBA’s Contempt Agenda for Scotland

That the Parliament condemns the UK Border Agency (UKBA) for its actions that, it believes, imply a complete lack of respect for the Parliament and the people of Scotland; deplores what it considers to be the chaotic and unfeeling manner in which hundreds of asylum seekers in Glasgow were informed of the cancellation of UKBA’s contract with Glasgow City Council and their subsequent imminent removal to elsewhere in Scotland; condemns, in particular, UKBA’s decision, following a review, to continue, in its view, to refuse to engage with members seeking to represent constituents; believes that this policy is unique among all UK and Scottish governmental agencies, and considers that both examples demonstrate contempt for asylum seekers, the Parliament and Scotland.

Supported by: Christina McKelvie, Rob Gibson, Bob Doris, Bill Wilson, Stuart McMillan, Hugh Henry, Dave Thompson, Bill Kidd.

GG.

Posted by: wee davy 28th Nov 2010, 07:18pm

Could this be a modern day 'first' for the Scottish Parliament? Wrapping the knuckles of Westminster? I cerainly hope its the sign of more to come!

smile.gif

davy

Posted by: Alex Saville 28th Nov 2010, 08:16pm

Once again politicians demonstrate how little they know of public opinion. And how little they care!
What I would like to know from Anne McLaughlin and the rest of them is when are they going to get it into their heads that the majority of Glaswegians DONT CARE about Asylum Seekers!
If the SNP group want to do something constructive, DO IT FOR THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION!
That way they might get voted in next May, which looks highly unlikely at the moment!
Labours local MP's were also in the news this week looking after the interests of Asylum Seekers.
Presumably they feel so secure in their tenure they can pursue whatever policy takes their fancy.
I only know of ONE person who supports Asylum Seekers in Springburn
No-one else cares about them.
What they care about is the lack of housing for local people, as just one example.
What the politicians dont seem to realise is that the BNP are just biding their time waiting for an opening. Then the others will condemn the BNP as facist.
Glasgow politicians need to realise the question is not why would anyone vote for the BNP, but why would anyone feel the need!
Keep doing what your doing and the BNP will reap the harvest.
When that happens, people like me will shout from the rooftops, YOU WERE WARNED!!
Alex

Posted by: bilbo.s 28th Nov 2010, 08:16pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 28th Nov 2010, 09:04pm) *
Could this be a modern day 'first' for the Scottish Parliament? Wrapping the knuckles of Westminster? I cerainly hope its the sign of more to come!

smile.gif

davy

Is that gift-wrap you are on about - it coming up for Christmas? biggrin.gif

Posted by: Heather 28th Nov 2010, 08:32pm

Shock, horror gasp, I see my MSP relation name is on that list. mad.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 28th Nov 2010, 09:17pm

QUOTE (Heather @ 28th Nov 2010, 10:18pm) *
Shock, horror gasp, I see my MSP relation name is on that list. mad.gif



Name dropper ! tongue.gif

Posted by: Heather 28th Nov 2010, 09:22pm

No not name dropping as it is common knowledge to some on this Board. tongue.gif

Posted by: wee davy 28th Nov 2010, 09:55pm

Alex

you seem to want to persist in claiming to speak for the majority of Glaswegians, by saying

QUOTE
the majority of Glaswegians DONT CARE about Asylum Seekers!

I believe this statement not only to be arrogant and innacurate - but dangerously inflamatory.

I have already conceded that, I personally had no idea about the apparent strength of feeling in Springburn, regards FAILED asylum seekers - yet I did ask, in a more recent post, if someone (ie you) could PROVE to me, for that to be the case. (That is, the majority of those who were selected for eviction, were in fact FAILED)

As yet, I have seen no evidence of this being the case.

The people of Glasgow are FAR REMOVED from being CARE LESS folk - and furthermore, I do not believe labelling or singling out a minority unless of course you mean the BNP, is a particularly big thing to do.

I do happen to think it was the MANNER of how the evictions were being performed, which was the Scottish administration's objection - and quite rightly so.

I both appreciate and understand your anger which is felt up and down the country - but I believe the REAL problem to be the whole immigration 'policy' - or indeed, the LACK of one, which is responsible

I have no wish to get into an argument with you - you have every right to express your opinions, but when those opinions reflect upon Glaswegians 'in general', and perhaps show them in a bad light - then I feel moved to comment - indeed I see it as my DUTY!

Once again, I thank you for 'putting me in the picture',
and wish you all the best for the coming festive season,

Respect, wee davy (I'm no frae Springburn btw am a Maryhill man)

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 29th Nov 2010, 12:10am

QUOTE (wee davy @ 27th Nov 2010, 09:32pm) *
... Or Bernard Mathews Norfolkian mibbe! tongue.gif

Did you notice that old Bernie has gone to that Great Turkey Farm in the Sky a few days ago?

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 29th Nov 2010, 12:15am

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 28th Nov 2010, 08:02pm) *
Is that gift-wrap you are on about - it coming up for Christmas? biggrin.gif

Yer a rum lad, Billbo laugh.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 29th Nov 2010, 08:08am

QUOTE (TeeHeeHee @ 29th Nov 2010, 02:01am) *
Yer a rum lad, Billbo laugh.gif


Rum, whisky,wine - whatever! laugh.gif

Posted by: *kilode* 29th Nov 2010, 03:19pm

QUOTE (GG @ 23rd Nov 2010, 08:31am) *
We are all Glaswegians on these boards – regardless of where we currently live – and we are here to discuss our great city. If you take the time to read what people write on here, you will find that many Glaswegians were saddened, but compelled, to leave the city of their birth in search of a better life elsewhere. Is this a reason for you to attack them in such a pernicious manner? Do you see the irony here?

Back 'on topic' now...

GG.

This applies to many immigrants in Glasgow as well. biggrin.gif

Posted by: *Peter* 29th Nov 2010, 03:28pm

The flats asylum seekers get given are the ones nobody wants. There are flats in Sighthill which now house mainly immigrants; these flats used to be half empty and stinking. I was there a couple of weeks ago and they are looking better kept; the landings are also much cleaner and neater than they used to be (it used to be full of spit and vomit stench). The Toryglen flats are same.

Asylum seekers mainly only get the flats that are empty and no one wants, except in special circumstances (mainly disability).

Posted by: Alex Saville 29th Nov 2010, 04:59pm

Davy
I too, have no wish, or intention, to get into an argument with you.
May I suggest you go back to post #25 and read what I have written. And then read again post #153 and what I have written.
I clearly make the distinction between Asylum Seekers and failed A/S's (Now known by Government & the law as Illegal Immigrants.)
You are the one who is making a distinction.
I point out where they are clearly favoured over the arrangements for medical care, and where working people lose out.
I met Nicola Sturgeon before the last Holyrood elections (In Govan) and mentioned the subject of visits to the doctor. 'Vote for us and we will sort that out' said she!
Never heard from her.
I spoke to Alex Salmond at the Springburn By-Election. He took my name and said 'Nicola will be in touch!'
Never heard from her.
I did hear from Bob Doris MSP, who after all was said and done suggested 'I seek another doctor.'
That is only one example from one household.
I point out to you (Again!) that their is a shortage of social housing for local people.
Answer me this, if there are houses for Asylum Seekers & Illegal Immigrants, is their no demand from local people?
If you believe that what I have said is inaccurate, I suggest you get up and find out for yourself.
Yes, you will find people who support them, they are in the minority.
Once again, I suggest you look at the poll at the begining of this subject. I dont think you have or you would see it moves between 69%/70%, that the MAJORITY dont support your point of view, or the view of the A/S -I/I supporters.
Like the politicians, you will only find out the truth of the matter if you get out and ask the questions to Glaswegians.
You wont and they wont!
The reason for this is you, and they, would have to recognise that their stance is way out of touch with mainstream public opinion.
As to the BNP, I heard Brian Taylor, the BBC's political commentator, say at the recent elections, on Glasgow North East (Of which Springburn is a part) that the BNP have double the average UK voting percentage in the constiuency.
At this point I will tell you, and anyone else here, that I have never voted for the BNP.
If the politicians dont start listening to Glaswegians, and more people vote for the BNP, they wont have anyone to blame but themselves.
I say again, THE QUESTION IS NOT WHY ANYONE WOULD VOTE FOR THE BNP, BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE FEEL THE NEED TO?
From the safety of Yorkshire, it is easy to cling to your rose tinted glass's view of Glasgow & Glaswegians.
Reality is something else!
Alex


Posted by: Heather 29th Nov 2010, 07:50pm

Last month I had to call out the Doctor late in the evening. I was taken into the Royal Infirmary about 11'0'clock at night by ambulance.

At 4'30 in the morning the Doctor in the Royal told me I could go home. I asked the Doctor how I could get home at that time especially as I was in nightdress, housecoat and slippers and not a penny in my pocket. He asked if my husband was at home and did he have transport. I told him yes he was at home but we had no transport, he just shruged his shoulders and walked away.
I asked a Nurse to phone me a taxi and also to phone my husband to let him know I was on my way home.

The taxi driver was taken aback when he saw me in my night clothes and said it was a disgrace the way the hospital had treated me and if I was an Asylum Seeker the hospital would have arranged transport home and paid for it.
The taxi fare paid by my husband cost £9-00.

Posted by: wee davy 30th Nov 2010, 12:31am

'Alex Saville' date='29th Nov 2010, 04:45pm'

Davy

I clearly make the distinction between Asylum Seekers and failed A/S's (Now known by Government & the law as Illegal Immigrants.)

QUOTE
the majority of Glaswegians DONT CARE about Asylum Seekers!

not in your post #198 you DONT!
You are the one who is making a distinction.
I do - indeed I do make a distinction - for there most certainly IS one.

I point out to you (Again!) that their is a shortage of social housing for local people.
This is a countrywide issue - not exclusive to Glaswegians. As I've said already, the problem is a clear lack of immigration control, for around 15 + years, which is responsible for the mess were ALL in. It certainly wont be sorted overnight.

Answer me this, if there are houses for Asylum Seekers & Illegal Immigrants, is their no demand from local people? See above

If you believe that what I have said is inaccurate, I suggest you get up and find out for yourself.
Yes, you will find people who support them, they are in the minority.
Its not for me to prove your claims to be innacurate, Alex. It is beholding upon you to PROVE your claims/assertions are with substance. Perhaps the UKBA will give you the figure? Simple question really - 'how many of the 1300 asylum seekers recently served with eviction orders, are FAILED/REJECTED ones?'

Once again, I suggest you look at the poll at the begining of this subject. I dont think you have or you would see it moves between 69%/70%, that the MAJORITY dont support your point of view, or the view of the A/S -I/I supporters.
Alex, you really shouldn't take a straw poll on an internet Board as seriously representative of the City of Glasgow's 600k population - much less the 1.2 MILLION in the Greater Glasgow area. They have already proved to be generally WILDLY innacurate, and subject to external influences - in other words - not to be trusted.
(A possible total of 225 Glaswegians/0.0005% btw half of which could be from ANYWHERE!


Like the politicians, you will only find out the truth of the matter if you get out and ask the questions to Glaswegians.
You wont and they wont! 'how many of the 1300 asylum seekers recently served with eviction orders, are FAILED/REJECTED ones? As one Glaswegian to another - I am asking the question!

From the safety of Yorkshire, it is easy to cling to your rose tinted glass's view of Glasgow & Glaswegians. (S'pose a should've gone tae specsavers, eh?)
Reality is something else! Oh tae see yersels, as ithers sees ye!

regards from the relative safety of the good ship HMS UK

Posted by: GG 30th Nov 2010, 08:17am

MPs from the Commons Scottish affairs committee met yesterday in Glasgow with members of Glasgow City Council and UKBA.

Commenting on the meeting, convener Ian Davidson said:

QUOTE
"We're going to be investigating whether or not there has been central government funding made available in England and Wales which in Scotland either hasn't been going to the Scottish Government or hasn't been passed on by them to the council."

The meeting follows a call by Alex Salmond, Scottish First Minister, who recently called for talks to be re-opened between the council and the UKBA in a bid to resolve the situation.

Mr Davidson added:
QUOTE
"There's a suggestion that there's money available to local authorities in England and Wales in a way that doesn't seem to have been available Scotland, because Glasgow seemed to have the largest costs of any provider in the UK."

If the above comments regarding the motives and intentions of the committee are accurate, then little is likely to be achieved by the meetings. As this discussion has highlighted, there more important issues than Scottish MPs worrying about an anti-Scottish funding bias. Such issues include:
  1. Did, as UKBA have asserted, Glasgow City Council "invite UK Border Agency to terminate the contract"?
  2. How many days' notice were UKBA going to give asylum seekers who were to be moved from Glasgow to other accommodation elsewhere in Scotland? UKBA says 14 days, whereas charitable groups acting for aylum seekers say three.
  3. Had accommodation/servicing costs in Glasgow recently risen to the extent to justify GCC asking for an increase of, according to UKBA, 48% over two years? If so, why? Also, are rises in cost unique to Glasgow?
  4. Are UKBA's actions/reactions being driven by an underlying perception (real or imagined) that it is more difficult to remove failed asylum seekers from Glasgow? If the perception is based on reality, will this difficulty damage the long-term prospects of genuine asylum seekers?
Does anyone have any other issues which they think the committee should consider?

GG.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 30th Nov 2010, 01:07pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 30th Nov 2010, 12:17am) *
Alex, you really shouldn't take a straw poll on an internet Board as seriously representative of the City of Glasgow's 600k population ...

(A possible total of 225 Glaswegians/0.0005% btw half of which could be from ANYWHERE!

davy, the Royal Society (a fairly serious bunch) conducted a poll which gave the result that almost half (44%) of the British people believe in Aliens.
This poll was conducted with 2000 people being questioned (out of how many million (70+?) British people.
Works out on par with the poll here ... do you not agree?
That's how polls work wink.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: Guest 30th Nov 2010, 01:15pm

@GG,


Posted by: wee davy 30th Nov 2010, 02:37pm

Sounds about right from an institution who started out in life, known as 'The Invisible College'? lol Anyway - thats different - the other 56% KNOW there are 'Aliens' (get it?) lol

But in answer to your question - let me do the maths on that one, and I'll get back to you! tongue.gif

Anyway, TH - you gonnae tell us which wan YOU ur?

Are you a Royal Fellow, Honorary Fellow or a Foreign Fellow? Or just an all round 'good egg'?? LOL laugh.gif

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 30th Nov 2010, 10:30pm

I used to be an Associate Fellow of the RAeS ... until my dues took off; sky high you might say ... then I bailed out. tongue.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: wellfield 1st Dec 2010, 01:31am

I think everyone better get used to the fact that Britains anglo population will dwindle sooner than later and there will never ever be a stop to foriegn nationals coming to live in Britain...I live in California which I reckon is close to the size of Britain, and the anglos, as the white's are called here are now the minority and that happened in short order..the birth rate of 'other than anglo' is staggering compared to the anglo norm...do the math...Plus businesses love the fact that these particular nationals or illegals work for a wage 60% lower than the norm..welcome to the new world order my friends!

Posted by: Heather 1st Dec 2010, 12:37pm

Wellfield, I remember one time when I was over in America we passed a crowd of Mexicans and my American bro-in-law said, " there goes the next generation of Americans".

So you may well be right in what you said.

Posted by: wee davy 1st Dec 2010, 12:43pm

Interesting take on things, wellfield but, we the UK and therefore Glasgow have been suffering this 'new order' phenomenon for a lot longer - and it is becoming totally unsustainable.
Succesive governments are now so far out of touch, it may not be reading the discontent correctly - (which is now deep seated) especially the new coalition.
We also start off at a disadvantage to you, in that we have had a welfare culture, since the war, which has sucked as just about dry - where we now have whole families, who are now completely and utterly dependant upon the state.
There's another big mismatch between us - you have more trees and sand whilst we have almost twice as many people and we may just have to put a sign up soon - saying FULL UP!

It is sadly, perfectly evident on this particular topic, that feelings are high - and governments (and government bodies) need to get their act together - and SOON!

Frustrated of North Yorkshire smile.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 01:37pm

QUOTE (Heather @ 1st Dec 2010, 02:23pm) *
Wellfield, I remember one time when I was over in America we passed a crowd of Mexicans and my American bro-in-law said, " there goes the next generation of Americans".

So you may well be right in what you said.

I wonder if the native Americans had the same dark forebodings when the Europeans arrived on their shores.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 1st Dec 2010, 02:40pm

By the time they realised that, the half of them were depleted Bill. mad.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 03:13pm

Well at least the British have not been slaughtered by immigrants in recent centuries - just outbred. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 1st Dec 2010, 04:18pm

Nae wonder the Pope's against condoms laugh.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 05:25pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 1st Dec 2010, 02:59pm) *
Well at least the British have not been slaughtered by immigrants in recent centuries - just outbred. rolleyes.gif


7/7 British slaughtered by immigrants in the name of religion, many other failed attempts by immigrants to blow up the people who feed and house them. 21/7, Night club, London car bomb, Blue Water Shopping Centre, Glasgow airport or do these attacks not count for some reason.

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 05:30pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 07:11pm) *
7/7 British slaughtered by immigrants in the name of religion, many other failed attempts by immigrants to blow up the people who feed and house them. 21/7, Night club, London car bomb, Blue Water Shopping Centre, Glasgow airport or do these attacks not count for some reason.



Hardly comparable to the genocide referred to by Tomi.

Posted by: Scotsman 1st Dec 2010, 05:34pm

Referring to what someone mentioned earlier about politicians being stupid.... I don't think politicians are stupid - well not much stupider than your average Sun reader - I just think they know that they are on to a 'no loser' when they trumpet the rights and privileges of asylum seekers. They expect to prattle on about these ad infinitum without anyone being able to contradict or even challenge them. What other subject allows them the same leeway???

- Unemployment is rising
- Bankers bonuses are rising
- Inequality is rising
- Poverty is rising
- Alcohol abuse is rising
- Violent crime is rising
- Gas and electricity prices are rising
- Jobs are being moved overseas
- Jobs are being lost here to foreign competition
- The state is spying on our every move
- More and more people are losing their homes
- Public services are being decimated

So what have politicians got to crow about? NOTHING!!

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 05:51pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 1st Dec 2010, 02:59pm) *
Well at least the British have not been slaughtered by immigrants in recent centuries - just outbred. rolleyes.gif


No one said anywhere it had to be comparable, bilbo said it hadn't happened, it has. British slaughtered by immigrants. Only luck has curtailed it to that level.

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 06:00pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 07:37pm) *
No one said anywhere it had to be comparable, bilbo said it hadn't happened, it has. British slaughtered by immigrants. Only luck has curtailed it to that level.

The British must have had an inordinate amount of luck to avoid genocide then.

I take it you are not too fond of immigrants. Any special nationality or denomination or do you have a wide spectrum with maybe just a few exceptions ?

Posted by: benny 1st Dec 2010, 07:27pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 1st Dec 2010, 01:29pm) *
Interesting take on things, wellfield . . . .
.. . . . We also start off at a disadvantage to you, in that we have had a welfare culture, since the war, which has sucked as just about dry - where we now have whole families, who are now completely and utterly dependant upon the state. . . .

Is it no a bit disrespectful speakin o Lizzie, Phil an the weans like that?

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 07:36pm

QUOTE (benny @ 1st Dec 2010, 09:13pm) *
Is it no a bit disrespectful speakin o Lizzie, Phil an the weans like that?

rolleyes.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 07:57pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 1st Dec 2010, 05:46pm) *
The British must have had an inordinate amount of luck to avoid genocide then.

I take it you are not too fond of immigrants. Any special nationality or denomination or do you have a wide spectrum with maybe just a few exceptions ?

You made a comment and I gave you simple facts. Where in that post does it infer I hate anyone.

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 08:36pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 09:43pm) *
You made a comment and I gave you simple facts. Where in that post does it infer I hate anyone.

Where in my post do I say that you hate anyone?

Do you not hate anyone ?

Not even immigrants who kill British?

"Infer" ? -- you mean " imply" - one of the most common errors in the English language - do not worry about it - just learn. You will thank me in the morning -oh maybe not.

Quite simple really - "imply" means "suggest" , "infer" means "deduce" or "draw a conclusion"

Sorry to go off track but I have a pedagogic duty, onerous at times, but ultimately rewarding, although the appreciation factor is admittedly low, eheu.

Chin. chin.

Posted by: wee davy 1st Dec 2010, 08:44pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 05:37pm) *
No one said anywhere it had to be comparable, bilbo said it hadn't happened, it has. British slaughtered by immigrants. Only luck has curtailed it to that level.

A few words of wisdom, jj

Only one of the four 7/7 bombers could be 'classed' as an immigrant (not illegal) - and he was born in Jamaica by birth and was a convert to extremist Islamic theology. The other three were actually British - and of Pakistani descent.

Chilling.

I truly believe we should all choose our words with greater care, as there is always a huge risk of marginalising and alienating the very people who might just be able to 'make a difference' when it comes to IDENTIFYING those who might pose/become a security threat in the future.

What makes us different from extremists? The fact we do not allow ourselves to be seduced into a 'tit for tat' state of affairs. The fact that we are tolerant. The fact that we ENSURE our children see it as WRONG to blow yourself up, in the middle of a group of people - by teaching them love and RESPECT for their neighbour - regardless of colour, creed, or religion, (or lack of one).

Its not just immigration thats a problem - its attitudes, and lack of ADEQUATE EDUCATION. First I would recommend that it become COMPULSORY for ALL schools to teach a common set of morals, based upon an agreed curriculum. This would be IN ADDITION to any faith values. Secondly, all extremist forms of teaching, totally incompatible with UK law, should be completely outlawed.
(For example, the 'out of school' indoctrination and imposition of Fundamentalist Shariah Laws)

Some may not agree with me - but it really IS the only way FORWARD - in my opinion.

Returning to the subject of this topic - I asked a question a couple of times, regards the numbers of those recent 'evictees' who were considered FAILED asylum seekers - I have distinctly noticed how quiet it has been! Anyone care to answer it?
Perhaps its a good question for the politicians, GG.

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 08:47pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 1st Dec 2010, 08:22pm) *
Where in my post do I say that you hate anyone?

Do you not hate anyone ?

Not even immigrants who kill British?

"Infer" ? -- you mean " imply" - one of the most common errors in the English language - do not worry about it - just learn. You will thank me in the morning -oh maybe not.

Quite simple really - "imply" means "suggest" , "infer" means "deduce" or "draw a conclusion"

Sorry to go off track but I have a pedagogic duty, onerous at times, but ultimately rewarding, although the appreciation factor is admittedly low, eheu.

Chin. chin.

You go off whit ye want, you imply, infer, insinuate anything you want, if it makes you feel happy and contented we'll cope.

I know a boy called Richard Head, he thought he was clever but he ended up a loner cos naebody wid talk to him because he was a bit monotonous.

Oh leading questions leadng questions, just like Richard used to do.

So The British have been slaughtered by immigrants, do you hate the truth, maye you hate the truth, seems you don't like the truth or maybe getting it wrong is what really eats at you. I'll keep you right on facts. You'll thank me for it in the morning, or maybe not.

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 08:51pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 1st Dec 2010, 10:30pm) *
A few words of wisdom, jj

Only one of the four 7/7 bombers could be 'classed' as an immigrant (not illegal) - and he was born in Jamaica by birth and was a convert to extremist Islamic theology. The other three were actually British - and of Pakistani descent.

Chilling.

I truly believe we should all choose our words with greater care, as there is always a huge risk of marginalising and alienating the very people who might just be able to 'make a difference' when it comes to IDENTIFYING those who might pose/become a security threat in the future.

What makes us different from extremists? The fact we do not allow ourselves to be seduced into a 'tit for tat' state of affairs. The fact that we are tolerant. The fact that we ENSURE our children see it as WRONG to blow yourself up, in the middle of a group of people - by teaching them love and RESPECT for their neighbour - regardless of colour, creed, or religion, (or lack of one).

Its not just immigration thats a problem - its attitudes, and lack of ADEQUATE EDUCATION. First I would recommend that it become COMPULSORY for ALL schools to teach a common set of morals, based upon an agreed curriculum. This would be IN ADDITION to any faith values. Secondly, all extremist forms of teaching, totally incompatible with UK law, should be completely outlawed.
(For example, the 'out of school' indoctrination and imposition of Fundamentalist Shariah Laws)

Some may not agree with me - but it really IS the only way FORWARD - in my opinion.

Returning to the subject of this topic - I asked a question a couple of times, regards the numbers of those recent 'evictees' who were considered FAILED asylum seekers - I have distinctly noticed how quiet it has been! Anyone care to answer it?
Perhaps its a good question for the politicians, GG.

Good on ye wee man - at least for this post. Love is all you need - but times it is damn hard.

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 08:54pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 10:33pm) *
You go off whit ye want, you imply, infer, insinuate anything you want, if it makes you feel happy and contented..

It!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I'm sure you can do better to cover up your

Oh dear - cut of in full flow. ( Nearly said "in your prime" haha)

Are you inferring I am happy and contented (from my posts) or implying it by your statement? Tricky one !

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 09:00pm

Eh'm where did anyone mention illegal immigrant.

What a game of move the goalposts. First they never done it, then they didn't do it as bad, now they are not illegal.

Yes it's a good debate this one. Jamaica is not Britain, Pakistan is not Britain. These murderers did not consider themselves British, have a look at their tapes they left behind.

Nice to see how making such a glaring blunder can lead to so many trying to cover it up.



Is this the SFA

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 09:17pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 10:46pm) *
Eh'm where did anyone mention illegal immigrant.

What a game of move the goalposts. First they never done it, then they didn't do it as bad, now they are not illegal.

Yes it's a good debate this one. Jamaica is not Britain, Pakistan is not Britain. These murderers did not consider themselves British, have a look at their tapes they left behind.

Nice to see how making such a glaring blunder can lead to so many trying to cover it up.

Is this the SFA

Well. it isnae the vatican, onyweys. There´s a relief. smile.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 09:22pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 1st Dec 2010, 09:03pm) *
Well. it isnae the vatican, onyweys. There's a relief. smile.gif

Ah'm sure Benny is an immigrant too. Is he from Jamaica or Pakistan

ppppppppps Is he an illegal immigrant

Posted by: wee davy 1st Dec 2010, 09:27pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 08:46pm) *
Eh'm where did anyone mention illegal immigrant.
I was emphasising the one from Jamaica was not illegal - as some people have implied all asylum seekers are either failed ones, or illegal immigrants on this thread, jj
.
Yes it's a good debate this one. Jamaica is not Britain, Pakistan is not Britain. These murderers did not consider themselves British, have a look at their tapes they left behind.
You missed my point COMPLETELY jj - the FACT was, they WERE British - do you not find that fact horrifying in its own right?

Is this the SFA - Might be FIFA without the corruption! You can huv annura wan fer me jj

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 09:49pm

I knew what you meant Wee Davy it was the way it was clutched at as some form of support that made me giggle.

The basic fact is that British people have been slaughtered by immigrants. Putting a poster right on that fact drew the 'do you hate immigrants' retort. That made me laugh as when you are hanging over a cliff holding a wet newspaper you will try anything to escape falling.

One of theGlasgow airport bombers was born in India, Kafeel Ahmed. Luck stopped that being a slaughter. Many other immigrants have killed and slaghtered British people and to claim otherwise was just stupidity.

I could see your point Davy but what I was enjoying was the English teacher squirming rather than admit he was completely wrong. I found it hilarious that such venom appeared when his view was proved to be wrong.

FIFA..........Naw ah refuse to go doon that road, were the three dodgey wans illegal immigrants. It would be the only way England would have the World Cup back in the country, hopefully some wee dug will snaffle it and bury it wae Shergar..


Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 09:51pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 11:08pm) *
Ah'm sure Benny is an immigrant too. Is he from Jamaica or Pakistan

ppppppppps Is he an illegal immigrant

Thought it was Germany - quite legal in Italy.

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 09:55pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 11:08pm) *
Ah'm sure Benny is an immigrant too. Is he from Jamaica or Pakistan

ppppppppps Is he an illegal immigrant

Kerry oan regardless. Seen the movie. Burnt the -shirt.

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 09:56pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 1st Dec 2010, 09:37pm) *
Thought it was Germany - quite legal in Italy.

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS...AH DON'T CARE!

Posted by: bilbo.s 1st Dec 2010, 10:18pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 11:42pm) *
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS...AH DON'T CARE!

Shouting (use of upper case) is not considered de rigueur on websites, although I personally consider this as a bit prissy and many less -fortunates find it easier to engage the shift lock ( I can see their point, strangely enough).

Notwithstanding this, I can understand your frustration, but would earnestly beseech you to consider the plight of others here. I know- nay ,I feel - that you can summon up the necessary human feelings to comply with this simple request - a request, not a demand. I cannot bring myself to believe that such a passionate, fervent person does not CARE. It is at odds with my experience of you as a human being.

Of course I have been wrong before.

Peace, my friend. smile.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 1st Dec 2010, 11:29pm

Rattle and roll, shake the cage.

Geography geography wherefore art thou geography. Jamaica no she went of her own accord. boom boom.

Jamaica is not Britain, I can understand your frustration but would beseech you to consider the plight of others here and open an atlas.

I cannot bring myself to believe that such a passionate, fervent person does not CARE about being wrong but I'm sure you gained it by experiences in geographical debate.

You have of course been wrong before, that's a start.

May your non god go with you.

Ps Hopefully your not giving your non god directions

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 1st Dec 2010, 11:40pm

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 1st Dec 2010, 09:42pm) *
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS...AH DON'T CARE!

Ah, come on, You do kerr, eh? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Venom

Back tae this again?

Posted by: martini 2nd Dec 2010, 03:53am

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 1st Dec 2010, 04:22pm) *
"Infer" ? -- you mean " imply" - one of the most common errors in the English language - do not worry about it - just learn. You will thank me in the morning -oh maybe not.

Quite simple really - "imply" means "suggest" , "infer" means "deduce" or "draw a conclusion"

Sorry to go off track but I have a pedagogic duty, onerous at times, but ultimately rewarding, although the appreciation factor is admittedly low, eheu.

Chin. chin.

I see mr baggins is being his usual self again. Gad how I hate pretentious little ***** who insist on trying to prove that they are superior in the english language to all us poor uneducated little souls. Perhaps it is about time mr baggins actually made a post that conrtibuts to the thread rather than his one line slags.

Posted by: bilbo.s 2nd Dec 2010, 08:34am

QUOTE (martini @ 2nd Dec 2010, 05:39am) *
I see mr baggins is being his usual self again. Gad how I hate pretentious little twats who insist on trying to prove that they are superior in the english language to all us poor uneducated little souls. Perhaps it is about time mr baggins actually made a post that conrtibuts to the thread rather than his one line slags.

Dear Gina,

1. My name is not Baggins.

2. I am not little.

3. I worked hard to write considerably more than one line tonight Your maths, or math as you would probably have it, is as suspect as your English.

4. Unlike you, I only attack in self defence and prefer irony or even sarcasm to the vile and venomous insults employed by you and your spiritual cohorts.

Posted by: bilbo.s 2nd Dec 2010, 08:59am

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 2nd Dec 2010, 01:15am) *
Rattle and roll, shake the cage.

Geography geography wherefore art thou geography. Jamaica no she went of her own accord. boom boom.

Jamaica is not Britain, I can understand your frustration but would beseech you to consider the plight of others here and open an atlas.

I cannot bring myself to believe that such a passionate, fervent person does not CARE about being wrong but I'm sure you gained it by experiences in geographical debate.

You have of course been wrong before, that's a start.

May your non god go with you.

Ps Hopefully your not giving your non god directions

I do not recall mentioning Jamaica. Please be a decent chap and help. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: jamjar51 2nd Dec 2010, 12:53pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 2nd Dec 2010, 08:45am) *
I do not recall mentioning Jamaica. Please be a decent chap and help. rolleyes.gif

You need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah well we learn something new every day but of course always an exception to the rule.

Now shall we start at the beginning and discuss the fact immigrants have slaughtered British people or do you wish to continue going off at a tangent attempting to deflect from your misleading post.

laugh.gif

Posted by: GG 2nd Dec 2010, 08:37pm

Reading extracts of exchanges between MPs and Damian Green (UK immigration minister) at Westminster, it seems this whole scenario was a bit of a storm in a teacup – though the wider issues are obviously very important to many people. According to the debate (copied below), UKBA decided to end its contract with Glasgow City Coucil after it established that the charitable sector was willing to provide the same service at a "significantly less" price than the public sector.

Asylum seekers will, under UKBA plans, still come to Glasgow, and they will still be housed mainly in Glasgow Housing Association accommodation; the only difference is that the process will be overseen by Ypeople and the Angel Group rather than the council. Time will tell, though, whether effectively cutting the local authority out of the process will cause problems with the provision of support services.

16 Nov 2010

QUOTE
Asylum: Glasgow

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision to terminate the UK Border Agency housing contract with Glasgow City Council was taken; for what reasons the contract was terminated; whether the UK Border Agency is liable for payments to Glasgow City Council as a result of the early termination of the contract; with what providers the UK Border Agency intends to rehouse asylum seekers following the termination of the contract; what type of accommodation will be provided; and what discussions the UK Border Agency had with Glasgow City Council on the housing contract before termination occurred. [23917]

Damian Green: A contract review allowed the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Glasgow city council to review the terms of the contract. Discussions were held over a period of months but the two parties were unable to reach agreement on the costs of housing asylum seekers despite the UKBA offering an increase on what are, already, the highest accommodation charges in the UK outside London. I agreed with the final decision to terminate the contract with Glasgow city council just prior to the termination letter being issued on 5 November 2010.

Asylum seekers currently accommodated by Glasgow city council will be transferred to either Glasgow YMCA or to the Angel Group and will be provided with suitable housing to the equivalent standards as that supplied by Glasgow city council. We are hopeful that in many cases they will be able to remain in the same accommodation. The agency will be liable for early termination costs which have not yet been determined. These costs will be significantly lower than the savings that will now be realised by moving service users to alternative providers already operating in Glasgow.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what daily rate the UK Border Agency paid for asylum seeker accommodation with Glasgow city council. [23928]

Damian Green: This information is commercially sensitive and the disclosure of such rates would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of both the Home Office and those companies and local authorities with whom the Home Office enters into contracts but they are the highest in the UK outside London.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what daily rate the UK Border Agency will pay for asylum seeker accommodation with replacement providers following the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23929]

Damian Green: This information is commercially sensitive and the disclosure of such rates would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of both the Home Office and those companies and local authorities with whom the Home Office enters into contracts.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the UK Border Agency has made of the costs incurred by asylum seekers in moving accommodation following the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23930]

Damian Green: The incoming accommodation providers will manage and pay the costs associated with moving asylum seekers to alternative accommodation.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) individuals and (b) families the UK Border Agency is housing in accommodation managed by Glasgow city council. [23932]

Damian Green: As of 8 November 2010 Glasgow city council were supporting 274 individuals and 334 families, a combined total of 1,271 individuals.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timescale is for moving to alternative accommodation asylum seekers housed with Glasgow city council. [23933]

Damian Green: The contract with Glasgow city council will terminate on 3 February and we will transfer those affected to an alternative provider by this date. This may not require a physical move given that one of the other accommodation providers in Glasgow also uses Glasgow Housing Association as a provider of accommodation.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance the UK Border Agency plans to provide for asylum seekers with removal costs following the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23934]

Damian Green: Removal costs will be the responsibility of the incoming provider and not for the affected asylum seekers.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions the UK Border Agency had with (a) UK Ministers, (b) the Scottish Executive and © the Scottish Refugee Council prior to the Agency's decision to terminate its housing contract with Glasgow city council. [23936]

Damian Green: The UK Border Agency advised Home Office Ministers of the intention to terminate the contract and also informed officials at the Scottish Government and the Scottish Refugee Council of the likelihood of termination and of the final decision to terminate the contract prior to the formal termination letter being issued on 5 November 2010.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any asylum seekers being re-housed from accommodation with Glasgow city council will be moved to accommodation outside (a) Glasgow city and (b) Scotland. [23937]

Damian Green: There are no plans to move asylum seekers currently supported by Glasgow city council either outside of Glasgow or Scotland.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been issued by the UK Border Agency to asylum seeker tenants of Glasgow city council regarding their re-housing. [23939]

Damian Green: A letter has been issued to all service users currently accommodated by Glasgow city council in Glasgow Housing Association properties advising them of the possibility that they may be moved to alternative accommodation and offering details of support available to them if they have any queries. Further communication is planned to keep the service users advised of future developments.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the UK Border Agency will be contracting with any organisations to assist tenants moving from Glasgow city council accommodation. [23940]

Damian Green: The responsibility for providing support and accommodation to service users moving from Glasgow city council rests with the incoming accommodation provider. The incoming accommodation provider will be one of our two remaining regional accommodation providers. The Scottish Refugee Council will be in a position to provide additional advice if required.

GG.

Posted by: GG 2nd Dec 2010, 08:39pm

18 Nov 2010

QUOTE
Asylum: Glasgow

Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what future arrangements her Department plans to make for asylum seekers in Glasgow following the termination of the contract between the UK Border Agency and Glasgow city council for the provision of accommodation and other services to asylum seekers. [24118]

Damian Green [holding answer 15 November 2010]: We will transfer those affected to an alternative provider operating in Glasgow by 3 February 2011. The affected service users are currently accommodated, under a sub contract arrangement, with Glasgow Housing Association. The other accommodation provider to whom we are transferring service users also uses Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) as a provider of accommodation, so no physical move of service users may be necessary.

Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her Department's policy is on the future dispersal of asylum seekers to Glasgow. [24119]

Damian Green [holding answer 15 November 2010]: Asylum seekers will continue to be dispersed to the remaining two housing providers in Glasgow, that is Angel Group and YMCA Glasgow.

19 Nov 2010
QUOTE
Asylum: Glasgow

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effects of asylum seekers moving from Glasgow city council accommodation on requirements for individuals to report at reporting centres or police stations. [23931]

Damian Green: We are very hopeful that the vast majority of service users will be able to remain in their current accommodation. Where this is not possible accommodation will be sourced by alternative providers operating in Glasgow and they will take into account the need for service users to be within a reasonable distance of a reporting centre.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value was of the UK Border Agency's housing contract with Glasgow city council; and what the value is of contracts with the replacement suppliers. [23935]

Damian Green: The current estimated annual value of the contract held with Glasgow city council is £8.610 million. The estimated current annual values for Glasgow YMCA and Angel Group (Scotland) are for £6.516 million and £2.706 million respectively. The value of the YMCA and Angel Group contracts will increase as and when the Glasgow city council service users transfer to one or both providers but we cannot estimate what the future contract values will be at the present time. The additional costs paid to Glasgow YMCA and/or the Angel Group will be significantly less than the current expenditure to Glasgow city council.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the minimum notice period will be for asylum seekers being moved from accommodation with Glasgow City Council; and whether tenants will have any right of appeal. [23938]

Damian Green: The intention is to give any affected asylum seekers who need to move accommodation minimum notice of between three and five months. However, given the common use of Glasgow Housing Association by both Glasgow city council and YMCA the UK Border Agency hope that the numbers who have to move property will be minimal. Where a move has to take place accommodation is provided on a no choice basis and there is no right of appeal, just as it is on initial dispersal.

Asylum: Social Services

Willie Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will publish her Department's assessment of the cost effectiveness and quality of social care services provided by Glasgow city council in respect of asylum seekers based in the city of Glasgow; and if she will make a statement. [25332]

Damian Green: There is no assessment with regards to the quality of social care services provided by Glasgow city council in respect of asylum seekers based in the city of Glasgow. The Secretary of State has no plans to make a statement.

GG.

Posted by: Guest 2nd Dec 2010, 08:48pm

Thanks GG, very interesting reading. I'm glad to see that Willie Bain, MP for Glasgow North East, is taking an active interest in developments.

Posted by: wee davy 2nd Dec 2010, 10:29pm

So,... looking at that - it would appear that all along, they were/are neither 'failed' asylum seekers - or illegal immigrants but bonafide asylum seekers.

Thank you GG.

Posted by: Dunvegan 3rd Dec 2010, 04:26am

Illegal entrants, asylum seekers, to sanitise this issue for public consumption have become a new "cause celebre' among the "activists" who can not seem to get on with their trivial lives without involving the rest of society. In Australia we have a virtual invasion of "asylum seekers" bent on forging a new and subsidised lifestyle for themselves and extended families. According to Canadian and Australian government figures, 70% of those "asylum seekers" from Tamil Nadu return to the country they fled, presumably to set up their own "refugee" excursion scheme and collect their extended families to return to the welfare paradise. Over 40% of those arriving here illegally go on the dole and stay there for a lifetime.

Those who have been denied refugee status by the U.N. for various reason, incuding terrorist associations, criminality and downright lies, are still able to legaly challenge Australias laws to refuse them. Who benifits? the bleeding hearts, the greens, the extreme socialist left and lawyers.
Who pays for it ? Those trapped for up to 15 years in rotten refugee camps desperate for settlement anywhere. 100% of those "asylum seekers " have never even seen the out side of a refugee camp.

Stop the emotive outprourings and give a thought to real refugees, suffering horror conditions of starvation and deprevation in unsanitary squalid camps where their only hope is denied them by fee paying queue jumpers and welfare cheats.

Posted by: wee davy 3rd Dec 2010, 10:42am

Hello Dunvegan

A very interesting post on what is an equally difficult subject in your part of the world.

Your closing statement, was especially poignant;

QUOTE
Stop the emotive outpourings and give a thought to real refugees, suffering horror conditions of starvation and deprevation in unsanitary squalid camps where their only hope is denied them by fee paying queue jumpers and welfare cheats.

I'm assuming the 'emotive outpourings' you refer to, are those which have in the main been expressed by posters regards immigration policy? (or the lack of a coherent/adequate one for many years, in the UK?), sparked by the treatment of the 'Glasgow 1300'.

If it wasn't for those comments being expressed by people 'living it' then I personally wouldn't have a CLUE about the strength of feeling felt, towards those officially seeking asylum.

You have had, and no doubt continue to have your own specific problems.
I'm sure there are many things we can learn from you, as we experience what has become an EXPLOSION in recent years, which we have not been responding to, adequately.

You may have noticed, I myself have been dismayed by some posters open expressions of hostility towards people who may have genuine cause to seek asylum from their birthplace.
Distasteful though it may be, it is only through open and honest debate we can understand and assimilate the social implications for EVERYONE who is involved or affected.

btw please keep on posting - I notice this hasn't been the first positive one of yours.

None of us are about to change the world overnight - but you never know just WHO might be reading! Perhaps someone with sufficient influence to actually MAKE that difference, for us!

Posted by: droschke7 3rd Dec 2010, 12:02pm

All due respect but the people being moved are Asylum Seekers they have as yet not been granted asylum. They do however demand more rights than the indigenous population are receiving. I do notice thowever that one of the rights they are not demanding is the right to leave.......

Posted by: wee davy 3rd Dec 2010, 12:34pm

Hi droschke

QUOTE
They do however demand more rights than the indigenous population are receiving

The mere fact you talk about 'indigenous populations' and 'THEY' tells me its highly unlikely you have ever MET an asylum seeker - much less talked to one - and ASKED them, what 'rights' they allegedly demand MORE of?

If you were in another country,... fearful of being sent back from whence you came, would YOU be DEMANDING more rights than the hand that offers you succour, and friendship?
Methinks, NOT a good move.

Posted by: refugee 3rd Dec 2010, 02:57pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 3rd Dec 2010, 11:48am) *
All due respect but the people being moved are Asylum Seekers they have as yet not been granted asylum. They do however demand more rights than the indigenous population are receiving. I do notice thowever that one of the rights they are not demanding is the right to leave.......

I am absolutely certain that you are a very intelligent person who will not make unfouded claims or allegations. I think the part where you proved the demands have been omitted, probably in error.

Could you please re-post to show the demand of more rights as you allege above?

They wont demand the right to leave because they already have it. They however dont want to leave to the same place from where they fled. Is it not human nature to flee when you are confronted with something that you are obviously never going to defeat?

Posted by: Dunvegan 3rd Dec 2010, 11:36pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 3rd Dec 2010, 12:20pm) *
Hi droschke


The mere fact you talk about 'indigenous populations' and 'THEY' tells me its highly unlikely you have ever MET an asylum seeker - much less talked to one - and ASKED them, what 'rights' they allegedly demand MORE of?

If you were in another country,... fearful of being sent back from whence you came, would YOU be DEMANDING more rights than the hand that offers you succour, and friendship?
Methinks, NOT a good move.

To Wee Davey,
It seems that you have concerns with the fate of "asylum seekers" . As I am not familiar with the conditions or origins of the Glasgow asylum seekers I cant really comment on their condition as I was refering in general to the commercial phenomena of "asylum seekers" in an Australian / Canadian context. First let me make it clear, as a victim of bigotry in the country of my birth I have no racial or discriminatory axe to grind. I have on this form been quoted as having a "non positive opinion", by someone who obviously treasures the political correctness of the pseudo leftists. This also has connotations of the "brave new world" syndrome much valued by the aforesaid.
As to indigeneous populations, If the time effort and being spent on the welfare tourists, who in their determination to reach Canada and Australia, countries known for their generous welfare policies, as is indeed the U.K., bypass at least a dozen countries of 1st asylum, then we would have no "aborigional problem". If the conditions that our people suffer were to be suffered by asylum seekers , the outcry would be heard around the world.
The "asylum seekers" to Canada and Australia pay substantial sums to get to those countries. They are enouraged and prepared to do so by people smugglers who make millions of dollars per boat load. They are also primed with tape recorded messages informing them on what course of action to take regarding legal asssistance and rights under international convention. They arrive in orginized "tourist trips" and drain they ecconomy to the extent that experts are predicting the imminent collapse of the legal refugee and migrant intake.
Take the time, as one respondee said for informed and rational debate. This however seems to be anathmetic to the activists of political and moral correctness

Posted by: wee davy 4th Dec 2010, 12:33pm

I've PM'd you Dunvegan - I'm sorry, but that was all a bit too much for my poor wee brain laugh.gif

regards, davy

Posted by: jamjar51 4th Dec 2010, 10:19pm

I would like to congratulate everyone on this thread, it must be the first time a subject like this has ben aired without the usual screams claiming racism. People have aired their points on both sides without it degenerating into a rammy. RESPECT to all of you.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 5th Dec 2010, 01:07am

QUOTE (jamjar51 @ 4th Dec 2010, 10:05pm) *
I would like to congratulate everyone on this thread, it must be the first time a subject like this has ben aired without the usual screams claiming racism. People have aired their points on both sides without it degenerating into a rammy. RESPECT to all of you.

That's because the screamers are missing ... or banned tongue.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: wee davy 5th Dec 2010, 04:34pm

zatno racist tae wards screamers?

Ahm tellin Harriet Harman!

Posted by: Rab 6th Dec 2010, 08:17pm

Re your post #261 Dunvegan. I agree with every word you wrote. I have been pushing the same message for the past 20 years since I left my 5 year attachment with the UK Immigration Service where my eyes were fully opened. The situation has avalanched since then, no thanks to Labour and the m/billions that have been squandered on these scroungers. No-one is suggesting that all asylum seekers are such but my personal experience has shown that the majority are. *For 'asylum' please read 'free hand-out'.

Posted by: wee davy 6th Dec 2010, 08:57pm

QUOTE
No-one is suggesting that all asylum seekers are such but my personal experience has shown that the majority are.


Rab,
I can assure you it has OFTEN been suggested or implied, in this topic. By continuous deliberate reference to asylum seekers, as a 'catch all' term - and by more than one poster.
However, I respect & bow to your 'inside gen' on the issue regards immigration.
(Bearing in mind the world has changed considerably, in over twenty years!?)

So,... maybe YOU might like to give us an idea of HOW MANY of the 'Glasgow 1300' who were served with eviction notices in early November, might be OFFICALLY 'asylum seekers' - and how many are likely to be either failed applicants, or simply illegal immigrants?

I've all but posed this question to the 'horse's mouth' - but have not had ONE person give me any form of reply. (I certainly do not expect a direct answer from the authorities themselves!)

I have simply been GENUINELY trying to be a voice for those people who have none.

If, as you suggest, there are very few genuine cases - then surely this is all the more reason to maintain clear distinctions?

I am curious as to how so many apparent illegals, continue to enter the country. Is it the basics?
The guidelines handed down? Or is it the interpretation of the rules and regs?

Posted by: bilbo.s 6th Dec 2010, 09:57pm

Davy,

We are all surrounded by incompetence, alas.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 6th Dec 2010, 10:40pm

Davy, if an Official can't tell you then you're floggin' a dead 'un here.
Rab, where's that 'orse? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: GG 7th Dec 2010, 12:09am

QUOTE (wee davy @ 6th Dec 2010, 08:43pm) *
... So,... maybe YOU might like to give us an idea of HOW MANY of the 'Glasgow 1300' who were served with eviction notices in early November, might be OFFICALLY 'asylum seekers' - and how many are likely to be either failed applicants, or simply illegal immigrants?

I've all but posed this question to the 'horse's mouth' - but have not had ONE person give me any form of reply. (I certainly do not expect a direct answer from the authorities themselves!)

I have simply been GENUINELY trying to be a voice for those people who have none.

If, as you suggest, there are very few genuine cases - then surely this is all the more reason to maintain clear distinctions? ...

Hi wee davy,

According to the Guardian article I referred to earlier, the "majority" of asylum applications (across the UK) are rejected and, after the appeals process is gone through, those who refuse to leave are officially termed "illegal immigrants" and are subject to forcible deportation. As the Guardian put it:

QUOTE
Statistics are not available by region but most of those 22,000 applications [from Glasgow based asylum seekers] are likely to have been refused. Subsequently, some will have left voluntarily. But hundreds, if not thousands, of failed asylum seekers who have been sent to Glasgow over the last decade may still be living in the city as illegal immigrants.

To answer your question: all of the 1300 people who received the letters would have been 'asylum seekers' as their application for asylum was still being processed.

The following – from the Refugee Council – might help explain the process:

QUOTE
In the UK, a person is recognised as a refugee only when their application for asylum has been accepted by the Home Office. When a person has lodged an asylum claim with the UK Border Agency (UKBA) at the Home Office and is waiting for a decision on their claim, s/he is called an 'asylum seeker'.

An asylum applicant is granted refugee status if they meet the criteria laid down in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. If the asylum application is initially refused, the applicant has appeal rights with the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

If the asylum application is granted, the refugee will only be granted limited leave, initially for five years, after which their case will be reviewed. This applies only to those who have received refugee status since September 2005. Those receiving refugee status prior to this are allowed remain indefinitely.

The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees explained in brief:

QUOTE
The Convention defines a refugee as any person 'who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to fear is unwilling, to avail himself of the protection of that country - or return to it'.
The core obligation is that of 'non-refoulement', not sending someone back into a situation of possible persecution. Another important obligation is not to penalise asylum seekers for entering a country 'illegally'.

I hope this helps.

GG.

Posted by: Rab 7th Dec 2010, 01:18am

How would anyone know the true answer to your question?

Posted by: wee davy 7th Dec 2010, 11:22am

My question wasn't' who is a genuine asylum seeker, and who isn't, Rab'.
I'm thankful that is not for ME to decide.

GG however, has quite clearly and very helpfully, picked his way through this veritable minefield and he successfully answered my original question for me. The answer being ALL 1300 Glasgow applicants are clearly asylum seekers. FULL STOP. Clearly they never should have been subject to any kind of eviction process, in the first place. If they have applications being processed - then thats the end of that.

As to the wider picture, it is not only wrong, but dangerous, to classify ALL asylum seekers as 'automatically' scroungers from the 'off'. Even IF it is true, the majority turn out to be so.

I just see there as being a whole WORLD of a difference, between those asylum seeking CLAIMANTS - and genuine asylum seekers. I think we can say with confidence - we (as a society) are simply WOEFUL at being able to identify (and successfully DEAL with) those who prove to be illegal.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this debate - this problem is one which has not only disturbed me for some time. Especially when it descends into (perhaps, rightful) indignation, and - lets face it - downright open hostility - towards a vulnerable (albeit small proportion, according to Rab, and the Guardian) of section of society.

I do not pretend to have all the answers but truly I wish for those who are tasked with the responsibility for sorting out immigration problems, get ON with it!

I consider the horse, well and truly 'flogged' smile.gif

Posted by: benny 7th Dec 2010, 12:02pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 7th Dec 2010, 12:08pm) *
. . . . GG however, has quite clearly and very helpfully, picked his way through this veritable minefield and he successfully answered my original question for me. The answer being ALL 1300 Glasgow applicants are clearly asylum seekers. FULL STOP. Clearly they never should have been subject to any kind of eviction process, in the first place. If they have applications being processed - then thats the end of that. . .

Naw, ah don't think so, Wee Davy. The asylum seekers aren't being evicted from the country, only from a particular place of residence within the country. It's up to the government to decide where they are housed, not the asylum seekers, so there is nothing wrong with their being relocated to different areas, or "evicted" as you put it.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 7th Dec 2010, 01:06pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 7th Dec 2010, 11:08am) *
... it is not only wrong, but dangerous, to classify ALL asylum seekers as 'automatically' scroungers from the 'off'. Even IF it is true, the majority turn out to be so.

I consider the horse, well and truly 'flogged' smile.gif

If it's true, why is it wrong?
That's hypocritical.
What are you doing tae that poor nag? rolleyes.gif


Posted by: jamjar51 7th Dec 2010, 04:55pm

QUOTE (GG @ 6th Dec 2010, 11:55pm) *
To answer your question: all of the 1300 people who received the letters would have been 'asylum seekers' as their application for asylum was still being processed.

Not even processed but in possession of housing that our own people cannot acquire so expeditiously. So when the majority have their application refused, as everyone now accepts is the case, why do the majority never get removed and why do these failed asylum seekers continue to inhabit council housing and receive taxpayer's money and burden our social service provision.

Posted by: Rab 7th Dec 2010, 07:41pm

My dead cuddy seems to have been resurrected! Did anyone see it get up and walk away since my last posting? Anyway, just in case you missed it boys ..............


Posted by: wee davy 7th Dec 2010, 08:26pm

LOL laugh.gif

Posted by: Rab 7th Dec 2010, 09:34pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 7th Dec 2010, 09:12pm) *
LOL laugh.gif

If you go on like that much longer someone on here will be reporting you to the RSPCA wink.gif
Royal Society for Protection of Asylumseekers.

Posted by: wee davy 7th Dec 2010, 09:41pm

slightly off track - but still proves our beloved hierarchy simply tinker with the issues

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336508/Government-pledges-slash-100-000-foreign-student-visas-critics-say-new-rule-ripe-abuse.html

(promise not whip anymore! lol)

Posted by: Beatrice McArthur 9th Dec 2010, 11:16pm

I grew up in Anderson ,Glasgow in the 1940's. and left 1961. There was a great deal of poverty and hunger but everyone made do. Housing was a "single end" with a toilet downstairs for four families. Everybody shared whatever they had. Every one you met was a Glaswegian. We waited many years to be moved to a flat with electricity. The City deceided where you could live.

What constitutes true "asylum"? How do you prove it? We all want a better life but that comes with hard work. Why would someone work for minimum wage when public assistance pays them more to sit home. On a recent trip a business owner said, when speaking on immigration, "they're given crash courses on how to play the system before they come here.We don't have a chance". Too many cultures pushed together in Glasgow will in time give rise to riots. Look at London? What we give willingly will be forgotten when we are expected to change and submit to those other cultures. Last year it was Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. We want to offend no one.

I dearly love Scotland, it will always be my home. We were a tough and hard working people who stood up for what we believed in. Glasgow has been responsible for many of the inventions that changed the world. We must put our own people first, especially the elderly.

Posted by: Guest 24th Dec 2010, 03:31am

Luckily the people aren't moving too far from Glasgow. Apparently Newton Mearns and Bearsden have offered to take them.

Posted by: GG 24th Dec 2010, 09:24am

Can you confirm the source of your information, guest? Newton Mearns and Bearsden do not exist as a decision-making entity, they are part of East Dunbartonshire Council, and there has been no annoucement to the effect that EDC will be taking any asylum seekers displaced from Glasgow.

On a related note, the UK Government's Scotland Office minister, David Mundell, was in Glasgow this week to discuss the cancellation of UKBA's contract with Glasgow City Council to manage the housing of asylum seekers in the city.

Mr Mundell is quoted as saying:

QUOTE
"I recognise the very important role that Glasgow has played and will continue to play in helping asylum seekers.

I am keen for all of the partners to work together to ensure that the change in housing management arrangements are as smooth as possible with minimum disruption to the asylum seeker community.

A key part of that is a clear communications strategy, so that those asylum seekers who are effected by the change in their housing provider are kept informed of any changes.

We also need a realistic timetable for the process and UKBA are reviewing the proposed date of the changeover."

GG.

Posted by: GG 19th Jan 2011, 10:44pm

An update to this story in the news today:

Damian Green, the UK immigration minister, has apologised for the letter sent to asylum seekers telling them that they faced being evicted from their homes with as little as three days notice:

QUOTE
"It was not a good letter to send out. It happened because someone used a standard template in a way that in the circumstances was inappropriate, it may well have caused some distress for which obviously the UKBA apologises and I've taken steps to ensure that letters like that won't go out again."

The contract between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council is still cancelled as a result of the two bodies being in dispute over the costs of providing housing to the asylum seekers. Charities will take over the contracts.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/Immigration-minister-apologises-for-39inappropriate39.6696032.jp

GG.

Posted by: Dunvegan 20th Jan 2011, 12:43am

QUOTE (GG @ 20th Jan 2011, 08:22am) *
An update to this story in the news today:

Damian Green, the UK immigration minister, has apologised for the letter sent to asylum seekers telling them that they faced being evicted from their homes with as little as three days notice:


The contract between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council is still cancelled as a result of the two bodies being in dispute over the costs of providing housing to the asylum seekers. Charities will take over the contracts.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/Immigration-minister-apologises-for-39inappropriate39.6696032.jp

GG.

GG: I only made reply to this forum to explain the situation regarding illegal migrants in the Australian context and I am in no way familiar with the Glasgow situation regarding illegal entrants to Scotland, or is it the UK. being dealt with?

Posted by: James Ryan 20th Jan 2011, 02:02am

QUOTE (GG @ 14th Nov 2010, 11:06pm) *
If you wish to comment on this story please remember that asylum seekers (and their families) are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Please be considerate and respectful in your comments, mindful that many of these very unfortunate people are fleeing unspeakable horror in the countries of their birth.

GG.

Can I just say that international law stipulates that the nearest safe country must accept asylum seekers. The problem for the asylum seekers is that in these countries they will not get free housing, free furniture, free prams for children, free bus passes, free money, free health care as well as free education and free other things so they don't want to stay in the countries nearest to their own. My wife and I made a comment to the Evening Times in the late 90's saying that it was a good thing we were doing for these people. I would be surprised if more than 10% of them are genuine. The UK is making massive cuts all over the board but are still spending billions on people claiming to be something they are not. There has been cases in the news where things like a soldier who lost a leg in Afghanistan was taken of DLA as he could manage to walk with a false leg. The government will not declare how much is spent on these people and all they will say is that the budget is less than last year. I am in no way racist but it is time that there was something done to put a stop to this. People are paying taxes that pay for this but find that there is cuts being made elsewhere.

Posted by: Dunvegan 21st Jan 2011, 02:14am

QUOTE (wee davy @ 8th Dec 2010, 07:19am) *
slightly off track - but still proves our beloved hierarchy simply tinker with the issues

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336508/Government-pledges-slash-100-000-foreign-student-visas-critics-say-new-rule-ripe-abuse.html

(promise not whip anymore! lol)

Got your message, but is this a Scottish decision or was it imposed through the actions of the Westminster conglomerate? Bureaucrats do not distinguish between special days or sensitivities; a well known adage. ( I know that's tautology but it looks good on paper.)

Posted by: wee davy 21st Jan 2011, 02:29pm

As I understand it, the UKBA is the overall authority in these matters, anyone else simply acts on their behalf. In this case BOTH and Glasgow City Council were responsible for the debacle.

Posted by: Dunvegan 21st Jan 2011, 11:00pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 22nd Jan 2011, 12:07am) *
As I understand it, the UKBA is the overall authority in these matters, anyone else simply acts on their behalf. In this case BOTH and Glasgow City Council were responsible for the debacle.

Bureaucrats by any other name!

Posted by: Heather 21st Jan 2011, 11:09pm

What I don't understand is, why foreign Students coming into this Country are allowed to bring their dependents with them and from where do they get the money to live on. wub.gif

Posted by: GG 13th Mar 2011, 01:12pm

The latest news on this topic is that, with just a few weeks left to the proposed transfer of asylum-related services from Glasgow City Council to Ypeople, the council has written to the UK Government claiming Ypeople (formerly known as YMCA Glasgow) has not met legal and financial obligations for staff being moved to the new provider.

The council letter includes:

QUOTE
"We have expressed concern to UKBA [UK Border Agency] regarding Ypeople’s ability and capacity to provide assurances that the transition from Glasgow City Council to Ypeople will take place on April 3.

Our concerns centre around Ypeople’s reluctance to engage with Strathclyde Pension Fund, which we understand they did for the first time on March 2. We are very concerned that this level of uncertainty impacts negatively on the staff group and is also creating a very uncertain future for the support-service users.

Given the current financial circumstances, the council has no option but to pursue Tupe [employment regulations] and ensure Ypeople are able to provide appropriate assurances to both UKBA and our staff group on their intentions re pensions terms and conditions etc."

I'll update the topic to reflect whether the transfer goes through as scheduled.

GG.

Posted by: GG 13th Mar 2011, 01:22pm

One finding from the UK MP investigation into the whole affair, which embarrasses all parties involved, is that a £375,000 scheme to return failed asylum-seeking familes home voluntarily has not persuaded a single family to leave the country. The scheme, run jointly by the UK Border Agency (UKBA), the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council, was predicted to fail after a similar Home Office scheme wasted £1million.

QUOTE
The failure of a £1m pioneering asylum project in England does not spell disaster for a similar scheme in Glasgow, it was claimed yesterday. ...

Asylum pilot's failures 'will not be echoed in Scotland' 25 Jun 2009
http://www.heraldscotland.com/asylum-pilot-s-failures-will-not-be-echoed-in-scotland-1.913252

... but two years later ...
QUOTE
A scheme to encourage Glasgow asylum seekers to return home voluntarily has run up costs of £300,000 but failed to persuade a single family to leave the country, MPs revealed yesterday. ...

Asylum seeker scheme cost £300,000 11 Feb 2011
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/asylum-seeker-scheme-cost-300-000-1.1084657

Posted by: Heather 13th Mar 2011, 10:47pm

Why do failed Asylum Seekers have to be persuaded to leave the Country and why are they being bribed with money??

They should be given no money, and as a lot of them came to Britain through France then they should be taken back there and let France deal with them.

With all the cut backs and un-employment in this Country, surely the Government have better things to do with tax payers money than hand it out to people who have no right to be in Britain.

Posted by: droschke7 13th Mar 2011, 10:51pm

QUOTE (Heather @ 13th Mar 2011, 11:10pm) *
Why do failed Asylum Seekers have to be persuaded to leave the Country and why are they being bribed with money??

They should be given no money, and as a lot of them came to Britain through France then they should be taken back there and let France deal with them.

With all the cut backs and un-employment in this Country, surely the Government have better things to do with tax payers money than hand it out to people who have no right to be in Britain.

Too true

Posted by: ceader bhoy 14th Mar 2011, 12:40am

QUOTE (Heather @ 13th Mar 2011, 11:10pm) *
Why do failed Asylum Seekers have to be persuaded to leave the Country and why are they being bribed with money??

They should be given no money, and as a lot of them came to Britain through France then they should be taken back there and let France deal with them.

With all the cut backs and un-employment in this Country, surely the Government have better things to do with tax payers money than hand it out to people who have no right to be in Britain.

heather where your ancestors not asylum seekers did they not come from ierland ????


Posted by: Dunvegan 14th Mar 2011, 12:57am

The Irish did NOT come as asylum seekers. They were tribes from Antrim known to the Romans as Scotti and came as settlers, eventually amalgamating with the Caledonii ie. Picta and eventually formed the country Scotland. Try reading the country's history and not basing wild assumptions and statements on prejudice.

Posted by: Dexter St. Clair 14th Mar 2011, 12:58am

QUOTE
Thirty - Four Glasgow City Council Social Work Services workers’ jobs, pensions and employment conditions are under severe threat due to the decision of Glasgow City Council to compulsorily transfer them to YPeople (formerly the YMCA) as part of the privatisation of the asylum support service. Three of the workers have over 30 years’ service with the council and there is more than 500 years total council service within the workforce, with the average around 15 years. Most of the workers are grades 3 to 5 (£16,000 to £24,000). The workers current pension provision will not be maintained and YPeople have said that immediate redundancies are “a likelihood”. Glasgow City Council are basically transferring 34 workers out of local government knowing that some, maybe all, will be thrown on the dole. UNISON believes that an employer the size of Glasgow City Council can find alternative jobs for such a small number of workers. We the undersigned support UNISON’s campaign to protect these workers and call on Glasgow City Council to offer all the workers redeployment within the council

The Christian part of the YMCA has been removed.

Posted by: Scotsman 14th Mar 2011, 08:11am

With so many false asylum seekers in the system it is a real shame for the genuine ones who are really facing persecution. Time for the government to get very tough with these failed chancers and turf them out.... then the system and the money can be used to help the ones who genuinely need our help.

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Mar 2011, 08:41am

QUOTE (Dunvegan @ 14th Mar 2011, 02:20am) *
The Irish did NOT come as asylum seekers. They were tribes from Antrim known to the Romans as Scotti and came as settlers, eventually amalgamating with the Caledonii ie. Picta and eventually formed the country Scotland. Try reading the country's history and not basing wild assumptions and statements on prejudice.

What you say is true, but completely irrelevant with regard to the present part of Scotland's population which claims Irish extraction. Most of them are of far more recent Irish emigration and are there mainly because of the Irish famine . I seriously doubt that anyone can trace their genealogy back to the prehistoric days you describe.

I have some Irish ancestry too, going back to my great,great-grandmother on my mother's side. I do not think you can accuse Ceader Bhoy of prejudice for making a perfectly valid and factual point.

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Mar 2011, 08:55am

I meant to say "almost prehistoric days".

Posted by: Heather 14th Mar 2011, 10:53am

As you say Dunvegan, some people should read their Scottish History. You are correct to say the original Scots came from Ireland.

The Irish Potato Famine was during the 1840s / 1850s and at that time the whole of Ireland was under British rule as Northern Ireland is today.
The Rebublic of Ireland ( Eire ) gained it's freedom from Britain in 1922.
So how can those Irish who came to Britain during the Potato Famine be classed Asylum Seekers??

As for my ancestors, my paternal Irish g'g'father settled in Glasgow after he retired from the British Army.

My maternal ancestors are from Kilsyth, the Burns family, a sept of the Clan Cambell.

This Thread is about Asylum Seekers not our ancestors.