|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 18, 2023 20:11:58 GMT
How many people in this country are going to die at the hands of the 49 intent on attacking us? Without that knowledge nobody can say whether it was worth it How do you know any of the 49 will kill anyone, I said do us harm, there are many ways to do that without killing? They have all been returned and the only way they could stay is to process them. The woman still died a horrible death. We do not but we know that recent asylum seekers have committed murder and have raped and have committed crime. The sufferances and/or deaths of British Citizens were every bit as horrible. We have evidence that allowing asylum seekers in brings risks, just as keeping them out brings risks. You wish teh British people to carry the risk, I wish the small boat people to carry those risks certainly in the short term until such time as a level of control is reached. I think my stance is reasonable and I think yours is not if we are primarily concerned with the welfare of the British people. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 18, 2023 20:15:39 GMT
Of course it is because say the other 49 had landed and three British woman raped and two men murdered would that then be worth it to save one woman? As I said it has to be skewed now to the British people's safety, controlled and then relaxed as per needs. No they were all sent back to their countries of origin. You are somehow justifying the woman's death by a quick bit of whatifery. Don't forget they would need to be processed to be able to stay and the governments intent is to not process them, just return them. I missed this. My point is either the 50 land or none land and you say one woman subsequently dies if we do not allow them all to land. I say if we allow all to land then the other 49 may commit crimes, and we know that has happened. The welfare of the British people comes first. EDIT Is not whatiferry exactly what your question is? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 20:32:14 GMT
Okay. At least accept that we can accept your word as to what the law is or the word of a Lord Justice (Lord's Justice are the highest judges in the land (gormless, you say). Several tedious pages were expended trying to explain to you that this judge wasn't the convention and that the convention was very much clearer than the judge. However, your fantasy filled interpretation of his idiotic judgment is yet another matter. What you are suggesting breaches basic common sense - i.e. your claim implies that the exclusionary dimension of the national borders borders of all signatories has now been effectively dissolved, in that such exclusion now only applies to people who identify themselves / come in through official routes. Clearly that is not the case and multiple nations signed no such document. You are getting over-excited. Yeah, I recall that you failed to convince me. The reason you failed was quite simple: you're wrong; the judge was right. No real surprise there, I suppose; what with him being a Lord Justice and you being just another angry bloke on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 20:36:21 GMT
They are required to report at the first reasonable opportunity. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. If they remain within the control of traffickers and can't report for that reason, then they must report at the first reasonable opportunity after. If they do not, they do not qualify for the protections conferred by the Convention. But where they are working, the employer has both the right and the duty to check they are eligible to work. So in those cases it is easy to determine what is reasonable. If you say so. If they weren't under the control of the traffickers at the time they took up the work, they would have a responsibility to report their presence themselves, regardless of whether the employer also had duties. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 20:48:20 GMT
Several tedious pages were expended trying to explain to you that this judge wasn't the convention and that the convention was very much clearer than the judge. However, your fantasy filled interpretation of his idiotic judgment is yet another matter. What you are suggesting breaches basic common sense - i.e. your claim implies that the exclusionary dimension of the national borders borders of all signatories has now been effectively dissolved, in that such exclusion now only applies to people who identify themselves / come in through official routes. Clearly that is not the case and multiple nations signed no such document. You are getting over-excited. It's almost like dealing with the criminally insane, where their sinister motives are laid bare for all to see. Careful! Monte's almost chewed through his leather restraints. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 18, 2023 21:10:34 GMT
It's almost like dealing with the criminally insane, where their sinister motives are laid bare for all to see. Careful! Monte's almost chewed through his leather restraints. They haven't built a padded cell yet that can hold me. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 18, 2023 21:34:36 GMT
But where they are working, the employer has both the right and the duty to check they are eligible to work. So in those cases it is easy to determine what is reasonable. If you say so. If they weren't under the control of the traffickers at the time they took up the work, they would have a responsibility to report their presence themselves, regardless of whether the employer also had duties. Both have a duty, the immigrant to inform the authorities he is in the country and, if relevant, that he seeks asylum and the employer to make sure an employee can legally work, for that the employee must be registered. So when a premises are raided and immigrants are found, some will scream "asylum" and we, like idiots, allow that to proceed because we know there are plenty of lawyers prepared to take a case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 21:40:55 GMT
How do you know any of the 49 will kill anyone, I said do us harm, there are many ways to do that without killing? They have all been returned and the only way they could stay is to process them. The woman still died a horrible death. We do not but we know that recent asylum seekers have committed murder and have raped and have committed crime. The sufferances and/or deaths of British Citizens were every bit as horrible. We have evidence that allowing asylum seekers in brings risks, just as keeping them out brings risks. You wish teh British people to carry the risk, I wish the small boat people to carry those risks certainly in the short term until such time as a level of control is reached. I think my stance is reasonable and I think yours is not if we are primarily concerned with the welfare of the British people. The British people rejected the EU and the Labour party, including New Labour's attempts to turn the UK into a migrant state (still ongoing). The affected people are willing to vote Conservative, even in old Labour strongholds. If you look at the virtue signalling and the confused Woke mindset you will find that the more you push the more confused they become, until they just repeat the same line only for you to have to go over it again and again. Perhaps I am being harsh when I imply that it's intentional. It could just be a form of extreme indoctrination where rationalism is sidelined for moments of euphoria. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 18, 2023 21:49:13 GMT
In the Boys Book of Godwins's Law vol 2? Don't want to be locked up then don't try and cheat the system, simples. What system? There is virtually no processing of asylum applications. Why do you think people have to risk their lives crossing the channel in leeky dinghies to apply? By 'the system' I meant the treaties set up in the mid last century to give genuine refugees a chance and a fair distribution of the burden Never intended to be used for asylum shopping, never intended to burden the more densely populated countries far from the the persecution locations |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 18, 2023 22:10:16 GMT
What system? There is virtually no processing of asylum applications. Why do you think people have to risk their lives crossing the channel in leeky dinghies to apply? By 'the system' I meant the treaties set up in the mid last century to give genuine refugees a chance and a fair distribution of the burden Never intended to be used for asylum shopping, never intended to burden the more densely populated countries far from the the persecution locations Yes I can remember what were frequently referred to as political refugees back in the forties/fifties. Quite often they would touch down here but en route to the US. Usually they were either one or two individuals usually from Russia. Later there were Hungarians in the mid-fifties but there weren't tens of thousands endlessly arriving. Joe Bugner was one and I had a lad working for me whose dad came over with the Bugners; nice lad but totally useless. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 18, 2023 22:22:05 GMT
So what harm are they going to do? - how can you make a judgement if you don't know what they are going to do? Does it have to be a judgement. We did not find out if she was at risk of life and limb but we sent here back to torture, rape and death. Was it worth it. Don't forget this is the law that our government is trying to push through. Was it worth doing something to protect the British people from attack? - something that we had no means of knowing the outcome. Well then quite possibly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2023 8:27:35 GMT
How do you know any of the 49 will kill anyone, I said do us harm, there are many ways to do that without killing? They have all been returned and the only way they could stay is to process them. The woman still died a horrible death. We do not but we know that recent asylum seekers have committed murder and have raped and have committed crime. The sufferances and/or deaths of British Citizens were every bit as horrible. We have evidence that allowing asylum seekers in brings risks, just as keeping them out brings risks. You wish teh British people to carry the risk, I wish the small boat people to carry those risks certainly in the short term until such time as a level of control is reached. I think my stance is reasonable and I think yours is not if we are primarily concerned with the welfare of the British people. I know we don't know and that is surely a shame. maybe we could process them and find out instead of summarily returning them to a place where their live may be in danger. Of course accepting anyone from any country be it for holidays, work, or sightseeing constitutes a risk, maybe we should close our borders completely but that then would leave the nutters that we have in this country but hey hoe a British criminal is not as bad as a foreign criminal. Your stance maybe quite equitable to you but others have different views, that's what makes us Great. But back to my point. Are you saying that people should be sent back whence they came even if it means torture and death just because, not able to find another route, they came in a small boat? It is highly unlikely and given the statistics that just one person on that boat is genuine but you do not appear to have any problem with sending them all to their, possible, death. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2023 8:32:27 GMT
No they were all sent back to their countries of origin. You are somehow justifying the woman's death by a quick bit of whatifery. Don't forget they would need to be processed to be able to stay and the governments intent is to not process them, just return them. I missed this. My point is either the 50 land or none land and you say one woman subsequently dies if we do not allow them all to land. I say if we allow all to land then the other 49 may commit crimes, and we know that has happened. The welfare of the British people comes first. EDIT Is not whatiferry exactly what your question is? It is not actually whatifery, the government is attempting to enact a law that will lead to such a situation arising and it will be more than one person who has a right to claim asylum. Yes, I have said the 49 may mean us harm but my question was "is it ok to 'assist' the one genuine case to die when being sent back". The better idea would be to process them and send back the 49 and save one life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2023 8:34:23 GMT
Does it have to be a judgement. We did not find out if she was at risk of life and limb but we sent here back to torture, rape and death. Was it worth it. Don't forget this is the law that our government is trying to push through. Was it worth doing something to protect the British people from attack? - something that we had no means of knowing the outcome. Well then quite possibly. I see you are wavering but thanks for an honestish answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 19, 2023 10:00:55 GMT
It’s called changing the goalposts darling . You were struggling with roping in Orwell and you changed the subject. The forum isn’t a court , it’s a debate forum. You incessantly repeating your demand for me to answer your question about dumps in gardens ( to hide your squirming) isn’t how it works darling . I see. So, debating/argumentation techniques used in courts aren't good enough for this place. This place has higher standards. No arguing by analogy here. You won't answer the question because you know it reveals a fatal flaw in the gammon position. And, for the record, I very much doubt you've ever read a book by Orwell. Maybe you're not in a position to judge the appropriateness of the reference to him. Nope. This isn’t a court the UK isn’t a garden . You were asking me to speculate about a situation that you made up in your made up in your head ( some shit about a dump in a neighbours garden)to get out of roping in Orwell to support your Nazi rhetoric. I’ve repeatedly told you this . You are getting rather boring now darling . |
|
