Darren Jones

There is a humanitarian response, as they are housed at great expense in hotels, something no other country does for asylum seekers as far as I’m aware, and they can stay until their asylum requests are processed .
I don’t know what he saw or didn’t see but he knows the numbers full well.Few are women or children according to the numbers which is what the OP was highlighting.

This is from Migration Observatory:

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

The majority of those arriving in small boats are men. In the year to 31 March 2024, 75% (22,357) were male and aged 18 or over (excluding those of unknown age or sex).

Another 16% (4,630) of arrivals in the same period were children (under 18). These proportions have been stable over time, and similar to those observed in asylum applicants more broadly (72% and 19%, respectively, in the year to March 2024).

One reason for the higher share of men among asylum seekers, in general, is the danger associated with irregular migration journeys. In many cases, female and minor family members join later through family reunification routes.

Most people who cross the Channel in small boats claim asylum once they are in the UK. According to the Home Office, 93% (109,954) of all those crossing the Channel from 2018 to March 2024 either applied for asylum themselves or were named as a dependant (partner or child) on an application.

Zia Yusuf claimed on BBCQT that 90% of arrivals are adult males. Where was his evidence?

I can see the argument.

It is not clear what Jones was referring to. Unlike the OP, I did watch the programme.

Yusuf was lying too but I don't see anyone other than me calling him out.

Where was Darren Jones evidence? I could say all sorts of things that I have seen that might be true. That sort of behaviour will as I say hand power to Reform.

Or it might be that I foolishly expect higher standards from labour.

Both Jones and Yusuf were wrong and high time they both learned what the figures are.

The difference is that Jones has subsequently clarified what he meant and admitted he was wrong to mislead. Yusuf hasn’t.

The important thing is that everyone can believe what people say is true, which we can't, as people lie for political reasons.

All the lies told by (for example) the Nazi regime about the children in One Life, for instance, show that the important thing is compassion, not dogma.

No it isn't. Terrible things have happened in the name of kindness.

What isn't?

I think telling the truth is more important than compassion. Terrible things have been done under the 'cover' of kindness. The idea of compassion can be a form of dogma.

‘The truth’ is as prone to abuse as compassion though.

Yes that's why we shouldn't cheer on the lies.

I don’t see anybody doing that on this thread though, just having a discussion about numbers and perceptions of what they mean?

Or excuse the lies because 'that is what he saw on the day'
The tactics he used don't work and cause resentment

Galaxy

I think telling the truth is more important than compassion. Terrible things have been done under the 'cover' of kindness. The idea of compassion can be a form of dogma.

True. What makes you think you are the only person to see this., though?

I often agree with your posts, but then feel antagonistic towards the way you appear to assume that you can somehow understand things that the rest of us can't.

I don't know why you appear to think you have a more nuanced understanding of how life works than the rest of us, but it often gets in the way of how I read your posts.

Silverbrooks

This is from Migration Observatory:

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

The majority of those arriving in small boats are men. In the year to 31 March 2024, 75% (22,357) were male and aged 18 or over (excluding those of unknown age or sex).

Another 16% (4,630) of arrivals in the same period were children (under 18). These proportions have been stable over time, and similar to those observed in asylum applicants more broadly (72% and 19%, respectively, in the year to March 2024).

One reason for the higher share of men among asylum seekers, in general, is the danger associated with irregular migration journeys. In many cases, female and minor family members join later through family reunification routes.

Most people who cross the Channel in small boats claim asylum once they are in the UK. According to the Home Office, 93% (109,954) of all those crossing the Channel from 2018 to March 2024 either applied for asylum themselves or were named as a dependant (partner or child) on an application.

Zia Yusuf claimed on BBCQT that 90% of arrivals are adult males. Where was his evidence?

Absolutely top post Silverbrooks. You give the facts. It is true that Darren Jones I do agree exaggerated the figures, but it's not the end of the world. After all, what it has done is make people discuss it, never a bad thing. Not always wise to shoot the messenger becuase of this.

But of course some will do a "shock horror" on it just to shoot down as whole government. Jones can put out a more accurate statement and acknowledge it. Again, more chance to discuss.

I am not cheering on a lie. I am merely saying that a government minister knows that the majorty of irregular migrant are not women. Everybody does so there had to be reason he said what he did.

He has now said:

Of course the overall majority of people arriving illegally on small boats are men - but not “north of 90%” as Reform claimed. On @bbcquestiontime I shared a story from my visit to the Border Security Command about a dinghy that arrived mostly carrying women, children and babies who had suffered horrific burns.

What he should have said on BBCQT was the majority of people on that boat were women, children and babies who were burnt.

yes.

So I don't really mind how anyone views my posts doodledog, I think it would be quite exhausting to think about that too much. I am saying that those on here explaining away Jones behaviour aren't helpful. I would also say that whilst I am sure
labour don't care, this kind of behaviour makes me very uneasy in terms of returning to support them.

The percentage of men arriving is 83% from official figures. Yusuf was almost right at 90%; Jones was plainly wrong.

Most boat refugees are granted asylum. I see no good reason they shouldn't be allowed to work and pay tax while waiting for their claim to be processed. Many of them must have skills and trades we need given our ageing population.

Personally I find all this ‘song and dance’ about ‘more men arriving than women’ quite offensive.

Whatever their sex, they are all human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity.

they are housed at great expense in hotels, something no other country does for asylum seekers as far as I’m aware

Oreo other European countries do house asylum seekers in hotels.

However, because it is the most expensive way to house them, most countries are now moving away from this system and using government owned housing instead, wherever possible.

This is what the Labour government is proposing to do - unlike the Tories!

And heaven only knows what Reform would do🤷‍♀️

Oh I think you would know why the so called "song and dance" as regards to more men arriving than women and children. Whilst not tarring all arrivals with the same brush there have been both here and in mainland Europe, incidents of sexual assaults, Cologne for example, acts of terror committed and an over representation into the criminal underworld when previously Albanians were arriving. Quite different from taking families from Afghanistan who we very much owed a duty to grant asylum to, particularly those who had acted as translators etc. for us.

Also, why is it wrong if mainly the arrivals are men. If (God forbid) my family had to flee the UK for safe shores, I'm sure we would send the young men first, as they would be more likely to survive a hazardous journey than old people or babies, and also more likely to be able to work when they got to where they were going.

How would you organise things in your family?

I doubt the young men in our family would want to flee and leave their sisters, mothers, elderly parents to their fate.

Whst did our young men do in WW2? They fought both here and overseas.
What happened to many children? They were sent to places of safety here and to a safe country.

Somehow it seems cowardly to run rather than stay and defend those who are not as strong as you.