Thread

1. schnitzelstoat · 1789563681 · focus · HN ↗

   > Piddington — home to roughly 350 residents

   > the Government announced plans to house 1,256 male asylum seekers in a nearby former military base.

   It seems a bad idea to put them all in one place where they will outnumber the local residents almost 4-to-1

   1. pjc50 · 1789564042 · focus · HN ↗

      Previous approaches of distributing them across low-rent hotels and bnb accommodation have recently suffered arson attacks. This isn't the first time a disused military base has been used for this kind of purpose, and ultimately they have to go somewhere; wherever the government puts them is going to object.

      I'm not even 100% clear whether they're allowed off the site!

      The asylum system leaves people in an extremely unpleasant limbo for a long time while it makes decisions, based purely on the false belief that they're uniquely likely to be criminals.

      1. cdot2 · 1789565455 · focus · HN ↗

         These are not Ukranian war refugees. They can be sent back to their home countries

         1. pjc50 · 1789565632 · focus · HN ↗

            Can they? Have you personally reviewed all 1,200 cases?

            1. zulux · 1789567242 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

               1. Timon3 · 1789571386 · focus · HN ↗

                  Of course. When a family lives in a dangerous region and has too few resources to afford everyone's escape, no human would ever choose to save a loved one while staying behind themselves.

                  And if they do, it must be virtue signaling or something like that, right?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.