@samcaryccc.bsky.social
I agree that safe routes are the solution. Measured, controlled and a hell of a lot cheaper. More enforcement = fewer deaths and. It also means a quota can be agreed.
October 23, 2025 at 5:21 PM
I agree that safe routes are the solution. Measured, controlled and a hell of a lot cheaper. More enforcement = fewer deaths and. It also means a quota can be agreed.
…whether they qualify for entry. Those who cooperate with examination on arrival should not be arrested (unless they need to be transported to a location for processing under the 1971 Act) and may be treated as arriving passengers.”
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/u...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/u...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
October 23, 2025 at 5:15 PM
…whether they qualify for entry. Those who cooperate with examination on arrival should not be arrested (unless they need to be transported to a location for processing under the 1971 Act) and may be treated as arriving passengers.”
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/u...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/u...
“To sum up, those who make landfall on beaches, or any other uncontrolled area of coastline may be arrested for having entered illegally if they were seek to escape from or evade immigration officers or constables who seek to lawfully question them about their means of arrival and…
October 23, 2025 at 5:13 PM
“To sum up, those who make landfall on beaches, or any other uncontrolled area of coastline may be arrested for having entered illegally if they were seek to escape from or evade immigration officers or constables who seek to lawfully question them about their means of arrival and…
I doubt your intention is to mislead, but as journalists, I’m sure you are tenacious in being correct in all you broadcast.
The relevant guidance is here on page 6 and is summarised thus:
The relevant guidance is here on page 6 and is summarised thus:
October 23, 2025 at 5:12 PM
I doubt your intention is to mislead, but as journalists, I’m sure you are tenacious in being correct in all you broadcast.
The relevant guidance is here on page 6 and is summarised thus:
The relevant guidance is here on page 6 and is summarised thus:
There is no written law that states that crossing the channel itself is illegal.
This is very important because asylum seekers are persistently referred to as “illegals” when they are not. There has been no illegal entry and a lodged asylum application gives legal leave to remain.
This is very important because asylum seekers are persistently referred to as “illegals” when they are not. There has been no illegal entry and a lodged asylum application gives legal leave to remain.
October 23, 2025 at 5:12 PM
There is no written law that states that crossing the channel itself is illegal.
This is very important because asylum seekers are persistently referred to as “illegals” when they are not. There has been no illegal entry and a lodged asylum application gives legal leave to remain.
This is very important because asylum seekers are persistently referred to as “illegals” when they are not. There has been no illegal entry and a lodged asylum application gives legal leave to remain.
I’ve just listened to this podcast and I’m disappointed to hear you referring to people “illegally crossing” the Channel and “arriving illegally”. Home Office guidance for “Irregular or unlawful entry and arrival” makes clear that those arriving on small boats do not enter illegally
October 23, 2025 at 5:11 PM
I’ve just listened to this podcast and I’m disappointed to hear you referring to people “illegally crossing” the Channel and “arriving illegally”. Home Office guidance for “Irregular or unlawful entry and arrival” makes clear that those arriving on small boats do not enter illegally
Oh, I don’t know. I mean it’s not like someone says “burn the hotels” and people go and do it. At all.
July 22, 2025 at 7:39 PM
Oh, I don’t know. I mean it’s not like someone says “burn the hotels” and people go and do it. At all.
Yes! I am so tired of pointing out that they are not in the French asylum system.
July 11, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Yes! I am so tired of pointing out that they are not in the French asylum system.
You did well there, but they never let you make your points. It was just full on rhetoric.
July 11, 2025 at 1:52 PM
You did well there, but they never let you make your points. It was just full on rhetoric.
I can’t believe a) the density of not realising the restriction on FOM and b) continuing to support the architect of Brexit! Density Level: Set
June 4, 2025 at 5:01 PM
I can’t believe a) the density of not realising the restriction on FOM and b) continuing to support the architect of Brexit! Density Level: Set
I never claimed otherwise. I simply corrected your terminology.
May 19, 2025 at 10:07 AM
I never claimed otherwise. I simply corrected your terminology.
As much as you are desperate to attach a label you like to asylum seekers, you cannot. Accept it and move on.
May 17, 2025 at 10:23 AM
As much as you are desperate to attach a label you like to asylum seekers, you cannot. Accept it and move on.
Incorrect. If people cannot prove persecution, they become a failed asylum seeker. People are identified by the action they take and the immigration status given. Not intention.
May 17, 2025 at 10:22 AM
Incorrect. If people cannot prove persecution, they become a failed asylum seeker. People are identified by the action they take and the immigration status given. Not intention.
Evidently they don’t, since asylum seekers are repeatedly and erroneously referred to as ‘illegal immigrants’. Asylum seekers cannot, by definition, be economic migrants. A decision on their claim designates them as either refugees or failed asylum seekers.
May 16, 2025 at 12:22 PM
Evidently they don’t, since asylum seekers are repeatedly and erroneously referred to as ‘illegal immigrants’. Asylum seekers cannot, by definition, be economic migrants. A decision on their claim designates them as either refugees or failed asylum seekers.
“A person who claims asylum has the legal right to remain in the UK while their application is considered.”
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and...
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and...
Refugees and asylum-seekers: UK policy
In 2021, the government said that “as a force for good in the world” the UK would remain “sensitive to the plight of refugees and asylum-seekers”. It stated it had a “proud track record” of protecting...
lordslibrary.parliament.uk
May 16, 2025 at 11:45 AM
“A person who claims asylum has the legal right to remain in the UK while their application is considered.”
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and...
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and...
@maitlis.bsky.social please, please address this nonsense about “they aren’t asylum seekers”. For too long the Tories got away with it, now Reform are. People who apply for asylum have LEGAL LEAVE TO REMAIN. Neither are they economic migrants. This false claim has to be challenged.
May 15, 2025 at 4:52 PM
@maitlis.bsky.social please, please address this nonsense about “they aren’t asylum seekers”. For too long the Tories got away with it, now Reform are. People who apply for asylum have LEGAL LEAVE TO REMAIN. Neither are they economic migrants. This false claim has to be challenged.
Oh my God Emily! How did you keep your cool with that arrogant, patronising, misogynistic, racist, lying, absolute FUCK!
May 15, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Oh my God Emily! How did you keep your cool with that arrogant, patronising, misogynistic, racist, lying, absolute FUCK!
The plumber needs to pipe down.
April 14, 2025 at 11:43 AM
The plumber needs to pipe down.
Push the central clip in and try pulling and twisting the bottom part at the same time
February 18, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Push the central clip in and try pulling and twisting the bottom part at the same time
No I didn’t. A cap on claims, not decisions isn’t a breach of the RC
February 10, 2025 at 5:36 PM
No I didn’t. A cap on claims, not decisions isn’t a breach of the RC