Personalities aside, Dan's argument is fundamentally flawed. The issue in question is not whether or not someone should be granted asylum in the UK, it is what happens to them in the 21 day period after being turned down and before being deported or returning home. The Amnesty report argues that asylum seekers should not be allowed to go destitute during this period. Now aside from the implications on the human rights of the individual, which we will realistically never agree on, lets look at this objectively. Surely a failed asylum seeker is far more likely to commit crime if he or she is destitute and desperate. This definitely doesn't mean letting them live in luxury or giving them jobs I assure you. But surely 'the basic fabric of society' is improved by having less people on the streets, regardless as to who those people are and where they come from.

Dan's argument is based on the premise that people who have been denied asylum should be punished for it, by letting them go destitute. Despite the implication of destitution on society and law and order.

If he disagrees with this last point then he would have been most welcome with his sleeping bag last Wednesday.