Asylum Seekers to Rwanda - A Deterrent?
- Thread starter MOIC
- Start date
Why are WE making them stay there and attempt risky channel crossings rather than opening a processing centre (or many) off shore where people could apply for asylum.
Here is an idea - we open a lot and call them something non threatening like I don't know "embassy" then people with a genuine fear of persecution could go to one, state their case and if correct we would grant them immediate protection and a free passage to the UK. Anyone not applying at a reasonably close to origin point embassy could then be declined as having not availed themselves of the legal route if found here and could be expelled.
If we stated now that we would be implementing that from September 1st and broadcast it very loudly via all means (things like BBC world service), I am sure next years deaths in the channel would drop by more them Priti/Trusses cunning Rwandan plan and for less £
Upvote
0
U
UkAppCoder
The home office will surely be using some 'plan-act-observe-adjust' control models. This is only the first iteration. Even if no illegal immigrants are deported for the next few weeks, this should not be seen as a failure.
In the same way that Brexit was realised (or is being realised), the will of the people will eventually prevail. Democracy is necessarily slow when addressing some issues. This ensures that there is plenty of time for debate, and that the best interests of our country as a whole will eventually be served.
The government would have been aware that lawyers would go to the ECHR, and I reckon they knew what the outcome would be. I'm actually happy with the result because now the government will have a lot more support when they finally flush the ECHR down the toilet where it belongs. They will also gain more support in the commons for their strategy to deal with this evil human trafficking and slavery problem, and Boris may have gone some way towards preserving his position as leader.
I'm really going to enjoy watching those vicious loonies on the opposition benches being done slowly - again! LOL!
So, look forward to more clever, cunning strategies by the government. Also, as well as gradually gaining more support from the electorate for the rest of this Parliament, the government will gradually decrease support for the opposition. Some very entertaining TV ahead!
In the same way that Brexit was realised (or is being realised), the will of the people will eventually prevail. Democracy is necessarily slow when addressing some issues. This ensures that there is plenty of time for debate, and that the best interests of our country as a whole will eventually be served.
The government would have been aware that lawyers would go to the ECHR, and I reckon they knew what the outcome would be. I'm actually happy with the result because now the government will have a lot more support when they finally flush the ECHR down the toilet where it belongs. They will also gain more support in the commons for their strategy to deal with this evil human trafficking and slavery problem, and Boris may have gone some way towards preserving his position as leader.
I'm really going to enjoy watching those vicious loonies on the opposition benches being done slowly - again! LOL!
So, look forward to more clever, cunning strategies by the government. Also, as well as gradually gaining more support from the electorate for the rest of this Parliament, the government will gradually decrease support for the opposition. Some very entertaining TV ahead!
Upvote
0
The muddling of the concepts of illegal immigrants, economic migratants and assylum seekers come through not just in threads like this, but in the press, and in government and opposition comments on the issue.
And, of course, a fair amount of 'we don't want them here even though we could use some people to do some of the 1.3 million vacancies'.
Personally, I have seen literally nothing that tells me exactly what the Rwanda deal is, or what it is thought it might achieve. Will it stop people traffickers taking money and sending people here? No. Of course it won't.
And, of course, a fair amount of 'we don't want them here even though we could use some people to do some of the 1.3 million vacancies'.
Personally, I have seen literally nothing that tells me exactly what the Rwanda deal is, or what it is thought it might achieve. Will it stop people traffickers taking money and sending people here? No. Of course it won't.
Upvote
0
U
UkAppCoder
But if they are refused asylum at these "embassies", then they would just come here anyway!
Remember that when they reach our side of the channel, they phone a taxi (i.e. they phone the border farce), then simply throw their identification documents, mobile phones, etc. into the sea!
Upvote
0
The will of the people is already prevailing: we voted to leave the Dublin Convention (even if some of us didn’t realise that was a part of the referendum, as no-one mentioned it), and therefore with no alternatives in place, we’re stuck with a legal obligation to process these asylum-seekers, and as the Home Office is so incompetent, we have to provide for them for a long time, until their applications are decided.
If they done that, they could be legally put on the next flight to their country of origin, and as the asylum decision would have been finalised, there would be no legal recourse for them – it would all happen very quickly.
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
U
UkAppCoder
Migrant claims for asylum in the UK will be processed in Rwanda. If refused, then they will be welcomed as residents or citizens of Rwanda.
The demand for people-traffickers will all but disappear because the migrants will not want to end up in Rwanda. This will happen because the reality is that about 90% of these migrants are not entitled to asylum. They are not being persecuted. They are not in any danger at all. They are healthy young men looking for a better life - i.e. they are economic migrants.
This will also address the modern day slavery issue in the UK because since most of these migrants borrow money from the people-traffickers in order to pay for their journeys, they will not be working in our dark economy as slaves.
Upvote
0
U
UkAppCoder
That's if you could identify them. How would you identify them when their documents, phones, etc. are lying on the bottom of the sea?!
Do you expect them to provide their correct details when they arrive in the UK!
Upvote
0
This is simply not true: Rwanda will consider the asylum application on behalf of Rwanda, and if approved, they will stay in Rwanda; if declined, they are returned to their country of origin.
There are no circumstances that would allow them to return to the UK, so their only option to do so is to try the whole thing again, and hope they reach these shores without being noticed by Border Force.
But equally, somehow the option of providing repeat-business to the people-smugglers will destroy their business model (no-one can explain how though).
Do you have an official source of this stat? Last time I checked, the vast majority were getting approved, so if it’s gone down to 10%, that really should be argued more prominently in the debate.
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
Why do you think they are there? Do you remember when the French tried to move them to other parts pf France, providing better accommodation and tearing down the Calais camps as soon as they could? And yet the asylum seekers returned there. Why was that, do you think?Come on. Even you don't believe that surely
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #132
For sake of clarity:
Asylum seekers
A person seeking asylum:
- flees their home
- arrives in another country, whichever way they can
- makes themselves known to the authorities
- submits an asylum application
- has a legal right to stay in the country while waiting for a decision.
Refugees
A refugee:
- has proven that they’d be at risk if returned to their home country
- has had their claim for asylum accepted by the government
- has permission to stay in the UK either long term or indefinitely.
- Refugees have a right under UK and international law to bring their immediate family members to join them.
Refused asylum seekers
A refused asylum seeker:
- hasn’t been able to prove that they would face persecution back home
- has been denied protection by the authorities
- must now leave the country – unless they want to appeal the decision or it isn’t safe or practical for them to return home (for example, they have a serious health condition or can’t get the documents they need to travel).
A migrant:
- has moved to another country, for example to work, study or join family members
- may be living there temporarily or permanently depending on their situation.
Family reunion:
Refugees have a right under UK and international law to bring their immediate family members to join them.
Upvote
0
That's if you could identify them. How would you identify them when their documents, phones, etc. are lying on the bottom of the sea?!
Do you expect them to provide their correct details when they arrive in the UK!
This is more absolute nonsense. How do you think they can even hope to make an asylum-claim at all, without giving any details of who they are, where they came from, why they consider they’re a genuine asylum-seeker?
With all the science & everything we do now, I can only hope that one day they develop techniques to identify individuals (perhaps they’ll manage it in the 19th Century).
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #134
How to win asylum:
You are mostly likely to win asylum if you prepare a detailed, credible statement to assist your solicitor, MP and asylum campaign groups.
Prepare a written statement
This is crucial to winning an asylum claim or appeal. Type your statement in short, separate paragraphs. Explain what happened to you in your home country and the reasons you are seeking asylum. Gives examples of why you are at risk of persecution. Conclude by stating what specific help you want. It is very important when you contact anyone for help (a solicitor, MP etc) that you include your full name, address, phone number, date of birth, nationality, passport number and Home Office asylum or appeal reference number. They will need this information in order to assist you.If you are being held in detention, be sure to state the name, address and phone number of the detention centre.
What is needed for a well-prepared asylum application / appeal?
To win your asylum claim/appeal, you need a full, detailed personal account of the persecution that you suffered – or you know that other people in your situation have suffered in your home country. You should also provide evidence of the persecution that you fear you will suffer if you return to your country of origin. This information needs to be very detailed and specific, with dates, places, names and so on. Vague, general statements are deemed not credible. They will be rejected.You need supporting evidence. This can include written statements from friends, family and partners. They need to give their full name, date of birth, address, relationship to you and their statement needs to be signed, dated and witnessed by one or two other people (who also need to give their full name, date of birth, address etc).If you have been injured or arrested, also provide medical and police records.It can be helpful to have letters of support from your local councillor, MP, MEP, neighbours and other friends in the UK, who know you and can confirm that you are a person of good character and that you have a real and legitimate fear of persecution if you are returned to your home country.Supporting evidence can also include copies of newspaper reports (dated and sourced), reports from human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Expert witness
You also need an expert witness who can testify to the nature and extent of persecution, discrimination and violence in your home country.An expert witness is an academic or human rights organisation official who has specialist knowledge of the type of persecution that you suffered in the country you fled from. The expert witness can testify in court or can present a written submission to your solicitor – signed and dated on headed notepaper.If you need an expert witness and don’t know of one, your solicitor should contact Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), Lindsey House, 40-42 Charterhouse Street, London EC1M 6JN. Their phone number is 020 7251 8383.The ILPA has a list of expert witnesses covering most countries in the world.
Legal precedents
Finally, your solicitor needs to present evidence of previous successful asylum claims by refugees from your country who were victimised for reasons similar to the persecution that you’ve suffered. These case precedents are vital to win a case. If you can show that other people from your country have been granted asylum it will greatly strengthen your chance of success.
You are mostly likely to win asylum if you prepare a detailed, credible statement to assist your solicitor, MP and asylum campaign groups.
Prepare a written statement
This is crucial to winning an asylum claim or appeal. Type your statement in short, separate paragraphs. Explain what happened to you in your home country and the reasons you are seeking asylum. Gives examples of why you are at risk of persecution. Conclude by stating what specific help you want. It is very important when you contact anyone for help (a solicitor, MP etc) that you include your full name, address, phone number, date of birth, nationality, passport number and Home Office asylum or appeal reference number. They will need this information in order to assist you.If you are being held in detention, be sure to state the name, address and phone number of the detention centre.
What is needed for a well-prepared asylum application / appeal?
To win your asylum claim/appeal, you need a full, detailed personal account of the persecution that you suffered – or you know that other people in your situation have suffered in your home country. You should also provide evidence of the persecution that you fear you will suffer if you return to your country of origin. This information needs to be very detailed and specific, with dates, places, names and so on. Vague, general statements are deemed not credible. They will be rejected.You need supporting evidence. This can include written statements from friends, family and partners. They need to give their full name, date of birth, address, relationship to you and their statement needs to be signed, dated and witnessed by one or two other people (who also need to give their full name, date of birth, address etc).If you have been injured or arrested, also provide medical and police records.It can be helpful to have letters of support from your local councillor, MP, MEP, neighbours and other friends in the UK, who know you and can confirm that you are a person of good character and that you have a real and legitimate fear of persecution if you are returned to your home country.Supporting evidence can also include copies of newspaper reports (dated and sourced), reports from human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Expert witness
You also need an expert witness who can testify to the nature and extent of persecution, discrimination and violence in your home country.An expert witness is an academic or human rights organisation official who has specialist knowledge of the type of persecution that you suffered in the country you fled from. The expert witness can testify in court or can present a written submission to your solicitor – signed and dated on headed notepaper.If you need an expert witness and don’t know of one, your solicitor should contact Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), Lindsey House, 40-42 Charterhouse Street, London EC1M 6JN. Their phone number is 020 7251 8383.The ILPA has a list of expert witnesses covering most countries in the world.
Legal precedents
Finally, your solicitor needs to present evidence of previous successful asylum claims by refugees from your country who were victimised for reasons similar to the persecution that you’ve suffered. These case precedents are vital to win a case. If you can show that other people from your country have been granted asylum it will greatly strengthen your chance of success.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #135
ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states, who are all members of the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe is responsible for enforcing ECHR judgments. EU states are bound by the decisions of the Court and must execute them accordingly. Often this means amending legislation to ensure that the violation does not continue to occur.
British courts are required to “take account” of decisions of the ECHR, but are not required to follow their rulings.
The Council of Europe is responsible for enforcing ECHR judgments. EU states are bound by the decisions of the Court and must execute them accordingly. Often this means amending legislation to ensure that the violation does not continue to occur.
British courts are required to “take account” of decisions of the ECHR, but are not required to follow their rulings.
Upvote
0
You are completely wrong (but it is what you have heard quoted on the TV, it is just incorrect)
No evidence ‘vast majority’ of people crossing Channel in small boats are economic migrants – Full Fact
Research indicates that the majority of people crossing the Channel go on to be granted asylum, but the full picture is not covered by official statistics.
fullfact.org
Some quotes from that
irrespective of arrival method, coming from the top 10 countries of origin arriving by small boat 61% of initial asylum decisions would have resulted in refugee protection being granted. This compares to a grant rate of 52% on initial decisions for people across all nationalities
A spokesperson for the Refugee Council clarified: “As the vast majority of those making Channel crossings (91%) in that period [January 2020 and June 2021] came from those ten countries, the extrapolation is that those crossing the Channel are more likely to be granted asylum than the average across the whole system.”
The Refugee Council’s research shows that 59% of appeals made by people from the top 10 countries of origin for small boat crossings were allowed, compared to 46% for all nationalities in the same time period.
My simple maths 61% granted asylum on initial application plus 23% (59% of the 39% who failed initially) comes to 84% of those crossing the channel from the 10 most common sources are granted asylum - that is very different from 10%
Although you are correct that using the govt figures 19.7k out of 28.5k were males between 18 & 40 (so 70%) but that becomes irrelevant once you have the FACT that 84% pass the legal tests to be granted asylum. Maybe it is the fact that crossing a busy shipping lane is dangerous that skews the age/sex demographic rather than their reason
Upvote
0
U
UkAppCoder
Okay. I wasn't clear about that.
The Rwanda strategy would deprive the people-traffickers of any business because any migrant thinking about crossing the channel in a dinghy will not want to risk ending up in Rwanda!
Approval does not prove that they are entitled.
1. Why would these migrants be ditching their identification documents into the sea if they were really entitled to asylum?!
2. How can the government morally refuse asylum if the migrants have no documentation?!
Upvote
0
Do you honestly believe our courts get the facts wrong so many times that only 10/100 should be here but they allow 84/100 based on the FACTS they have in front of them (they don't make moral choices they make factual decisions).
I can believe that maybe 75% should be granted, 9% are given the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence contrary, 1 or 2 % are deported when they should be granted asylum and the other c15% are rightly turned away but the idea that 74 out of the 84 (or 88%) are wrongly granted asylum is beyond derision
Upvote
0
U
UkAppCoder
You maths is totally invalid because it is based on false premises. You are assuming that the applicants are entitled to asylum. This cannot be verified because they have no identification documents. They arrive with absolutely nothing to prove that they are entitled to asylum. Therefore, the authorities have no choice but to take them at their word.
Like it or not, this will be stopped.
Upvote
0
The Rwanda strategy would deprive the people-traffickers of any business because any migrant thinking about crossing the channel in a dinghy will not want to risk ending up in Rwanda!
You think that despite risking their life travelling across the globe, they won't risk the short channel journey unless they get sent to Rwanda, from where they'll start their efforts again?
That's exactly what it proves!
I have no idea, but then again, I already called this out as nonsense.
Given the quality of your posts above, I can see this is not a serious question, but easy enough to answer anyway: this gov't have no morals (or policies, or purpose apart from to protect Big Dog), and never pretends otherwise.
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
Why on earth would people fleeing persecution 'not want to risk ending up in Rwanda'? Could it be because Rwanda is not a safe place to be?
Approval means they have passed all the tests to prove they are entitled to asylum. What else do you think proves it?
I agree that morally the government should not refiuse asylum. Legally, however, it is absolutely and completely their right to do so. Without documentation an asylum seeker will not be granted asylum, unless they have absolutely compelling and provable reasons for why they have no documentaiton.
Upvote
0
Would they have any incentive to lie?
Perhaps to claim to be from a neighbouring country? Or to have faced persecution when they didn't?
The Home office gave priority to a load of "children" over before, and it turned out some of them were significantly older and not eligible. They lied about their age.
How many child asylum seekers are found to be adults? – Full Fact
Two thirds of assessed child asylum seekers, but a small proportion of all child asylum seekers, are found to be over 18.
fullfact.org
As for passports and papers, The government's own Channel threat commander, Dan O'Mahoney, confirmed the problem of document destruction in evidence before the Home Affairs Committee in September 2020: "Generally speaking, encouraged by the facilitators, [those crossing] will get rid of any sort of documentation or pocket litter, as we call it in law enforcement—phones, SIM cards, anything—before they are intercepted by Border Force." (See Q74 of link)
Perhaps you should let him know that he's wrong?
Upvote
0
Given that they are encouraged to ditch all ID, this seems unlikely to be true.
Do you have any examples of people being refused asylum in this situation? Where were they deported to?
"
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention recognises the possible danger of using a real passport in your own name. The Refugee Convention says that asylum seekers should not be punished if they have a good reason for using false documents/passport.
The “Article 31” principle is part of UK law as Section 31 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act.
Section 31 means that you may have a “not guilty” defence if you are charged with ‘document offences’, if you can prove that you have:
- come to the UK directly from a country where your life or freedom was threatened
- presented yourself to the authorities in the UK without delay
- showed good cause for your illegal entry or presence, and
- made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after your arrival in the UK.
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention recognises the possible danger of using a real passport in your own name. The Refugee Convention says that asylum seekers should not be punished if they have a good reason for using false documents/passport.
The “Article 31” principle is part of UK law as Section 31 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act.
Section 31 means that you may have a “not guilty” defence if you are charged with ‘document offences’, if you can prove that you have:
come to the UK directly from a country where your life or freedom was threatened
presented yourself to the authorities in the UK without delay
showed good cause for your illegal entry or presence, and
made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after your arrival in the UK.
People prosecuted by the UK government for the use of a false passport may not be aware of this statutory defence.
Entering the UK to claim asylum – Right to Remain
righttoremain.org.uk
Upvote
0
That is talking about using false documents and relates to those using them having a statutory defence. To claim asylum the claimant has to prove that they have a well-grounded fear of persecution in their own country. if they refuse to state which country they come from they cannot make a claim. If they claim to come from a particular country evidence will be required to prove this.Given that they are encouraged to ditch all ID, this seems unlikely to be true.
Do you have any examples of people being refused asylum in this situation? Where were they deported to?
"
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention recognises the possible danger of using a real passport in your own name. The Refugee Convention says that asylum seekers should not be punished if they have a good reason for using false documents/passport.
The “Article 31” principle is part of UK law as Section 31 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act.
Section 31 means that you may have a “not guilty” defence if you are charged with ‘document offences’, if you can prove that you have:
People prosecuted by the UK government for the use of a false passport may not be aware of this statutory defence.
- come to the UK directly from a country where your life or freedom was threatened
- presented yourself to the authorities in the UK without delay
- showed good cause for your illegal entry or presence, and
- made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after your arrival in the UK.
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention recognises the possible danger of using a real passport in your own name. The Refugee Convention says that asylum seekers should not be punished if they have a good reason for using false documents/passport.
The “Article 31” principle is part of UK law as Section 31 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act.
Section 31 means that you may have a “not guilty” defence if you are charged with ‘document offences’, if you can prove that you have:
come to the UK directly from a country where your life or freedom was threatened
presented yourself to the authorities in the UK without delay
showed good cause for your illegal entry or presence, and
made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after your arrival in the UK.
People prosecuted by the UK government for the use of a false passport may not be aware of this statutory defence.
Entering the UK to claim asylum – Right to Remain
My knowledge comes from my part time civil service job. Which is in the Home Office.
Upvote
0
Rather than tell him he’s wrong, I believe it would be much easier to put that reply in context: it was asked directly in relation to those that make an unaccompanied asylum-seeking children application – not all applicants at all.
And of these, 75% are successful, meaning despite absolutely no documents, Border Force not able to collect their phone from the bottom of the channel, ¼ of applications still fail.
This sounds like such a clever ploy, it’s shocking so many people fail in their applications at all, let alone the 25% who fail despite adopting this ploy.
Surely they must learn their lesson though, that they failed to get asylum because they had a phone or passport with them, so make sure to dump that, and (given it’s apparently easy to get around things like finger-printing) they can’t fail. That again sounds like an incentive for return-business, every incentive to try again.
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
Which just proves the STUPID amount of inaccurate information that has made into in the mainstream groupthink over the last decade or so but is spurious, inaccurate, deceiving or all of the above.
People seem convinced we are drowning under a wave of illegal immigrants whereas we actually take a smaller than our fair share of asylum seekers compared to our neighbours.
People are convinced of Schrodingers immigrant who simultaneously steals all the jobs and lives the easy live off benefits (in fact whilst seeking asylum they are not allowed to work and have to live of a measly small handout of accommodation plus £8 a week with evidence of illegal working being sufficient to deny asylum
They think the entire of the borders force and IND are so thick they will believe anyone arriving's story about where they come from and their age without checking but are also cunningly clever enough to have come up with a plan to stop the crossings that will work
Upvote
0
Was the Court of Appeal (that refused the application on Monday) politically motivated too?
Even more interesting, as it was the same Court of Appeal panel of judges who granted the last few injunctions last night - they no-longer thought it was OK.
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
Q73 is about child immigrants.
Q74 Laura Farris: Just before that, how many people can you verify, because they have some form of identification document that you can rely on? What proportion of those arriving have that with them when they arrive? Abi Tierney: I’m really sorry, but I don’t have that information. Dan O'Mahoney: I can’t give you an exact figure, but I can tell you that it is almost none—very, very close to none. Generally speaking, encouraged by the facilitators, they will get rid of any sort of documentation or pocket litter, as we call it in law enforcement—phones, SIM cards, anything—before they are intercepted by Border Force.
Q74 is about all immigrants, not only children.
Interestingly, the home office seems to think that anyone who "appears to be" under 25 is a child.
"If the person claiming to be an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child is obviously over 25, we will reject that."
This in itself is interesting.
Upvote
0
This is not what I said is it? I said they might lie about the country that they came from.
Upvote
0
Are you seriously arguing that question 73 was about child applications, but 74 wasn't, yet by q76 they're back on unaccompanied minors? that question 74 was a complete digression covering all asylum-seekers, right in the middle of a discussion about unaccompanied minors?
I'm sure people can read the records for themselves.
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
We have an interesting situation, where we don't have enough immigration, whilst we pretend to have too much.
We also have mainly economic migrants, and yet we pretend that most of them are asylum seekers.
Perhaps if both sides were a bit more open and honest, we'd be able to solve things.
Having dealt with them before, I have no confidence in the Home office solving anything, ever.
Upvote
0
U
UkAppCoder
Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous. Apparently, one of the migrants taken off the list yesterday was a Vietnamese bloke running away from loan sharks! LOL!
Upvote
0
Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous. Apparently, one of the migrants taken off the list yesterday was a Vietnamese bloke running away from loan sharks! LOL!
Having met some Vietnamese "loan sharks", I'd say running away is a very good idea.
Upvote
0
And how will they sustain that lie when they are asked about the street they lived in, the hospital they were born in, the school they attended, where their parents met etc etc etc.
Upvote
0
And if they appear to be under 25 there will be a full investigation including physical exmination to establish their likeyl age. The difference is that if they appear to be over 25 they won't even be considered. It's the same as shops selling alcohol using a 25 policy. If you appear to be under 25 you have to prove that you are over 18 before buying alcohol. It is perfectly legal to buy alcohol aged 24, but the proof of age policy kicks in if they appear to be under 25.
Upvote
0
Out of interest are you aware a large number of cannabis grow houses in this country are "farmed" by people smuggled in and forced to live in and tend the crops until their "debt" is paid off under threat to their family back home by those they owe money to.Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous. Apparently, one of the migrants taken off the list yesterday was a Vietnamese bloke running away from loan sharks! LOL!
One was 4 doors down from my old office, the slave (because that is what they are) in there had not set foot outside in 3 months living off dried noodles that were delivered when collections were made.
Very un LOL
Enslaved on a British cannabis farm: ‘The plants were more valuable than my life’
The long read: Minh was 16 when he was kidnapped, raped and trafficked to the UK, and then locked up and forced to grow cannabis. But when the police found him, he was treated like a criminal rather than a victim
How a boy from Vietnam became a slave on a UK cannabis farm
Ba was a street child in Ho Chi Minh city. He ended up growing cannabis as a slave in the UK - until he escaped.
www.bbc.co.uk
Cannabis farms are a modern slavery 'blind spot' for UK police, study suggests
Migrants arrested for tending plants in the flats, houses and attics where cannabis is grown in bulk are often victims of trafficking and 'debt bondage' – yet many are not recognised as such by police, according to a new study.
Upvote
0
I don't know what hospital I was born in, I went to loads of different schools and I have no idea where my parents met. I also don't know my father's date of birth, not even the year.
So I guess I'm going to be deported?
Of course, if I needed to I could make up answers and stick to them. If I'm claiming to be from a war torn country, how are you planning on checking my school record?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read