75
NHS staff who visit patients at home say St George’s flags can mean ‘no-go zones’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
75 points (96.3% liked)
United Kingdom
5536 readers
255 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you've banged the nail on the head - that's why people are annoyed. It SHOULD prevent them from gaining asylum. The law is outdated and it's funding a people smuggling industry. Every claim where the seeker came through from a safe country such as France should be rejected immediately. They're not refugees. The asylum law is for refugees. Australia was able to solve it and we almost had it with the (albeit overpriced) Rwanda policy.
Before I get assumed to be a racist, I actually think the UK law to immigrate legally is too strict. The thresholds are too high and requiring one for a british citizen with non british spouse or children is borderline racism.
Oh my god.... Wait..... You're PRO rawanda refugee policy? Oh please do tell me your thoughts on the benefits of that program
Because it would mean people trying to get to the UK illegally from a safe country would be sent to Rwanda instead. So unless they are trying to get to Rwanda intentionally, they'll stop coming into the UK
I have to assume at this point you are deliberately misusing words? Because I believe both you and I know that it's not illegal to cross into the UK from France to claim asylum. And I'm fairly certain we've established this.
Can we carry on in reality instead of in your Dreamworld?
It should be illegal. That's why people are annoyed.
Why? And also, it's not? So why are we having this conversation
That's the national conversation. Might be why people are flying the flags.
Ahahah there we are. I figured the mask would slip eventually.
So in your view "ignore the law or we'll be racist" makes sense?
Flying the flag of England isn't illegal.
No but not processing asylum claims and resting refugees as criminals is.
The law should be changed then
What are you even on about at this point
What national conversation btw, you aren't british
???
You said so earlier, you were speaking second hand about flags in England as you had no first hand experience
That doesn't mean I'm not British, what are you on about.
And you're the one saying I'm not well researched
Yeesh fair enough, genuinely my mistake. Your British and you've never been to England?
I've been to England a few times, so no. And I saw plenty of St George's crosses. Some from houses, some on public buildings, in shops, on churches, etc. I don't believe everyone was flying it because they were racist.
Nobody ever claimed it was every one
Wether it shouldn't or shouldn't is immaterial to this conversation. To follow both UK and international law all these asylum claims need to be processed.
If showing up on a boat disqualified you, the Tories would be chomping at the bit to process them and turf them.
The things your saying all sound lovely and in a perfect world of it was like that we might agree that it was better.
There's no point carrying on this conversation if you're going to continue to claim that people arriving on small boats and other irregular means are illegal
It's not ethically right. Sure they should be processed, but that processing shouldn't take very long considering they just came from France.
I assume when you say "it's not ethically right" that the unwritten text there was "but yes, it is legally right". Could you just confirm?
Upskirting was legally right until they changed that.
No it wasn't you moron, it just didn't have specific legislation... It was still a number of different crimes.
Regardless I don't understand what you're arguing. If you want to argue that the UN convention on the rights of refugees is ethically wrong and therefore the law needs to be changed that's fine and dandy. What's it got to do with the price of fish though
So why did the Tories spend 15 years not processing them if it would have been quick and easy? Is it because coming from France doesn't make their claims invalid? And that's just something that you'd personally like to be true and has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever?
British citizens don't require anything to immigrate whether they have a spouse or child or where the spouse, child, lack of spouse or lack of child are from.
The spouse and children should be given a visa regardless
YI mean... Effectively they are. There is a process but unless you are a violent criminal or something your visa as a spouse isn't going to be denied. The process is mainly to ferret out fraudulent ones, something you would seemingly be infavor of.
Children of British citizens are literally automatically citizens as well unless their parent was also born outside the UK. Even then in most cases they still will or can be, do you have any idea what you're even talking about?
BBC News - 'I'm British but I can't live in my own country with my partner' - BBC News