Lee Anderson, Conservative deputy chair says asylum seekers should ‘fuck off back to France’ if they don’t want to be housed on the Bobby Stockholm barge

Casdon

Sparklefizz

Ok Casdon But do a comparison with Italy Sparklefizz and the argument doesn’t stack up.

Italy population density 195.3
Britain population density 274.9

We still have a much higher population density, so my argument does stack up.

Sorry, according to the land size you’re right, but I still don’t follow the argument. Is population density a determinant of immigration, in which case should the Netherlands and Belgium for example accept none at all? Should land which is uninhabitable be taken off the population density figures before they are calculated? (Eg 40% of Italy is mountainous)? Bearing in mind that only 2% of England is built on, it seems a meaningless determinant to me.

Land size is meaningless unless you take into account all the areas which are inhabitable- like high mountains, lakes, etc.

The UK has got lots more land available where life is very possible. And as said, many smaller countries with large amounts of unusable land for living, have taken a much higher proportion of immigrants.

Don’t forget the land we need to feed ourselves. There’s a lot of that where I live, covered with crops and animals. And woods which are beneficial to the environment. Shall we just concrete over everything else?

Germanshepherdsmum

Don’t forget the land we need to feed ourselves. There’s a lot of that where I live, covered with crops and animals. And woods which are beneficial to the environment. Shall we just concrete over everything else?

Take the 2% up to 3% you mean?
We don’t feed ourselves now, because farmers can’t make growing crops or keeping livestock pay. There’s a lot more potential to do that and we should, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that we have enough land to build more houses too. It’s ironic that a lot of the food we import comes from the Netherlands, which has the highest population density.

Nicenanny3

08:23Fleurpepper

So what if Kandinsky supports or doesn't support Nigel Farage or UKIP who are still a political party by the way, what's it got to do with you.

Nothing- but it does indicate a very strong alignment to his point of view- which, to my point of view, borders, or possibly support, racism and fascism.

Racism and fascism go way beyond an 'opinion'- and we know from past experiences, what it can lead to.

Are you accusing kandinsky of being racist and fascist? I believe you are.

Nicenanny3

Well they tried to bring in Rwanda as a deterrent but Labour, The Lords and the leftie lawyers, CareforCalais put a stop to that although it is going through the Supreme court.

Sunak has only been PM since Oct 2022 and he and Suella Braverman are trying but blocked at every stage by the above. Perhaps we should leave the ECHR. No wonder Lee Anderson is frustrated I am too.

Has it ever occurred to you that one day you might need the support of the ECHR? They’re not just there to help migrants. First they came for…and all that.

Germanshepherdsmum

Don’t forget the land we need to feed ourselves. There’s a lot of that where I live, covered with crops and animals. And woods which are beneficial to the environment. Shall we just concrete over everything else?

No.

We need to be planting millions more trees, saving farmland, encouraging farmers and making more use of brownfield sites and redundant buildings

Germanshepherdsmum

Are you accusing kandinsky of being racist and fascist? I believe you are.

I am accusing Farage of being so.If people support him, then perhaps we can wonder.

Max Hastings here, a lifelong Tory - saying how concerned he is about the current Conservative Party and what they have been doing to the UK for the past decade and a half

fb.watch/mkTrBNjTtr/

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Oh my, what did I miss?

I doubt you missed anything.

Lee Anderson has stood by the remarks he made about migrants.

Germanshepherdsmum

I doubt you missed anything.

how can you doubt that I went out to have dinner in the garden - and left you to it.

If you don't have a constant need to be entertained or offered unicorn solutions, you may find this interesting. You will need to listen all through as it's a balanced piece and you will miss that if you just hastened to comment too soon.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrLgVdZE3s8&t=7s

It's the New Statesman Podcast - not too long though.

Lee Anderson MP

The Difference.

So I get asked why do I have more sympathy for Ukrainian refugees than illegal migrants crossing the Channel.

Simple, the Ukrainians are women & children who have left their men behind to fight a war. The migrants are 90% young men who have left their women & children behind in a so called dangerous country.

I agree with every word, well said Lee Anderson 👍

Nicenanny3

Lee Anderson MP

The Difference.

So I get asked why do I have more sympathy for Ukrainian refugees than illegal migrants crossing the Channel.

Simple, the Ukrainians are women & children who have left their men behind to fight a war. The migrants are 90% young men who have left their women & children behind in a so called dangerous country.

*I agree with every word, well said Lee Anderson 👍*

👏👏
I said the same on here the other day.

DaisyAnneReturns thanks for posting the podcast, very balanced and very informative.

Actual Red Cross figures. the latest I could find were 2020, which of course was before Ukraine.

"Around 43 per cent of people seeking asylum in the UK in 2020 were women and children. Overall, eight per cent were children who had arrived in the UK alone without a parent or guardian."

I also can't find any statistics to support Lee Anderson's claim that 90% of migrants are young men. The stats I've looked at from accepted sources give a completely different picture.
Primrose53 perhaps you can post some evidence that his claim is accurate?

9 March, 2022

1. Over 41,300 people have come to the UK illicitly in boats since the start of 2018. 16,500 of these came in the period January 2018 and to the end of June 2021.[1] Data from a Freedom of Information release show that nearly 90% of those crossing during this period were male.[2]

2. 87.4% of the 16,500 people were recorded as men, while 12.4% were recorded as female. The gender of 21 additional people was not recorded.
(Migration Watch Website)

Having looked at Migration Watch website, it's not exactly impartial and tbh I'm a bit fussy about the stats I accept as accurate. Got anything from a neutral source?

Well, for a start, thats apparently boats only. there are other ways.
BBC

"Small boat arrivals accounted for about 45% of asylum applications made in 2022. In total, 45,755 migrants crossed the Channel that year, the highest number since figures began to be collected in 2018."

eg your stats don't show any children? All the stats I've looked at did, so are your stats showing male children as just Male?

The issue is I think that the figure Nicenanny3 has quoted isn’t asylum seekers, it’s asylum seekers arriving by small boats. That’s only a proportion of the total asylum seekers.

Also Lee Anderson says 90% are YOUNG men, where's the age breakdown?