Immigration hotel costs
Comments
-
"Immigration hotel costs"
Such a title is both xenophobic and racist, in the first place, as there is no such thing as "Immigration hotel costs."
0 -
There absolutely is such a thing as immigration related hotel costs, which the Home Office formally refers to as hotel accommodation for asylum seekers, funded through the asylum support system under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
These costs are real, substantial and directly tied to immigration policy. While the phrase may be informal, it accurately reflects a documented government expense. It is no different from saying “benefits spending” instead of “Department for Work and Pensions expenditure on Universal Credit”.
Using plain language to describe public spending is not xenophobic, it is how people engage with policy in everyday terms.
4 -
congratulations everyone on reaching page 5 on this thread. Congratulations to @Passerby for being the first person to post on page 5 on this thread.
1 -
I was out on this thread but some things just boil my urine
Care to elaborate how saying those words are xenophobic or racist ?
It's an opinion … of which under the Human Rights Act article 10 is protected they are allowed to have and express
Wake up and smell the coffee … not everything said is ic or ist
2 -
My sister divorced a chap after 30 years - who lived/s in Weymouth - she liked the area and decided to buy her own house on Portland !
0 -
Nothing I have read here has been " xenophobic or racist" just people expressing difference of opinion.
1 -
I fully agree with you, luvpink. There is a critical distinction between prejudice and policy scrutiny. The former demands unequivocal challenge, the latter is foundational to democratic accountability. When fiscal interrogation is reflexively pathologised, performative outrage displaces evidence led governance.
The public’s right to examine how resources are deployed matters just as much, and whether they uphold structural integrity and public value for both the taxpayer and those accommodated under the asylum support provision. When scrutiny is mischaracterised as hostility, the integrity of policy making is compromised.
3 -
Are you sure they not just snarled up? That has happened to me a couple of times.
1 -
Far-right groups have been attacking asylum seeker hotels and protesting at them regularly for years, and this hasn't made any difference whatsoever to date. Therefore, if you think blabbering on about asylum seeker hotels on Scope would make you feel happy, go for it and don't stop your futile rants until you reach page 100.
Just until a month ago, you were all crying out about the demonisation and the language of the Daily Mail with regards to the sick and disabled people, and now all of a sudden you're embarked on doing even worse, to the extent of claiming that "asylum seekers are stealing and eating swans, pigeons, cats and are housed at brand spanking new houses with the latest technology and that they're jumping queues"!
The UK turns other people's countries into war zones in one way or another and then you wonder why people are fleeing their countries and are coming over here! You can't eat and keep your cake at the same time.
3 -
The comment from durhamjaide2001 was a simple note on thread length, congratulating you on being the first to post this morning. She has not contributed to the asylum debate. Misfiring accusations like this don’t expose harmful narratives, they expose a failure to read and a readiness to be unpleasant without cause. I hope you’ll offer her an apology.
0 -
Suella Braveman has very recently started blabbering on about housing asylum seekers.
The concept of spreading asylum seekers throughout the UK was in place under the successive Conservatives governments - Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.
She was the Home Secretary, responsible for housing asylum seekers in the UK, and didn't have any problem with this. Neither was she organising protests or petitions against the Conservative governments, which she was part of. And she's now all of a sudden starting to weaponise the exact same policy that she used to happily implement!
She's now saying that people are not consulted! What about when the Cons were running the show and she was in charge of this?
Irony at its finest!
2 -
You've no right or expertise to try to lecture me on what's right or wrong. You can hope whatever you like, by the way.
1 -
FYI, my comment was not necessarily directed only at her but many of you, including yourself.
0 -
For clarity, my earlier comment was not an attempt to ‘lecture’ you on the broader rights or wrongs of the asylum debate.
It addressed a single, factual point. durhamjaide2001’s post was her routine page‑count remark, entirely unrelated to the asylum discussion.
Given that your response, in the post where you tagged her, stated 'Therefore, if you think blabbering on about asylum seeker hotels on Scope would make you feel happy, go for it and don't stop your futile rants until you reach page 100' while quoting her congratulatory comment about reaching page 5, it is difficult to see how it was not aimed at her. Tagging usually indicates a direct reply.
The fair and reasonable course now is to acknowledge the misunderstanding and offer an apology, so the matter can be closed without continuing to involve a member who was never part of the asylum debate.
Misunderstandings happen, which is why I prefer to base responses on what has been explicitly said, rather than on assumptions about a member’s intent.
1 -
You must be fooling yourself if you think that I've time to waste on keep addressing your nonsensical.
0 -
You're dancing again to the tune of the same charlatans and liars who told you a few years ago that we would have a new hospital every single week by leaving the EU, when in fact all we've got since is nothing but drastic economic impacts and consequences, which going into their details is of course beyond the scope of my comment.
2 -
What is needed both in this country and many other countries is reforming the media. The media should not be allowed to gaslight people in the name of free speech. Neither should politicians have a licence to lie, parroting lies and never suffer any consequences.
3 -
{Removed by moderator - uncivil}
1 -
2
-
It's that French bloke again, shouldn't he self-deport?
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.5K Start here and say hello!
- 7.3K Coffee lounge
- 90 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 122 Announcements and information
- 24.1K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 426 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 873 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 533 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 627 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 867 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.7K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.5K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income