h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Am I missing something here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6210534.stm

A load of failed Asylum Seekers are unhappy at being put in a detention centre, so they set it on fire.

The result? There is not enough room to put them anywhere so they are released.

Now, I may be being a bit silly, but isn't this sort of giving a green light to anymore Asylum Seekers who want letting out so they can disapear?


TMOF

As I understand it, they released other asylum-seekers to free up space for the trouble-makers who were not released.

Personally, I would have left them to live in the mess they created. As long as the locks on the door still worked.

Abd this applies to regular prisoners too. If they want to have a "filthy" protest, why should warders have to clean up after them?

Yes I thought of that.

All you need to do is have some kind of order or list. I set fire so you go free, then next month next person sets fire so I go free. Or something like that.

Rather like one of those Pyramid buying things, I think.

Durka la, muhammed jihad. Or something.

Err no. Three reasons. Pretty obvious stuff really.

1) Probably not all of the centre residents were involved in the fire. Those that weren't are innocent victims. If a group of unruly pupils burn down the school, do we leave it like that to teach them a lesson? No.

2) The staff work there too and have a right to work in tolerably decent conditions - ie, not covered in s**t or semi burnt.

3) When you lock someone up - particularly someone who hasn't committed any crime, remember - you owe them a duty of care - that's why they are not allowed to commit suicide (see previous thread) and why we don't allow prisoners to enforce mob rule (in theory).

sprout

Fair point about the innocent victims, but haven't they all committed a crime by entering the country illegally?

Well have they all done that?

Where is the evidence, all we know is that they are failed asylum seekers. This does not necessarily equate to having entered the country illegally. Only that their applications failed.

Also is it not recognised in law that sometimes the only way people can get to a "safe haven" and claim asylum is to travel illegally (some persecuted peoples have thier passports removed) and this does not (as I understand it) prevent par se people from being granted asylum.

As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, they only detain those they deem are at risk of absconding. Hence the ability to release those termed low-risk to free up space. Not every failed asylum seeker ends up in a detention centre.

Even if that is true it does not follow that they are all guilty of crimes.

This post has been removed.

Possibly FB, but you're right, we don't have the information to make a judgement. I can understand people thinking that folk in a detention centre have contravened some law or other.

Ok but IMHO that says as much about you, as it does about the issue at hand.

Well have they all done that?

Where is the evidence, all we know is that they are failed asylum seekers. This does not necessarily equate to having entered the country illegally. Only that their applications failed.

Also is it not recognised in law that sometimes the only way people can get to a "safe haven" and claim asylum is to travel illegally (some persecuted peoples have thier passports removed) and this does not (as I understand it) prevent par se people from being granted asylum.


I think you are hedging your bets a bit here.

"I think you are hedging your bets a bit here."

Care to elaborate because I am not sure I understand your meaning.

"Care to elaborate because I am not sure I understand your meaning."



Well, you seem to be saying that there is no proof that they all entered illegally.

But then you are saying it is ok to enter illegally anyway.

So are those two statements necessarily mutually exclusive?

I cannot see how they are.

The truth is (I think) that the asylum accepts that sometimes people *have* to enter using false documentation or pretenses and that this in itself is not a reason to refuse someone an asylum application.

Think about it if someone is being persecuted by some nasty regime how likely is it that they can leave the ocuntry entirely kosher?

I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that you seemed to be hedging your bets.

Like this:

1. They are ok because they may not have entered illegally.

2. They are ok if they did enter illegally anyway.

Statement 2 makes statement 1 pointless.


I have no problem with someone entering illegally if they are a genuine Asylum Seeker.

These people are not. They have had their claim turned down.

Furthermore, if they really were facing danger or persecution in their home country. A detention centre in the UK would not be a problem.

The truth is, the majority are economic migrants.

TMOF

"These people are not. They have had their claim turned down."

Well that is a somewhat sweeping statement. It does not follow that everone refused aslyum is not genuine any more than it follows that someone found guilty of a crime is necessarily is necessarily guilty. Mistakes happen.

Also people are often refused asylum not on the gorunds that they are "bogus" but rather that they have made technical errors (such as not applying for asylum in the first "safe" place they reach).

"Furthermore, if they really were facing danger or persecution in their home country. A detention centre in the UK would not be a problem."

Wasn't the point of this thread that the one who did the burning were protesting about being forced to leave the centre to go back from whence they came? Seems like they are pretty worried about going back to me.

Also I thought the whole train of this part of the tread was surrounding issues about people who may have been in the centre but were not involved in the burning.

My personal thought is that deciding you need to keep people securely is one thing, but then selling the job out to the cheapest tender is - I would suggest - asking for trouble and morally abhorant.

<>

I think that's called stretching a point beyond credulity.

As has been said, they are "failed asylum seekers". In fact, by the time they end up in a detention centre, I believe they have already been through the appeals procedure and their claim rejected more than once. (Again, I will stand corrected if wrong. I don't have any especial knowledge about this) Whether this be on the technicality of the wrong box ticked on a form or the technicality of their claim being a tissue of lies is irrelevant. Their entry was illegal. If asylum is granted, this crime is overlooked. If asylum is refused, they are technically criminals.

Only those deemed at risk of absconding are held at a detention centre. We simply could not afford enough detention centres to house every failed asylum seeker.

For the record, I also have no objection to genuine asylum seekers fleeing oppression. I have a problem with bogus claimants who have only succeeded in making things far more difficult and unpleasant for the genuine cases. Because of the liars, cheats and scoundrels, people in genuine need are viewed with suspicion when they deserve compassion.

"If asylum is refused they are technically criminals"

No. Wrong and more wrong. The only people who are criminals in this country are those that have been convicted of a crime. There is no such thing as technical criminals, other than perhaps those that use clever engineering methods to take money out of banks.

sprout