Forum Topic

The number of asylum applications to this country annually has fallen by 75% from 2002 to 2010 (the latest official number available).Of these applications, which numbered 17,000, about 25% are accepted intitially and another 23% or so are accepted on appeal. So less than half the applicants are admitted - about 8,000. Ealing may have a relatively high proportion of these because of proximity to Heathrow but it is unlikely to amount to more than a few hundred coming into the borough each year. The proportion of asylum seekers of net migration is currently tiny - about 4%.As the checking by the authorities to grant asylum status is quite stringent it is unlikely that bogus asylum seekers are getting through. That means that around half are verifiably genuine. Of the other half you should remember that if you flee a country it may be very difficult to provide documentary evidence to support your claim and also a significant proportion of asylum applicants abandon their claim. Therefore it is pretty certain that a minimum 75% of asylum claims should be granted. Of the rest, most are probably not bogus but just don't meet the requirements of the UK authorities i.e. you aren't going to be killed immediately you return home.I can find no record anywhere of Jack Straw saying that 60-70% of asylum applications are bogus. I think you have made that up.I also think you made up your friend who worked for a private charity to fabricate a figure of 2.5% See above for verification that that is untrue.You have got confused by facts and figures in the past so here is the above expressed in terms you can't fail to understand:The number of asylum applications to this country has fallen sharplyPeople admitted through the asylum system represent a tiny proportion of net immigrationMost asylum applications are genuine because the process of checking is rigorous.Many genuine applications are turned down.The proportion of asylum seekers we admit is low by international standards and well below the European average.

Andy Jones ● 4954d

Re  To raise this question almost always, is linked with accusations of prejudice           xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx usually by the backstabbers, those who applaud everything and everyone  not of this country. Sad that such people exist Os, but they do and the question is what is THEIR agenda. Those who  put aliens above their own to my mind are highly dangerous. That they accuse we who defend our own of racism, prejudice and even Nazism, ( poor  fools ) is extremely worrying and  could well be a sickness of the mind.        The fact is wherever you go now, you are served by people who are as you say, and of whom many can't speak fluently the language of the country they have chosen to park their tent. I buy as much as I can in Southampton now so I can converse with those serving me. Go into a mobile phone "shop" and see how you get on. That we are being wiped out cannot be  visually denied. Among those " not of these shores " are many very nice people and of whom I have many friends but THAT is not the point, which is collectively they have usurped us and our envirionment, which is what the vast majority of the UK population resent, and naturally so. And it will get worse, just look at Southall to see how  matters " grow ". Vast tracks of London are the same. Get on an 83 bus Os, and go all the way to Golders Green, t'will be a colourful journey to say the least. Try South London, Woolwich, , Plaistow , Arsenal. I waited for a bus at North Greenwich station, 72 people in the queue, me the only white one. We are not and never could be a multi-cultural society but a multi-fragmented one. Why some advocate that escapes me, makes me wonder re their bona fides.

Tony Price ● 4955d

Many of the assertions and claims you make are wrong. I, and others, have provided facts and figures to show this. You can't prove anything that is untrue with statistics - either it is true or it isn't.Nobody is denying there are areas with particularly high concentration of immigrants in the borough. This is not a new phenomenon - people from the Asian sub-continent and Poland in particular have been coming to this area since after the war. The reason that these nationalities chose this particular area to begin with is that many of them were stationed at RAF Northolt. Also British soldiers and airmen encouraged their comrades in arms to come over. I think I'm right in saying that the reason that there are so many Sikhs in the area is due to military connections arising out of the Burma campaign.I refuse to begrudge these people their right to reside in this country. In the decades I have lived in this area neither Asian nor Pole has given me any problems. On the contrary they have provided me with great shops, wonderful places to eat, top quality home improvement services, cricket coaching for my kids. I'm proud to include amongst my friends many people from these communities. I have never felt like a foreigner in my own country. The only issue I have ever had with immigrants is some anti-social behaviour by Australians in a neighbouring house.If you move 2 or 3 miles away from certain areas to the borough you will quickly get to areas that have very low levels from immigrant communities and much of the rest of the country has wide areas were there are none at all. Of course we should have controls on immigration but once people are here they are entitled to be treated with respect.I believe it is you who are misguided and blinkered.

Andy Jones ● 4955d

If a working person loses his job and invokes his legal right to Benefits, that is fine by me and indeed it’s essential that an impecunious person receives financial support. But if I am paying him to survive I think I should have more of a right to say how that money is spent, rather than scarcely any right.It’s not good for anyone to hang around 7 days a week when they wish to work. But for me it is far worse if someone is out of work for a long time and is still hanging around. Those are the people who I think must re-enter the work environment on a weekly basis, but not for more than 2 days a week. That is generally is the minimum number of days that charities like you to volunteer with them – presumably because one day is insufficient for a volunteer to really get a hang of the work involved. Without checking I seem to remember that very roughly a million people are out of work long term. That is a huge Benefits bill and I think it absolutely right that we should have greater say in how that money is spent.I am not bothered about the Unions. If a person “works” two days a week in a unionised environment then there has to be a deal whereby the new person is either taken on as an employee after a given time or another Benefits claimant does the job. But if three people go through the process and it becomes a scam on the part of the employer to get labour on the cheap, then the Union should have the full right to demand that the job position is closed down.Incidentally getting labour on the cheap at Ealing Hospital is quite scandalous. The volunteers there I spoke to don’t even get their travel costs paid. And neither do they receive a lunch allowance. The NHS is only the fifth largest employer in the world.I don’t think we can afford to push all jobseekers into a couple of days of “work” and neither would I wish to even consider that option until the long term people had been brought back to face the world of work.The drug addicts and alcoholics will have to continue to be treated differently. And so would those suffering from severe depression.

George Knox ● 4955d