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. philipallstar · 1789565004 · focus · HN ↗

         > A spokesman for the Home Office said: "The Government is closing every asylum hotel, saving taxpayers over £1 billion on asylum support since the election.

         This is why the hotels and bnbs were a bad idea.

         1. pjc50 · 1789565125 · focus · HN ↗

            .. and replacing them with what, exactly?

            1. philipallstar · 1789565306 · focus · HN ↗

               With nothing. Why does the UK have giant numbers of asylum seekers, and why wasn't any of the EU countries they travelled through to get there good enough? It's the hardest to reach country in Western Europe.

               EDIT: other than RoI.

               1. rapsey · 1789565620 · focus · HN ↗

                  Because the UK wants them. They can stop the boats at any time. They can stop feeding and housing them at any time. They come because the UK government and NGOs provide them with a comfortable life.

                  1. pjc50 · 1789565704 · focus · HN ↗

                     It's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just ignore them.

                     This is why the problem hasn't been fixed. You can't say "just do X" when X isn't legal. Do you really think nobody's thought of this? That the government actually likes being in this position of the past decade or so?

                     1. rapsey · 1789566116 · focus · HN ↗

                        The ECHR is actually very loose with their definitions and gives the governments much freedom.

                        The UK chooses to interpret and enforce them as they do. Other european countries are within ECHR limits and deal with it entirely differently.

                        The UK elites no longer have the EU to blame for their policies, so they speak about ECHR. On the continent people barely know ECHR exists.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.