Fate of RAF Scampton

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

We're constantly told all crossing the channel in boats are desperate and have a near irrefutable case. If you've got thousands of pounds to pay people traffickers then it would make a lot more sense to use a fraction of that to buy a flight ticket and fly to the UK, have your passport ready to present to the immigration officials on arrival, declare your wish to claim asylum and see what happens from there, if you have a strong case, surely you would be given a fair hearing. The majority of people crossing the channel in boats are mostly young men, as others have pointed out. They throw their passports away refuse to say where they've come from and prefer to pay people smugglers a fortune. I can only imagine the reason for this is because they have a very weak case to put forward for asylum. As for the EU, one reason for leaving is because it is seeking to become a single large state, already with a one size fits all currency. Jean-Claude Junker before he stepped down as Commission President, spoke of Brussels having tax raising powers of all member states, or should that be all component parts of the state?!??!

FB

Pretty sure that if you're booking a plane ticket with a passport that requires a visa to enter the UK, you have to present that visa or evidence of it on check in or you won't be boarded. The fact is, there are no safe and legal ways to claim asylum in this country - the government could process the applications in Calais if it wanted to, but make a political decision not to.

FWIW, I wouldn't support Scampton being used as a detention centre, but I think it's a mistake to conflate the fate of that historical base with immigration. They don't want to be there anymore than you or anyone else wants them to be there.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by skua

Whitehall is acting with an arrogance which is pissing off people within and without the political chain. I gather that, for example, the Novotel in Ipswich was sequestered at less than 48 hours notice. The staff had to be be fired becasue Serco employees were put in. It was previously the main business hotel for central Ipswich so all the associated dining and hosiptality spending spillover disappeared overnight. The local Council was powerless to intervene. This is building into a pressure cooker issue.

The decision to use Scampton is spectacularly tin-eared.

Without sounding like the national front, racist and all of that bullsh*t, that is part of the problem, it's also the hidden costs, firing the staff means it is possible some of those staff may lose the roof over their heads and become homeless, therefore hard working low paid hospitality staff who were born and bred here are being ejected possibly onto the streets as some live in, to put a roof over the head of someone who has never paid a days worth of taxes into the UK, and in all likelihood shouldn't be here.
It is a sad state of affairs when the UK cannot house and help our homeless who are forced to live on the streets, while we give full board and lodgings to those that have no right in most cases to be in this Country.
There are even pensioners that would welcome three meals a day and a warm hotel room over the winters months.

The secondary cost is possibly a hidden cost, in that these people fired through no fault of their own may well end up on benefits, or should I say those that managed to keep a roof over their heads and an address, those that can't are much more unfortunate as i believe they cannot claim without an address.

..

[Get me some traffic]

I think Gruinard is uninhabited. Might fit the bill. Just be careful when you're digging!!

[Expatrick]

Originally Posted by skua

Whitehall is acting with an arrogance which is pissing off people within and without the political chain. I gather that, for example, the Novotel in Ipswich was sequestered at less than 48 hours notice. The staff had to be be fired becasue Serco employees were put in. It was previously the main business hotel for central Ipswich so all the associated dining and hosiptality spending spillover disappeared overnight. The local Council was powerless to intervene. This is building into a pressure cooker issue.

That's a bit misleading, you make it sound as though the hotel had no choice in the matter

In September Novotel Hotel submitted to Ipswich Borough Council a planning application asking for “extension to the existing hotel to provide an additional 57 guestrooms”. It said: “The board of Directors have made the decision to contract the hotel for the purpose of government use only

​​​​​​​

[Finningley Boy]

Originally Posted by Expatrick

That's a bit misleading, you make it sound as though the hotel had no choice in the matter

It won't be out of a sense of humanity, it would be interesting to know what the Hotel operator is being paid against what their usual tur over would be for the period in question?

FB

[langleybaston]

Is there any local reaction, for or against?
Silence would confound a few people.

[skua]

Expat, I was given to understand it was involuntary by the Leader of Suffolk Council.

[Expatrick]

Originally Posted by skua

Expat, I was given to understand it was involuntary by the Leader of Suffolk Council.

Plenty of media entries, including statements by the owners / directors that the choice was theirs. The council did object and obtained an injunction which was subsequently overturned.

The owners of an Ipswich hotel have slammed a "draconian" injunction preventing them from accommodating more asylum seekers.

Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Ltd, which owns the Novotel, has called on Ipswich Borough Council to resolve its concerns with the Government rather than imposing restrictions on the business after the Ipswich Star revealed the Greyfriars Road premises had 70 asylum seekers staying there. The emergency injunction granted by the High Court does not apply to the existing guests who have moved in, but bans any further arrivals and lasts until Monday (November 7) when there will be a further hearing.

​​​​​​​Ipswich Borough Council has lost its bid for a High Court injunction to prevent a hotel from housing asylum seekers. More than 70 migrants are already being accommodated at the four-star Novotel hotel in Ipswich town centre.

​​​​​​​In September Novotel Hotel submitted to Ipswich Borough Council a planning application asking for “extension to the existing hotel to provide an additional 57 guestrooms”. It said: “The board of Directors have made the decision to contract the hotel for the purpose of government use only. “This will affect jobs considerably so your role could be at risk of redundancy.”

[Finningley Boy]

But again, Expat,

The Novotel Hotel will be well remunerated for their largess. Or are saying that this is a purely Christian act of selflessness on their part?

FB

[Expatrick]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

But again, Expat,

The Novotel Hotel will be well remunerated for their largess. Or are saying that this is a purely Christian act of selflessness on their part?

FB

LOL, no of course not! Simple business decision on their part. Guaranteed occupancy, guaranteed payment - what's not to like! (Oh, and as you seem to suggest, a bit of moral authority (in their eyes)).

[NutLoose]

They are look8ng at listing scampton Officers mess that will screw them up

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/n...s-mess-8289203

[chevvron]

LBC (radio) are on the case now mentioning it at least once or twice an hour; no mention of the fact the place is practically falling down though or the effort (ie money) which will have to be spent getting it into a fit state for habitation.!

[BEagle]

I hope that the 'Wright Memorial' OM bar doors have been preserved!

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

"...did they really turn everything upside down in their search for a suitable location for this new tent city?"

I think the answer is a resounding NO. Clown 1 and 2 went for what they perceived to be path of least resistance. When we spoke with them at Linton they had 5 other "potential targets sites" all discounted on the flimsiest of reasons. I think the only Risk Assessment they did was to calculate how many locals they could &^%$ off and not lose a Tory seat.

I wonder if they considered Halton.
A lot of the accomodation is empty now and units are slowly moving out; the airfield is down to close by the end of 2027 (that's the latest I heard anyway) but the camp area which is a mile away could close earlier and much of the living quarters are in fairly good condition.
Henlow likewise appears to be 'on the brink' of becoming empty and once again, the living quarters are still in use.

[melmothtw]

It's not all quite so black and white, is it.

[mopardave]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

It's not all quite so black and white, is it.

No doubt we abandoned many who "assisted" us so if he can substantiate his identity, he should be allowed to stay. I know what you'll say........"he disposed of his identity papers." Well then we have a problem. What on earth is wrong with making sure these unknowns are not allowed to wander about freely. If they are given safe and secure accommodation, what's the problem? Would you arrive in another country seeking asylum and then misbehave......I'm damn sure I wouldn't. I'd be too bloody grateful. Why the hell do we have former servicemen and no doubt women who aren't extended the same "courtesy"? Why are some of our own serving personel virtually living in squalor? Let's start taking care of our own before trying to make life better for god knows how many who often, show no gratitude or allegiance to this country or our way of life. Charity begins at home.....period!

[cynicalint]

BBC article on-line identifies him by name and picture, using the same picture the Independent used without pixilation. Done by Inayatulhaq Yasini and Swaminathan Natarajanne on 31 Aug 2022. May explain his presence in the Channel, or a red-herring article; there may be more to this case than meets the eye.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62566883

[downsizer]

Originally Posted by cynicalint

BBC article on-line identifies him by name and picture, using the same picture the Independent used without pixilation. Done by Inayatulhaq Yasini and Swaminathan Natarajanne on 31 Aug 2022. May explain his presence in the Channel, or a red-herring article; there may be more to this case than meets the eye.....

Thats not the same picture in the BBC piece as on the newspaper cover?

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by downsizer

Thats not the same picture in the BBC piece as on the newspaper cover?

Indeed, the BBC pilot is flying a Black Hawk while the Independent pilot is flying a Grand Caravan. Not the same person.

[Finningley Boy]

Anyone who assisted HM or other allied forces in Afghanistan shouldn't be threatened with being sent to Rwanda. You'd think their asylum process would be rather more straight forward and with a positive outcome which you could bank on. It would appear that administrative incompetence is the only conclusion one can arrive at, I just hope this kind of cart before the horse nonsense isn't a routine occurrence, but I'm that sure.

FB