Asylum seekers put up in luxury hotel at cost of £400,000 to the taxpayer

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-400000.html

Asylum seekers put up in luxury hotel at cost of £400,000

More than 100 asylum seekers will stay at the Amblehurst Hotel, favoured by Manchester United stars, for nine weeks

Officials acting for the Home Office sent the migrants to book in at the suburban 50 bedroom Amblehurst Hotel

More than 100 asylum seekers have been ordered to live for nine weeks in a luxury hotel favoured by Manchester United stars - at a cost to the taxpayer of up to £400,000.

Officials acting for the Home Office sent the migrants to book in at the suburban 50 bedroom Amblehurst Hotel while their claims to stay in the UK are dealt with.

The Conservative-run Trafford council in Greater Manchester was given just 48 hours notice of the arrival of the 104 asylum seekers, comprising 31 families of various nationalities.

The hotel in Sale where rooms cost up to £125 pounds a night has in the past hosted parties for Manchester United players and various corporate firms. It is thought the hotel will close to regular paying guests whilst the asylum seekers are in residence.

This week the Conservative Group held an emergency meeting about the move organised by private company SERCO, which was appointed by the Government to deal with accommodation for asylum seekers.

The families had previously been staying in Liverpool but had been moved to out due to large numbers of migrants applying to stay in the UK. The total bill with food could run to as much as £393,750.

Councillor Matthew Colledge, leader of Trafford Council, said: "To be given less than 48 hours notice of the imposition of a large contingent of asylum seekers is frankly ludicrous.

"I have asked, along with partners from the NHS, for the decision to be deferred but this is not to be. It is intensely irritating that as council leader I have had no opportunity to influence the decision at all."

Cllr Colledge said he was sympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers but expressed concern over the strain that could be put on Trafford's services.

He said: "I recognise that some asylum seekers are escaping from appalling situations and that may include the children arriving in Trafford. However with schools and GP surgeries full in the Sale area I question the logic of choosing this location."

A spokesman for SERCO said: "'We are currently using the Amblehurst Hotel to temporarily accommodate a number of asylum seekers who were previously being looked after in Liverpool.

"In due course these people will be found further housing throughout the North West of England pending the outcome of the Home office review into their eligibility to claim asylum.

"At all times we work closely with the local authorities, the Home Office and local services including the police, health and education bodies to carefully manage the safe and appropriate accommodation of asylum seekers in our care."

How wonderful and 'diverse' - and if you don't like it then you're a nasty waycist.

The point is that this country shouldn't be accepting ANY asylum seekers what so ever - under international law (if you believe in such a concept - I don't) asylum seekers are compelled to seek asylum in the first country of safety that they cross. The last time I checked, the United Kingdom comprised two island off the coast of continental Europe.

Send them back and kick out the MORONS letting them in.

Thoughts?

[Kardan]

How can you tell asylum seekers to follow international law when you say you don't believe that such a concept should exist?

It does seem rather surprising that this is the cheapest option though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How can you tell asylum seekers to follow international law when you say you don't believe that such a concept should exist?

Because whether I like it or not, we are under certain pieces of international law. Therefore i'm dealing with what options we have whilst we're under these pieces of international law - and we don't have to let them in.

If international law said we had to let them in, then i'd simply say that we ought to repeal those pieces of law.

Simple.

[Kardan]

Because whether I like it or not, we are under certain pieces of international law. Therefore i'm dealing with what options we have whilst we're under these pieces of international law - and we don't have to let them in.

If international law said we had to let them in, then i'd simply say that we ought to repeal those pieces of law.

Simple.

Ahh, so you don't like international laws, but if they are laws you agree with, then it's okay. That makes sense...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ahh, so you don't like international laws, but if they are laws you agree with, then it's okay. That makes sense...

No? I reject the concept of international law completely as there is no such thing as an international demos therefore it lacks demcratic legitimacy as opposed to a real nation state which does have a demos and thus has legitmacy when it creates legislation. That's why i'm also against supranational bodies like the European Union as they take decisions and the law away from the people.

My point is this - that I wouldn't accept asylum seekers anyway for a number of reasons even if international law didn't exist. As it does exist, my question is - why aren't we following it in regards to this issue?

That's why i've said time and time again that i'd be against the EU even if it made great and fantastic laws that I agreed with 100% - why? for the principle of sovereignty and national independence I talked about earlier.

Does that clear it up?

[Kardan]

No? I reject the concept of international law completely as there is no such thing as an international demos therefore it lacks demcratic legitimacy as opposed to a real nation state which does have a demos and thus has legitmacy when it creates legislation. That's why i'm also against supranational bodies like the European Union as they take decisions and the law away from the people.

My point is this - that I wouldn't accept asylum seekers anyway for a number of reasons even if international law didn't exist. As it does exist, my question is - why aren't we following it in regards to this issue?

That's why i've said time and time again that i'd be against the EU even if it made great and fantastic laws that I agreed with 100% - why? for the principle of sovereignty and national independence I talked about earlier.

Does that clear it up?

I suppose, just from my point of view it looks like:

You dislike international law, and wouldn't want any implemented.

An international law saying AS must go to the nearest safest country, you like this law and wonder why it's not being implemented.

You say if there was an international law saying AS could go anywhere (i.e: the UK), you would dislike this law and try to get it abolished

It's the fact you're happy to say 'Why isn't it being followed?' whereas you wouldn't say that if the law was that AS are free to enter the UK

[-:Undertaker:-]

I suppose, just from my point of view it looks like:

You dislike international law, and wouldn't want any implemented.

An international law saying AS must go to the nearest safest country, you like this law and wonder why it's not being implemented.

You say if there was an international law saying AS could go anywhere (i.e: the UK), you would dislike this law and try to get it abolished

It's the fact you're happy to say 'Why isn't it being followed?' whereas you wouldn't say that if the law was that AS are free to enter the UK

Well indeed, as I don't like international law - my question is rhetorical in that if the United Kingdom is a follower of international law and seemingly implements international, EU and ECHR law all the time - then why isn't international law being followed in this instance?

That's a question for the politicians to answer as usually the UK has a habit of gold plating law from bodies such as the EU (it's a feature of anglo-saxon statehood) but strangely not with this.

If the EU tommorow wanted to bring back the death penalty, corporal punishment in schools among other things - I wouldn't accept it as it's ruling is illegitimate in my eyes even if I agree with those pieces of legislation. The same for international law which i'm not arguing for - but rather i'm pointing out the inconsistentcy/hypocrisy of HM Government.

[Daltron]

Doing better than our government who send them here. I can't wait for a switch in parties and new government in a few years so they can clean up our mess of policies surrounding asylum seekers. They are humans, not aliens and I think people often forget that.

But that does seem a little expensive on your end though putting them in a place like that.

I am very interested though in what International convention is there an article stating that an AS must seek asylum in the first country in which it is safe to do so? Here in Australia we (used to) grant asylum to people from all over the place even after travelling right through the Asia-Pacific so I am not sure if this is something that the UK is signed up to and not Australia.

Looking forward to your thoughts

[-:Undertaker:-]

Doing better than our government who send them here. I can't wait for a switch in parties and new government in a few years so they can clean up our mess of policies surrounding asylum seekers. They are humans, not aliens and I think people often forget that.

That's because you are young, idealistic and have a utopian view of the world and forget basic facts such as the crime they bring, the diseases they bring in, the burden they bring upon a country's welfare state, the social tension they cause and the simple fact that the more you allow in - the more it will encourage to come over.

The Labor Party, as dreadful as it is, won't dare overturn the asylum rules that Abbott has brought in for the simple reason that the Australian people overwhelmingly back not letting anymre of them in - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225972196894

More than 10,000 people responded to a nationwide poll asking “Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?”

More than 85 per cent said they should not.

The fact is that you say they are humans yet it's policies like letting them and in and granting them asylum that is causing them to come over to Australia which is resulting in many of them dying in overturned boats. The fault is with the people wanting to let them in, not with those wanting to stop them entering.

I am very interested though in what International convention is there an article stating that an AS must seek asylum in the first country in which it is safe to do so? Here in Australia we (used to) grant asylum to people from all over the place even after travelling right through the Asia-Pacific so I am not sure if this is something that the UK is signed up to and not Australia.

Looking forward to your thoughts

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&...safety&spell=1

[Daltron]

That's because you are young, idealistic and have a utopian view of the world and forget basic facts such as the crime they bring, the diseases they bring in, the burden they bring upon a country's welfare state, the social tension they cause and the simple fact that the more you allow in - the more it will encourage to come over.

The Labor Party, as dreadful as it is, won't dare overturn the asylum rules that Abbott has brought in for the simple reason that the Australian people overwhelmingly back not letting anymre of them in - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225972196894

A fan of Murdoch I see. Those newspapers will blab anything to get readers. Nielsen polling shows that a majority of Australians are happy to increase the amount of AS we allow in. Can view the polling details there.

What does Murdoch and his friends use over at The Australian for accurate polling? Internet polls which anyone can access and manipulate given the right technology. I think your view of how Australians perceive AS is a little off.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&...safety&spell=1

Thanks


edit: not a majority, but extremely close to 50%; I would say that is not an overwhelming push to not let them in or indicative of a view that Australians do not want AS granted asylum.