Vicky Carr is a journalist turned writer who grew up in Harrogate and returned in her late 20s to raise her family here. Find her on Instagram @vickycarrwrites.

It’s not uncommon for me to have a physical reaction to a story on the Stray Ferret.

More often than not, when North Yorkshire Council is involved, it’s an eye-roll.

But in the case of one story I read last week, I immediately felt sick – and not because of the council’s actions.

The story was that North Yorkshire Council had had to defend its plans for acquiring 112 homes for local people. It felt compelled to put out that statement because of a rumour that the new accommodation would house asylum seekers.

People in our communities were up in arms because the wrong sort of people might be given a helping hand.

It wasn’t true – NYC plans to acquire 112 homes in order to meet its statutory requirement to provide temporary accommodation for people in North Yorkshire, including those fleeing domestic abuse.

Accommodating asylum seekers is a government responsibility, so there was never any possibility these homes could be used for that. Yet such was the reaction to the rumour that the council had to issue a denial.

Language is important

Of course, this isn’t an isolated case. Just down the road, there are plans to turn the former Linton-on-Ouse RAF base into accommodation for 1,200 asylum seekers.

Ripon City Council has objected, with Cllr Andrew Williams saying they are “not asylum seekers, primarily, but economic migrants because they’ve come from a place of safety in France”.

Language is so important, isn’t it? Labelling people “migrants” is so often used to minimise what can be an absolutely desperate situation.

People who live under despotic governments, who have been found to be opposing the regime that terrorises their country, or who have worked with UK armed forces and civil servants, could all find themselves fleeing for their lives.

Like Cllr Williams, many people argue that true asylum seekers would settle in the first safe country and therefore (until the next French Revolution), the UK should be excused from taking anyone in.

'Helping us is what put them at risk'

But there are multiple reasons why people might travel here, such as having worked with the UK embassy in their own country, as in the case of many Afghans who have fled the Taliban. Helping us is what put those people at risk; morally, how could we possibly abandon them?

Earlier this month, the RNLI reported its crews face abuse for helping passengers trying to come ashore on small boats. This is a charity whose mission is simple: saving lives at sea.

Who looks at that mission and thinks, “yes, but which lives?”

Tiny fraction of spending

All of this outrage has been built over many years – and not by accident. It serves a lot of people well to whip up indignation and anger about this relatively minor cost to our economy, and label it the cause of all society’s ills.

And yes, it is relatively minor.

Last year, the UK spent £4 billion on asylum seekers. This was not on handing them all a mobile phone, a car, a house and £7,000 in cash, as someone confidently told me the other day. Most of it went on pretty grim accommodation where they must wait, unable to work, until a decision is made on their application to remain.

That sum is a tiny fraction of the government’s £1.4 trillion annual spending.

By contrast, tax evasion costs the UK £5.5 billion each year, and the Tax Justice Network estimates that around £100 billion annually is hidden in tax havens linked to the UK.

So let’s stop pretending this is purely a financial concern.

'Men of fighting age'

We also seem to be under the misapprehension that the UK is being swarmed by asylum seekers, while other countries take in almost nobody.

The UK has around 11% of Europe’s asylum claims. Germany, Spain, Italy – and yes, France, Cllr Williams – all take more asylum seekers than we do. France takes almost three times as many, in fact.

And don’t come at me with all that rubbish about “men of fighting age” being the only ones who come over.

For a start, the number of children and babies who have drowned attempting to reach the UK is devastating testament to the fact it is not only men who seek asylum here.

But if you had to flee a terrible situation in your home country and risk your life to find somewhere safe, would you send the youngest, most vulnerable members of your family? Or would you send the strongest ahead, to find a home which could later welcome the rest?

People argue that single men arriving here must have ill intent. We don’t need asylum seekers putting women and children at risk, they say.

I quite agree. British men do a perfectly good job of that themselves.

A convenient excuse

So why aren’t we up in arms about men’s existence in the UK? Why aren’t we rounding them up and sending them off to an island somewhere away from people to whom they pose a threat?

I’ll tell you why: because it’s all a convenient excuse.

The people who claim to want to protect us don’t actually care at all about ending violence against women. Otherwise they would have been campaigning against it for years, and vocally objecting to those who are statistically far more likely to be responsible for it: British men.

They’re the same ones who only remember to care about homeless veterans when the subject of immigration comes up.

So there you go. Those are just a few of the reasons why, when North Yorkshire Council felt compelled to “deny” that it was creating housing for asylum seekers, I felt sick to my stomach.

It was reminder that there are many among us who, when faced with someone fleeing to the UK to seek sanctuary, see not a person, but a problem. Who believe that some people are more worthy of help than others. That some human lives are worth more than others.

If that doesn’t make you feel sick too, I think it’s time you asked yourself why.