The Guardian reported on 9th June as follows:

"Rejected asylum seekers who cannot go home will in future have to
undertake compulsory unpaid community work in return for benefits as
part of a last-minute package of measures to tighten Britain's asylum
laws announced last night.

"The package will also see thousands of successful refugees dispersed
around Britain being banned from moving to live in London or south-east
England if they win their case to stay. "

These are new and quite radical additions to the Asylum Bill that has
almost completed its passage through Parliament.

Is it just me, or does the second paragraph above make it sound as if
Blunkett is introducing laws akin to Apartheid South Africa's pass laws?

I hope this is just a badly worded journalistic interpretation. Later in
the article, it states that this aim of the bill is, "Restricting the
right of successful refugees or others given permission to stay to apply
for local authority housing except in the areas to which they have been
dispersed, to relieve pressure on London and south-east England." This
is obviously much less of a restriction than banning them from moving to
live there.

But it does worry me.
--
Richard Miller

"Richard Miller" wrote

Is it just me, or does the second paragraph above make it sound as if
Blunkett is introducing laws akin to Apartheid South Africa's pass laws?

No, it is not the same. South Africa had separate *sections* in cities for
whites and non-whites, separate seats in parks, separate public toilets
(usually in the same building) and separate sections of adjacent beach. But
they did not exclude blacks from entire cities and large areas of the
country.

I hope this is just a badly worded journalistic interpretation. Later in
the article, it states that this aim of the bill is, "Restricting the
right of successful refugees or others given permission to stay to apply
for local authority housing except in the areas to which they have been
dispersed, to relieve pressure on London and south-east England." This
is obviously much less of a restriction than banning them from moving to
live there.

But outrageous even so. The normal way is to get legislation passed for a
defined section of people, and then expand the definition of the affected
people until it includes (or in this case excludes) a greater and greater
proportion of the population.

But it does worry me.

The direction the government is moving with its legislation has worried me
for some years. I for one will be leaving the UK as soon as I am in a
position to do so without suffering serious loss. Assuming that by that
time the government is still allowing UK citizens to leave the country. If
not, I could leave illegally and become an asylum-seeker in whatever country
will take me.

--
Cynic

Richard Miller wrote:

The Guardian reported on 9th June as follows:

"Rejected asylum seekers who cannot go home will in future have to
undertake compulsory unpaid community work in return for benefits as
part of a last-minute package of measures to tighten Britain's asylum
laws announced last night.

"The package will also see thousands of successful refugees dispersed
around Britain being banned from moving to live in London or south-east
England if they win their case to stay. "

These are new and quite radical additions to the Asylum Bill that has
almost completed its passage through Parliament.

Is it just me, or does the second paragraph above make it sound as if
Blunkett is introducing laws akin to Apartheid South Africa's pass laws?

I hope this is just a badly worded journalistic interpretation. Later in
the article, it states that this aim of the bill is, "Restricting the
right of successful refugees or others given permission to stay to apply
for local authority housing except in the areas to which they have been
dispersed, to relieve pressure on London and south-east England." This
is obviously much less of a restriction than banning them from moving to
live there.

But it does worry me.
--
Richard Miller


What's Blunkett doing now ?. Doing what he and Blair do best, making
ordinary people's lives worse .Mindless idiots.

It would be interesting to have a poll as to who thinks
that life generally has improved in the UK since New Labour
came to power.

In message , Richard Miller
writes
The Guardian reported on 9th June as follows:

"Rejected asylum seekers who cannot go home will in future have to
undertake compulsory unpaid community work in return for benefits as
part of a last-minute package of measures to tighten Britain's asylum
laws announced last night.

"The package will also see thousands of successful refugees dispersed
around Britain being banned from moving to live in London or south-east
England if they win their case to stay. "

These are new and quite radical additions to the Asylum Bill that has
almost completed its passage through Parliament.

Is it just me, or does the second paragraph above make it sound as if
Blunkett is introducing laws akin to Apartheid South Africa's pass laws?

It sounds very much like the beginning of a system to control the
movement of the population. Start with Asylum Seekers, to establish the
principle, and then extend it to other selected groups until everyone is
told where they may and may not live.

The next step would be to impose border controls around counties to
prevent terrorists being able to move freely about the country. Anyone
with a legitimate reason to travel to another county will be able to
apply for permission from a local police station which, if granted, will
be endorsed on their ID card.

I hope this is just a badly worded journalistic interpretation. Later in
the article, it states that this aim of the bill is, "Restricting the
right of successful refugees or others given permission to stay to apply
for local authority housing except in the areas to which they have been
dispersed, to relieve pressure on London and south-east England." This
is obviously much less of a restriction than banning them from moving to
live there.

That's OK then, it won't affect British citizens - yet.

But it does worry me.

Be afraid - be very afraid.
--
Mike

In article , Richard Miller
writes
The Guardian reported on 9th June as follows:

"Rejected asylum seekers who cannot go home will in future have to
undertake compulsory unpaid community work in return for benefits as
part of a last-minute package of measures to tighten Britain's asylum
laws announced last night.

"The package will also see thousands of successful refugees dispersed
around Britain being banned from moving to live in London or south-east
England if they win their case to stay. "

These are new and quite radical additions to the Asylum Bill that has
almost completed its passage through Parliament.

Is it just me, or does the second paragraph above make it sound as if
Blunkett is introducing laws akin to Apartheid South Africa's pass laws?

I hope this is just a badly worded journalistic interpretation. Later in
the article, it states that this aim of the bill is, "Restricting the
right of successful refugees or others given permission to stay to apply
for local authority housing except in the areas to which they have been
dispersed, to relieve pressure on London and south-east England." This
is obviously much less of a restriction than banning them from moving to
live there.

But it does worry me.

I'm no great fan of Blunkett but I think there's some merit in this
particular idea.

The increasing ghettoization of parts of our cities and towns, and in
some cases of whole towns themselves, benefits no-one but illegal
immigrants who wish to lose themselves among large numbers of people of
similar ethnicity to themselves.

There's little doubt that this country has gained much more from
immigration than it's lost, and it's normal and entirely reasonable for
people to want to live among others with whom they have something in
common, but over-concentration of people of particular minority ethnic
backgrounds creates artificial barriers to social integration and has a
destabilising effect on the community as a whole.
--
Marshall Rice

(Put the bin out to email me)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:05:08 +0100, Bloomin Heck
wrote:

It would be interesting to have a poll as to who thinks
that life generally has improved in the UK since New Labour
came to power.

"It's the economy, stupid".

Since 1997, this country has enjoyed its longest period of sustained
economic success and prosperity in living memory (that is almost
entirely the responsibility of Gordon Brown, however New Labour as
a whole will of course take credit for it).

The great majority of the population, and I am slightly ashamed to
admit myself included, will continue to vote for New Labour in general
elections for as long as that remains so. If I were a younger man,
I may be tempted to vote for a different party as a principled protest
against some of New Labour's legislative measures (although I suspect
that a Conservative government under Michael Howard would be infinitely
worse), but at 47 economic stability is more personally important to
me than other considerations.

--
Anthony Edwards

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:55:06 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:

The Guardian reported on 9th June as follows:

"Rejected asylum seekers who cannot go home will in future have to
undertake compulsory unpaid community work in return for benefits as
part of a last-minute package of measures to tighten Britain's asylum
laws announced last night.

How long is it since slavery was last legal in the UK?

--
Jo Lonergan

"Jo Lonergan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:55:06 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:

The Guardian reported on 9th June as follows:

"Rejected asylum seekers who cannot go home will in future have to
undertake compulsory unpaid community work in return for benefits as
part of a last-minute package of measures to tighten Britain's asylum
laws announced last night.

How long is it since slavery was last legal in the UK?

I don't know, but I remember, not so long ago, that there were various
compulsory schemes forcing unemployed people to carry out unpaid community
work in return for keeping their full benefit entitlement.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:50:11 +0100, "Mabon" wrote:

"Jo Lonergan" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:55:06 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:

The Guardian reported on 9th June as follows:

"Rejected asylum seekers who cannot go home will in future have to
undertake compulsory unpaid community work in return for benefits as
part of a last-minute package of measures to tighten Britain's asylum
laws announced last night.

How long is it since slavery was last legal in the UK?

I don't know, but I remember, not so long ago, that there were various
compulsory schemes forcing unemployed people to carry out unpaid community
work in return for keeping their full benefit entitlement.

Instead of giving them the same work as employment, and paying the
minimum wage. How is "community work" defined, and exempted from
minimum wage provisions?

--
Jo

In message , Mabon writes

"Jo Lonergan" wrote in message
.. .

How long is it since slavery was last legal in the UK?

I don't know, but I remember, not so long ago, that there were various
compulsory schemes forcing unemployed people to carry out unpaid community
work in return for keeping their full benefit entitlement.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. They are,
effectively, being given jobs. I would expect them to be paid at least
the minimum wage though and given paid holidays.
--
Mike