By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Will be interesting to see how they're compared to environmental groups who did the same and who mainly showed their faces. Were anti terror laws used against them in the end? Weren't there calls by certain sections on the right to run them over?
Let's wait and see.
14
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 10:19 - Sep 9 with 861 views
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 10:09 - Sep 9 by balcombeblue
Is it? Based on what?!
Well, two things.
1) it doesn't pass the sniff test, it's such a wildly low number that it feels wrong. 2) this is the important one, there are actual published statistics available on the actual number of applicants accepted.
That 62% of applicants are not accepted is a bad enough number IMO.
I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun.
I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 10:08 - Sep 9 by balcombeblue
True! A lot of people say they won’t respond and then do though. It’s not really a lie, the emotion of needing to reply just takes over!
it's still a lie on the 2nd one, but you're right in benter's emotional response!
however, if you they "the un stated x" and they hadn't stated anything of the kind then it's a lie, it's misinformation, it needs an edit (and an apology if they're so concerned not to be seen as a liar!)
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 10:19 - Sep 9 by Dubtractor
Well, two things.
1) it doesn't pass the sniff test, it's such a wildly low number that it feels wrong. 2) this is the important one, there are actual published statistics available on the actual number of applicants accepted.
That 62% of applicants are not accepted is a bad enough number IMO.
The “right number” is clearly dependent on the application?
I know people on the left like equality of outcome, but surely it’s dependant on the merits of the claimant?
(That was just a joke about lefties by the way….)
0
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 10:57 - Sep 9 with 737 views
"The grant rate at initial decision was 42% in 2025 — down sharply from 73% in 2022 — a fall that reflects a deliberate policy of ramping up refusals to clear the backlog, but which has simultaneously fed an appeals backlog that nearly doubled in 2025 to a record 80,000 cases. The UK ranked 15th highest in Europe for asylum applications per head of population in 2025."
"In 2022, the share of asylum applications (main applicants) receiving a grant at the initial decision rose to a record high of 76%, which was much higher than in previous years. In 2018, the initial decision grant rate was 33% (Figure 5). Many factors could have driven the change. One contributing factor, but not the only explanation, was an increase in the number of nationalities whose asylum application grant rate is typically higher than average, such as Iranians, Syrians and Eritreans"
"The decline in overall grant rates may be linked to changes introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA), which raised the standard of proof in asylum claims. Applicants are now required to demonstrate, “on the balance of probabilities”, that they would face persecution if returned to their country of origin – a higher threshold than the previous “reasonable degree of likelihood” standard see ‘Understanding the Policy’ above). Among the top 10 nationalities of asylum seekers in 2025, all experienced rising grant rates between 2018 and 2022, followed by a decline from 2023, except for Sudanese nationals."
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 10:57 - Sep 9 by DJR
Interestingly, I came across this.
"The grant rate at initial decision was 42% in 2025 — down sharply from 73% in 2022 — a fall that reflects a deliberate policy of ramping up refusals to clear the backlog, but which has simultaneously fed an appeals backlog that nearly doubled in 2025 to a record 80,000 cases. The UK ranked 15th highest in Europe for asylum applications per head of population in 2025."
"In 2022, the share of asylum applications (main applicants) receiving a grant at the initial decision rose to a record high of 76%, which was much higher than in previous years. In 2018, the initial decision grant rate was 33% (Figure 5). Many factors could have driven the change. One contributing factor, but not the only explanation, was an increase in the number of nationalities whose asylum application grant rate is typically higher than average, such as Iranians, Syrians and Eritreans"
"The decline in overall grant rates may be linked to changes introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA), which raised the standard of proof in asylum claims. Applicants are now required to demonstrate, “on the balance of probabilities”, that they would face persecution if returned to their country of origin – a higher threshold than the previous “reasonable degree of likelihood” standard see ‘Understanding the Policy’ above). Among the top 10 nationalities of asylum seekers in 2025, all experienced rising grant rates between 2018 and 2022, followed by a decline from 2023, except for Sudanese nationals."
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 11:37 - Sep 9 by redrickstuhaart
Do you think there might be some clear rules and guidelines? Or just some bloke doing what he reckons?
I imagine it would be:
a: highly dependant on the quality of the information presented by the applicant b: not totally independent from other decisions made on similar applicants. c: highly subjective on the opinions of who is deciding.
So yes, a fair amount of arbitrary consideration. Somewhat backed up by the number that go to appeal.
Much like in a jury trial, where I always say the only reason you would ever want a jury is if you are guilty.
-2
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 12:24 - Sep 9 with 542 views
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 11:49 - Sep 9 by balcombeblue
I imagine it would be:
a: highly dependant on the quality of the information presented by the applicant b: not totally independent from other decisions made on similar applicants. c: highly subjective on the opinions of who is deciding.
So yes, a fair amount of arbitrary consideration. Somewhat backed up by the number that go to appeal.
Much like in a jury trial, where I always say the only reason you would ever want a jury is if you are guilty.
I really don't know what else to say at this point. Wow.
The most cursory of Googles will show you lengthy detailed criteria and guidance. As anyone who knows anything about anything would fully expect.
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 11:49 - Sep 9 by balcombeblue
I imagine it would be:
a: highly dependant on the quality of the information presented by the applicant b: not totally independent from other decisions made on similar applicants. c: highly subjective on the opinions of who is deciding.
So yes, a fair amount of arbitrary consideration. Somewhat backed up by the number that go to appeal.
Much like in a jury trial, where I always say the only reason you would ever want a jury is if you are guilty.
"Much like in a jury trial, where I always say the only reason you would ever want a jury is if you are guilty."
Err, what? Really got to pick you up on that. If I were innocent, I'd 100% want a jury trial* every time, not be dependent on the whims & possible prejudices of a lone judge (or even a 3).
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 10:29 - Sep 9 by positivity
it's still a lie on the 2nd one, but you're right in benter's emotional response!
however, if you they "the un stated x" and they hadn't stated anything of the kind then it's a lie, it's misinformation, it needs an edit (and an apology if they're so concerned not to be seen as a liar!)
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 13:01 - Sep 9 by Benters
Clot or not he said it.
No he didn't. A quick search is all it took.
No, Jeremy Kyle did not report that the United Nations (UN) stated 1 in 100 asylum cases are genuine.The segment broadcast on Talk (formerly TalkTV) in September 2026 involved Jeremy Kyle discussing a widely reported investigation from The Times.
FFS, I wish I hadn't looked at this rubbish. No surprise that you watch TalkTV benters. I'm guessing you'll say you were genuinely mistaken now?
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 12:35 - Sep 9 by Ryorry
"Much like in a jury trial, where I always say the only reason you would ever want a jury is if you are guilty."
Err, what? Really got to pick you up on that. If I were innocent, I'd 100% want a jury trial* every time, not be dependent on the whims & possible prejudices of a lone judge (or even a 3).
*Which is now, disgracefully, under threat.
The reason I say that, is because if you are guilty and that's objectionably provable (say by an AI algorithm), then isn't it best to plump for the luck of the jry?
I am sort of with you on the jury process being an important tenant of our legal system, but it hasn't done much for Lucy Letby! I bet she would have been happy with objective trial by AI.
0
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 14:15 - Sep 9 with 253 views
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 13:50 - Sep 9 by noggin
No he didn't. A quick search is all it took.
No, Jeremy Kyle did not report that the United Nations (UN) stated 1 in 100 asylum cases are genuine.The segment broadcast on Talk (formerly TalkTV) in September 2026 involved Jeremy Kyle discussing a widely reported investigation from The Times.
FFS, I wish I hadn't looked at this rubbish. No surprise that you watch TalkTV benters. I'm guessing you'll say you were genuinely mistaken now?
[Post edited 9 Sep 14:00]
Jeremy Kyle doesn't even get it right either; claims it was a whistleblower "in the Home Office" - widely reported that it's a former Home Office worker.
These balaclava wearing chaps in Dover on 13:58 - Sep 9 by balcombeblue
The reason I say that, is because if you are guilty and that's objectionably provable (say by an AI algorithm), then isn't it best to plump for the luck of the jry?
I am sort of with you on the jury process being an important tenant of our legal system, but it hasn't done much for Lucy Letby! I bet she would have been happy with objective trial by AI.
ai makes far more mistakes than a jury.
in the uk, you are innocent until proved guilty, which is a high bar, so more people are acquitted than on a balance of evidence basis.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
