MOTD, Lineker and 'outrage'

I’m guessing that this is in reference to my comments about protests outside hotels housing refugees. I’m assuming that you are denying that there is a causal link between the current government rhetoric, the amplification of these messages in the right wing press (example - everyone is called an illegal immigrant even before their asylum case is begun and no-one is called a refugee even though they may fleeing persecution) - and the subsequent emotional response in many. For some, a minority, this emotional response is expressed in demonstrations. I’m guessing you don’t see the connection.
So, I’ll ask - why the emotional and inflammatory language if there is no goal of triggering an emotional response?

If they enter this country illegally, then yes, they are an ‘Illegal Immigrant’…Someone on twitter reckons that it costs £47 for an air ticket from Albania to the UK…How come they pay thousands and risk their lives sailing across one of the most dangerous shipping lanes in the world?
Could it be that they don’t need a passport? So they have to be treated as a refugee.

I don’t blame Lineker for what he posted, but I wonder what his cut off point would be with regard to illegal immigrants? When the authorities commandeer his house to house poor people like they did in Russia during the revolution?

I’m not so sure that this is the law. A refugee can enter any country, by unconventional or irregular means, and legally apply for asylum. They are not illegal at that point.
What you are describing, by referencing a country where persecution of citizens does happen but not on the scale of places like Syria, Yemen or Afghanistan, is clearly illegitimate attempts to falsely apply for asylum. But it is only at that point of confirming the false asylum claim that the individual can be described as having made an illegal attempt at seeking asylum. Up to then surely the individual can be given the view of innocent until proven guilty / illegal.
So it is 100% wrong to brand everyone coming across via irregular means as “illegal”. Wrong and inflammatory.

Its blokes like you and Lineker that have used the law to turn this country into a third world country. If it isn’t now, it soon will be. You are both so far above what’s happening here that you couldn’t give a monkeys.

1 Like

Harsh, foxy. Unlike you. Have I missed something?

1 Like

WUM’s are everywhere…

1 Like

On a small boat, it is possible that there is one genuine asylum seeker, per 20 young guys who are economic migrants, it seems that the do-gooders are willing to accept this ratio, to protect the rights of the genuine seeker, well, so be it.

1 Like

I’m not sure you receive benefits if you arrive legally on a plane.

Anyone coming here via a trafficker is illegal. The legal route to enter the UK as a refugee is via an agreement. The laws we currently have in place go back to the 19th C when it was recognised that sick and wounded soldiers needed help during wartime. This was expanded to civilians only after the horrors of WWII. It has since been applied without review to situations of worldwide conflict which have mushroomed and created an endless stream of humanity to be redistributed around the world instead of trying to create solutions near their country of origin and where they can continue to live in their familiar culture. It’s about time international law was reviewed because it’s created a complete shambles around the world and is increasing human misery rather than ameliorating it.


Way you go @Annie. :kissing_closed_eyes:. Thanks for that explanation.

You does explain it very well … it’s a complex minefield.

What do the initials WUM stand for?

Your post is factually wrong. Forget the 19th century and read the 1951 international convention on refugees and the subsequent 1967 protocol. Both of which the UK signed up to and is bound by. Irregular routes to entry of a country include routes enabled by others.
At present, apart from entry for Ukranian refugees, there are no available (legal in your words) entry mechanisms for refugees to enter the UK. So please drop the ‘illegal’ term.
Now you do make a valid point about aiming to create solutions in or near the country of origin for the refugees. I think that would be good. So for Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Kurds on Turkey/Iraq borders, China, Myanmar, central Africa - what is the UK doing? Apart from cutting its overseas aid budget of course.

When people talk about asylum seekers entering UK illegally, I suppose they are talking about the U.K. Government’s definition of illegal entry, which differs from International Law.
The U.K. Government have already made it nigh on impossible for any refugee to enter the U.K. “legally” to claim asylum by the
Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Under the 2022 legislation, if you are in danger in your country of origin or residence, and you want the UK to grant you international protection, you can claim asylum when you are in the UK - but there’s a catch!
It is not possible to claim asylum from outside the UK, and there is no visa which allows people to enter the UK in order to claim asylum.
Under the 2022 legislation, anybody who enters the UK (without a visa) and claims asylum will be going against U.K. Law - and if you could apply for a Tourist Visa to get here in order to apply for asylum, you would have to lie about the reason for travel on the Visa application, which is also against the U.K. Law.

Basically, the Government have already made any attempt to seek asylum illegal under U.K. Law - it seems the only legal route into U.K. for a refugee now is under the resettlement schemes, where the Government choose which schemes to support and who to let in.

I suppose the new legislation proposed by Braverman is to plug any loopholes left - the 2022 legislation made irregular entry to U.K. illegal but refugees arriving in U.K. with valid claims were allowed to stay if their claim was upheld.
Am I correct in thinking that this latest proposal to change the Law again will enable the Government to deport everyone who arrives in U.K. to claim asylum, whether they have a valid claim or not?

The UNHCR describe the new legislation as an “asylum ban” and that’s what it sounds like to me.


They all stem from the original convention which followed the establishment of the Red cross. However, that’s irrelevant and was just background information. The main point was that they are out of date due to the complexity of modern world application and need urgent review.

As far as countries go the UK has had resettlement of those from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong among others. There was a large Somali resettlement scheme 20 years ago. Of course any resettlement effort is going to focus on current major emergencies rather than unhappiness with a regime or economic conditions.

1 Like

Thanks for your excellent summary of the situation. The refugee agreement, which the UK signed up to, should allow for entry into any country and the right to claim asylum.

I think you are correct. Essentially it seems this bill aims to confirm that anyone entering the UK without pre-approval (resettlement, visa or valid travel documents) is deemed “illegal”. So genuine refugees would be dumped in the same group as opportunistic economic migrants. Both would be forced into “illegal” (according this new bill) immigrant camps until the opportunity to remove them from the UK comes available. Then, assuming mechanisms and locations for removal are in place, all would be removed - whether they had a valid case for an asylum claim or not.

I’ve seen lots of references to this …


This is an interesting article that makes a valid point about Lineker’s tweet. Basically the article highlights that if Lineker had not specified “language used in Germany in the 1930’s” but simply said “the language used in the 1930’s” then his comparison would have been even more scary. And perhaps offered more self-reflection.

For those about to object, I would like to note that while the article states that “similar policies applied in Britain too” I personally can see a clear difference between doubtful and in some cases surprisingly heartless UK policies and downright disgusting & murderous German policies. What I do think is that some, in looking back, white-wash some of the UK’s language, actions and thinking of the 1930’s. Truth is, there were many in the UK quite keen to align with Germany at that time.

1 Like

Shame Gary Lineker can’t repeat his line about Germany in the 1930’s now, when it is truly appropriate.