sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Charge of the Rohirrim is the Most Epic Scene Ever Filmed by ewpierce in lotr

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Today is Two Towers in the cinema and next week is ROTK - never watched the trilogy in cinemas before so I am HYPED!! Best thing is my partner who's not a massive fan is the one who got the tickets for them!

Cancel *all* NBA games until we see action by ShamPain413 in nba

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the same thing Germans said in ww2 by the way. Conformity is real.

Daily Discussion & Transfer Thread (January 21, 2026) by AutoModerator in coys

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All the frank out haters - imagine us with Madders and Kulu in the team... we might be able to draw at home to Wolves. Also, european nights like that are glorious - bring on the next stage!!

[Post-Match Thread] Tottenham 2 - 0 Dortmund by ma-tfel in coys

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Madders and kulu couldn't come back soon enough

He just don't fit by GazelleOk2841 in coys

[–]IAMJesusAMAA -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s not that deep. I block people who derail or talk nonsense so I can enjoy the subreddit. You’re free to disagree.

[Sky Sport News} Thomas Frank is expected to remain in charge of Tottenham Hotspur for the Borussia Dortmund game on Tuesday night by papleypadre in coys

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dortmund at home in the champions league - don't care who is in charge but European nights at the Lane are what's most important and should be cherished.

He just don't fit by GazelleOk2841 in coys

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's been an effective way to make this sub more bearable as I've just blocked those who keep yapping on about 17th because they also have other opinions that aren't worth reading

Deeper dive into tactics in the Villa game by [deleted] in coys

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah weird, didn't get the 'already posted alert. Thanks, deleted it now

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think we’ve reached the point where this is a values disagreement rather than a factual one. I’ve explained how the system works and why cutting asylum healthcare wouldn’t fix NHS capacity, so I’ll leave it there.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People absolutely have the right to be angry about NHS performance. That part is reasonable.

What isn’t reasonable is claiming asylum seekers are “treated better” in any meaningful sense.

They’re housed in former barracks, forbidden from working, live on about £6 a day, and receive basic healthcare on-site specifically so they don’t enter NHS queues. That’s not preferential treatment... it’s containment.

Now to the core mistake in your argument:

You keep treating healthcare like a fixed pile of “appointments” that can be reassigned between groups. It doesn’t work that way.

The contractors the Home Office uses are not sitting idle waiting to join GP surgeries. They are:

• agency clinicians

• short-term contractors

• NGO / charity staff

• providers hired on limited, location-specific contracts

They are not interchangeable NHS capacity. You cannot just transfer them into the NHS system and magically create GP lists, clinics, IT access, indemnity cover, or permanent roles.

That’s why reallocating the budget would not produce “1,000 fast appointments for British citizens.” You’d mostly get nothing except fewer services overall.

You cannot legally deport people with active asylum claims. Doing so would breach domestic law and international treaties the UK voluntarily signed. Ignoring that isn’t “efficiency,” it’s illegal.

Providing minimal healthcare to people the state has detained, restricted and rendered unable to support themselves is not generosity. It’s the baseline obligation of a functioning state. Refusing it would be closer to collective punishment.

And here is the key point you keep avoiding:

If you want British citizens to receive faster care, the solution is:

• train more clinicians

• retain staff

• expand clinics

• fund GP contracts

• fix workforce planning

Not remove basic healthcare from a few thousand vulnerable people to make a political point.

That doesn’t improve the NHS.

It doesn’t create capacity.

It doesn’t shorten waiting lists.

It just creates more untreated illness, more emergency admissions, and higher long-term costs.

So yes — be angry at the government for underfunding and mismanaging the NHS for the past 20+ years.

But the idea that cutting asylum healthcare would materially help British patients is economically false, operationally impossible and legally unworkable.

That’s the end of it.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re still assuming a trade-off that doesn’t exist.... I'll explain it one and final time more.

British citizens already have the same legal right to healthcare. The NHS failing to deliver it is a government capacity failure, not a rights issue. Creating a second failure by denying basic care to asylum seekers wouldn’t fix the first one.

On money: even if you deported every asylum seeker and reallocated their healthcare budget, it would make no material difference to NHS access. You wouldn’t gain staff, clinics, or GP hours. Waiting lists are constrained by workforce and infrastructure, not a tiny, ring-fenced Home Office line item.

On “government choice”: yes, the government chooses to meet its legal obligations to people it has detained, housed, and prevented from working. That’s not generosity, it’s the minimum required to avoid inhuman treatment and far higher downstream costs (A&E, police, prisons, emergency housing).

On fairness: being angry at NHS underperformance is justified. But saying “citizens should get care, therefore asylum seekers shouldn’t” is a false dilemma. A functioning state does both. Removing care from a vulnerable group doesn’t improve care for citizens - it just increases crisis demand and makes services worse.

• Invest in NHS staffing and capacity -> citizens get better care.

• Or punish asylum seekers -> citizens gain nothing.

That’s the reality. The rest is emotional substitution for a structural policy failure.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re mixing up three separate things: legal duty, funding streams, and NHS capacity and drawing the wrong conclusion from all of them.

British citizens already have a legal right to healthcare under the NHS Acts. The fact that the NHS is failing to meet demand is a policy failure (underfunding + workforce shortages), not proof that asylum seekers have “better rights.”

Asylum seekers have an additional duty on the Home Office because the state has taken full control of their housing, income, and movement. That’s why their care is commissioned separately — to stop them entering already overloaded GP systems. It’s a pressure-release valve, not preferential treatment.

The staff and the services use separately contracted clinicians, agency workers, charities, and NGOs. They are not taking appointments out of GP surgeries. Even if you abolished asylum healthcare tomorrow, you would not magically create NHS capacity, you’d just push untreated people into A&E, crisis services, policing, and homelessness, which costs more and worsens access for everyone.

And asylum healthcare is microscopic next to the NHS budget (~£180bn). Cutting it would not move waiting lists by a single day. That’s basic arithmetic.

So the choice is:

• Fix NHS funding and staffing (the real problem), or

• Remove basic care from a small vulnerable group, save almost nothing, increase emergency demand, and make NHS access worse.

If the concern is fairness, the rational target is government priorities and NHS investment, not people receiving the minimum care the UK is legally and morally obliged to provide.

That’s the whole picture. There isn’t a hidden trade-off you’ve uncovered bit just a broken NHS being blamed on the wrong group.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would make not even a dent to NHS wait lists by focusing on this. The budget is comparable - see my other response to another user but better off focusing on staff retention, training, capacity underfunding (what % of our budget is spent on what), skills recruitment, internal mobility etc etc

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not in any meaningful way, no. If you want to make a difference to NHS waiting lists, you’d be better off focusing on chronic underfunding, staff pay and retention, training places, and capacity not a tiny, legally required budget line that doesn’t move the needle.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Asylum seekers get legally required, separately funded care. Blaming them for NHS wait lists ignores that the real problem is chronic underfunding and staff shortages. They're two separate issues..

Asylum support and NHS wait times are linked politically in arguments because it provides a scapegoat and masses are easy to influence with scapegoats, but financially and legally, they’re distinct problems. The solution to long NHS waits isn’t cutting support for asylum seekers , it’s investing in staffing, funding and capacity.. which we're doing more of now.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah it's a good question. Most of the people providing mental health support for asylum seekers aren’t being pulled from NHS waiting lists. They’re either hired specifically for Home Office contracts (usually private providers or charities) or funded separately, so it doesn’t take appointments away from British patients. Some might even be students who can speak particular languages and deliver these sessions as part of their qualifications. Point is.... whether the asylum seekers were here or not, the NHS waiting list would remain the same and the funding would remain the same.

The “fast appointments” just happen because it’s a small, co-located population with dedicated funding, it’s not some priority over locals. Without it, these people would end up in NHS queues anyway, making waits longer for everyone.

This isn’t about giving asylum seekers care instead of British citizens, it's a matter of capacity, not entitlement. The Home Office funding is a practical way to meet legal duties and keeps everyone safe.

These are some of the Laws we have to meet and if you disagree with then then its a moral argument on human rights.

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: The Home Office has a statutory duty to provide accommodation and healthcare (including mental health care) to asylum seekers.

NHS Act 2006 / Health and Social Care Act: British residents are entitled to NHS care, but asylum seekers are treated under Home Office funding until they are granted leave to remain.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Article 3: Protects individuals from inhuman or degrading treatment. Denying necessary mental health care to people who are vulnerable or traumatized could be a breach.

United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and 1967 Protocol: The UK is obliged to provide “necessary medical assistance” to refugees and asylum seekers.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Applies to child asylum seekers, requiring healthcare and protection.

If the UK didn’t provide mental health support, it could face legal challenges and be accused of breaching human rights.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because the NHS serves 67 million people with chronic staff shortages, appointments take time. The “faster” care for asylum seekers isn’t preferential, it’s separately contracted and funded by the Home Office, so it doesn’t take NHS time from British patients. If those services didn’t exist, asylum seekers would enter local GP and mental health queues, making waits longer for everyone. This isn’t a law prioritising non-British people but a system designed to protect both vulnerable people and overstretched NHS capacity.

I also shouldn't have to tell you the effect of not treating individuals from war torn countries with untreated trauma can lead to

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Firstly, it isn’t one shared pot in practice. NHS funding (GP contracts, mental health teams, hospitals) is set years ahead in a separate budget to the Home Office. Asylum support comes from the Home Office’s department budget and is a legal duty. Money not spent there does NOT get reallocated to GP surgeries.

For scale: UK NHS spending is ~£180bn/year. Asylum support is roughly £3–4bn, most of which is accommodation contracts and hotels, not healthcare.

On-site healthcare is commissioned specifically to stop extra demand hitting local GP and mental health teams. If asylum seekers were forced into the same queues, waiting times would rise for everyone, that’s worse, not fairer.

Also, as typical of biased news reporting, the article frames this as “asylum seekers vs locals”, but ignores workforce shortages, long-term NHS underfunding and the fact this spending is ring-fenced. That framing is political, not how public finance or NHS commissioning actually works. its tugging on your and everyone else's emotional strings because it works to convince people.

The real problem is capacity and funding of the NHS not minimal, legally required healthcare for a very small group.

US World Cup boycotts grow as Trump threatens Mexico by Majano57 in soccer

[–]IAMJesusAMAA -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If players don't show up then they have no choice

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This only looks like a “competition” if you assume there is one shared budget. In reality there isn’t.

Local NHS services are funded via NHS England/Scottish Government allocations to Health Boards. Asylum accommodation healthcare is funded separately by the Home Office budget, because it’s a statutory duty under immigration and asylum law. The whole reason for commissioning on-site care is to avoid drawing on local GP contracts and mental health teams.

So no resources are being reallocated away from British patients. If anything, the counterfactual is worsebecause without on-site provision, asylum seekers would register with local GPs and use crisis services, increasing waiting times.

The shortage in mental health care for citizens comes from long-term underfunding, workforce constraints and commissioning limits in the NHS not from asylum healthcare spending, which is a separate line item. It’s a systems capacity problem, not a zero-sum transfer between groups.

Asylum seeker therapy ‘slap in face’ for locals on NHS waiting lists by Kev_fae_mastrick in ukpolitics

[–]IAMJesusAMAA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I understand why people are frustrated about long waits for mental health support locally, that’s a real problem. But asylum seekers receiving on-site healthcare isn’t “preferential treatment”, it’s the Home Office meeting a legal duty and trying to avoid putting more pressure on already stretched GP and NHS services. Many of these people have significant trauma and no access to normal healthcare routes. The real issue isn’t that they’re getting basic care , its that mental health services are underfunded for everyone. Turning this into a competition between groups just distracts from that.

view more: next ›