|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 14, 2023 13:23:53 GMT
If a migrant has the means and the physical strength to travel from Africa, Asia or Eastern Europe then they are not vulnerable. If they travel France then they are not seeking Asylum , they already have it . They are seeking a softer life than France can offer . Many are drowned or come close to drowning in their attempt to acquire asylum which means they are vulnerable or have become vulnerable even if the blame for it at that stage rests with themselves. They are apparently by law, still allowed to claim asylum. They don't have asylum if the are stuck in the English channel in British waters. No amount of 'logical' debate will alter that existing problem, if or when it does, it will no longer be a problem. They had the jeans and physical strength to be in that position . Deliberately putting yourself in danger while trying to illegally enter the UK should not be a mitigating factor. What next? Attempting suicide = instant asylum? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 13:24:07 GMT
Who elected you to express your views? Is that the benchmark we all have to reach in order to express an opinion now? Magrathea and yourself are elected mods, does that mean you can only comment on selected topics?
You are absolutely free to voice your own opinions, whether we agree with them is irrelevant, you do not represent any organization or paid by members of the public, so enjoy your FREEDOM of speech.
We were not elected. We were appointed by the site owner who has not forbidden us from having an opinion. I've worked for the BBC in the past, should I have had no right to free speech at the time? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 13:25:43 GMT
First of all he never called anyone Nazis, that's just a distortion of what he said and secondly he was shown to have not breached the BBC's guidelines which is why he will be back in his job on Saturday night. He was not 'shown' to be anything, he was judged using a very vague standard. My own view is he clearly stepped over a line in terms of appropriateness, However, the view of his bosses at the BBC was that he didn't breach the guidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 14, 2023 13:31:10 GMT
Magrathea and yourself are elected mods, does that mean you can only comment on selected topics?
You are absolutely free to voice your own opinions, whether we agree with them is irrelevant, you do not represent any organization or paid by members of the public, so enjoy your FREEDOM of speech.
We were not elected. We were appointed by the site owner who has not forbidden us from having an opinion. I've worked for the BBC in the past, should I have had no right to free speech at the time? We pay for the BBC we are technically their employers, if they want us to continue to pay their salaries then they must follow a acceptable code of conduct, including being impartial in politics and religion. .. quite simple really. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 13:31:11 GMT
We need two things to stop the boats A proper pathway to claim asylum, and the speeding up of the entire system, including faster screening out of applicants from places such as Albania, who can then be repatriated back. The proposals going through Parliament are doomed to failure, they wont work, the proposals literally shut off the internationally recognised means of claiming asylum, and the proposals make no mention of the process system which is clearly not working properly. Give us an estimate, if you have a 'proper system' to claim asylum in the UK when you are outside the UK how many will that allow to make a claim for asylum and therefore how many will actually make a claim. I would estimate that if the net was worldwide then 100 million would not be an overtly ridiculous number over the next few years. In order to restrict that how would your 'proper system' work? Would it be a case of get to France, or the EU, or Libya or any country with a British Embassy or Legation? No use pooh poohing Braverman's somewhat jaundiced attempts unless there is an alternative suggested. The present free for all is unsustainable so has to be stopped rightly or wrongly. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 13:35:41 GMT
We need two things to stop the boats A proper pathway to claim asylum, and the speeding up of the entire system, including faster screening out of applicants from places such as Albania, who can then be repatriated back. The proposals going through Parliament are doomed to failure, they wont work, the proposals literally shut off the internationally recognised means of claiming asylum, and the proposals make no mention of the process system which is clearly not working properly. They aren't expected or even intended to work. It is nothing more than electioneering. They are calculating that a bit of anti-immigrant rhetoric will attract voters away from the more extreme right wing parties that are likely to split the vote on the right. When it doesn't work because it breaks international law they will just blame ''lefty'' lawyers and human rights agreements in another blatant bit of pandering to the hard right. It's disgusting and exactly the kind of rhetoric Lineker was alluding to. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 13:37:35 GMT
We were not elected. We were appointed by the site owner who has not forbidden us from having an opinion. I've worked for the BBC in the past, should I have had no right to free speech at the time? We pay for the BBC we are technically their employers, if they want us to continue to pay their salaries then they must follow a acceptable code of conduct, including being impartial in politics and religion. .. quite simple really. Then why appoint a Tory stooge as chairman? You have no argument on impartiality. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 14, 2023 13:46:10 GMT
We pay for the BBC we are technically their employers, if they want us to continue to pay their salaries then they must follow a acceptable code of conduct, including being impartial in politics and religion. .. quite simple really. Then why appoint a Tory stooge as chairman? You have no argument on impartiality. How are the BBC going to find someone who does not have any political views or opinions to be chairman of the BBC, the job was open to all political applicants, he was obviously chosen because of suitability. If he'd been Labour then the same would be expected, they must make that perfectly clear as part of the chairman's contract. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2023 14:05:31 GMT
The major economies of Europe are Germany, France and the UK, and both Germany and France take more asylum seekers and refugees than we do.
If we take refugees as a proportion / percentage per population, then the UK is a long way down the list, so the evidence that the flood gates would open is not there.
It kind of reminds me of Nigel Farage when he claimed that a Million Bulgarians were waiting to fly to the UK as soon as the free movement transition period ended .... sensational propoganda, which of course never materialised.
I am no lawyer or legal expert, but logic seems to suggest that if you remove the legal routes to asylum, your going to be in contravention of international law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 14, 2023 14:16:50 GMT
The major economies of Europe are Germany, France and the UK, and both Germany and France take more asylum seekers and refugees than we do. If we take refugees as a proportion / percentage per population, then the UK is a long way down the list, so the evidence that the flood gates would open is not there. It kind of reminds me of Nigel Farage when he claimed that a Million Bulgarians were waiting to fly to the UK as soon as the free movement transition period ended .... sensational propoganda, which of course never materialised. I am no lawyer or legal expert, but logic seems to suggest that if you remove the legal routes to asylum, your going to be in contravention of international law. Doesnt justify the channel crossing free for all , people trafficking and economic migrants . Maybe we should negotiate with the EU and agree to take some migrants from holding centres within the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 14:25:38 GMT
The major economies of Europe are Germany, France and the UK, and both Germany and France take more asylum seekers and refugees than we do. If we take refugees as a proportion / percentage per population, then the UK is a long way down the list, so the evidence that the flood gates would open is not there. It kind of reminds me of Nigel Farage when he claimed that a Million Bulgarians were waiting to fly to the UK as soon as the free movement transition period ended .... sensational propoganda, which of course never materialised. I am no lawyer or legal expert, but logic seems to suggest that if you remove the legal routes to asylum, your going to be in contravention of international law. How much percentage did France or Germany take of Ugandan and Kenyan Asians in the 70s. We were about 0.4%. I think both were very small fractions of bugger all. If you quote Farage properly, I know that grates, but he said that number would have the right to come to the UK. What legal route would you prefer as you seem unable to put figures on any proposal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2023 15:02:25 GMT
For your information sandypine, most of the East African Asians ( from Uganda and Kenya ) who were expelled actually held British passports, and they had the right to come here.
The way in which an asylum seeker applies for asylum is to present themselves to the authorities on the soil or territory of the country which they are to apply for asylum.
Let me make just one suggestion
How about the Sovereign Base Area of Cyprus, bang in the middle of the Mediterranean, but far enough away from the UK
I mean its not really rocket science is it, refugees have a legal right to apply for asylum to the UK, but we are an island, so how do they apply. ?
No, I do not want hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers to come here, or to be swamped, and I do not believe that would happen. I also believe that many asylum seekers, if processed properly and quickly, would be repatriated to the safe countries from which they have come from.
But the bottom line here is that genuine people in distress, needing safe santuary, should not be turned away, and should have a legal route to enable our authorities to consider their case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 15:09:09 GMT
For your information sandypine, most of the East African Asians ( from Uganda and Kenya ) who were expelled actually held British passports, and they had the right to come here. The way in which an asylum seeker applies for asylum is to present themselves to the authorities on the soil or territory of the country which they are to apply for asylum. Let me make just one suggestion How about the Sovereign Base Area of Cyprus, bang in the middle of the Mediterranean, but far enough away from the UK I mean its not really rocket science is it, refugees have a legal right to apply for asylum to the UK, but we are an island, so how do they apply. No, I do not want hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers to come here, or to be swamped, and I do not believe that would happen. I also believe that many asylum seekers, if processed properly and quickly, would be repatriated to the safe countries from which they have come from. But the bottom line here is that genuine people in distress, needing safe santuary, should not be turned away, and should have a legal route to enable our authorities to consider their case. Nor should they be labelled as criminals or invaders for attempting to claim asylum. They should be processed according to international law which is why the current proposals are outside the law and doomed to fail. They were never intended to succeed though, they are just intended to win votes from the far right. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 15:27:07 GMT
For your information sandypine, most of the East African Asians ( from Uganda and Kenya ) who were expelled actually held British passports, and they had the right to come here. The way in which an asylum seeker applies for asylum is to present themselves to the authorities on the soil or territory of the country which they are to apply for asylum. Let me make just one suggestion How about the Sovereign Base Area of Cyprus, bang in the middle of the Mediterranean, but far enough away from the UK I mean its not really rocket science is it, refugees have a legal right to apply for asylum to the UK, but we are an island, so how do they apply. No, I do not want hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers to come here, or to be swamped, and I do not believe that would happen. I also believe that many asylum seekers, if processed properly and quickly, would be repatriated to the safe countries from which they have come from. But the bottom line here is that genuine people in distress, needing safe santuary, should not be turned away, and should have a legal route to enable our authorities to consider their case. Not quite right. They held passports but the 62 act removed the right of passport holders to settle unless specific conditions were met, some Kenyan and Ugandan Asians had British citizenship and availed themselves of this facility until restricted by the 68 and 71 acts. It was quite complicated at the time and remember it was a Labour government that passed the 68 act and it was popular with the electorate. The bottom line is the welfare and protection of the British populace and that is the principle duty of the government. If that results in safety being denied to real asylum seekers then that is the fault of those who are openly abusing the system. It may be better that ten false claims are allowed than one true claim to go awry however we spent at least ten million protecting Abu Quatada and his rights, can we afford it for the 80,000 (you do the maths but it is a lot of money) so far and the potential of many many more that you will not put a number on other than to say it will not last. What is going to stop it for most people Britain in hotels is far better than what they currently have. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 15:38:41 GMT
For your information sandypine, most of the East African Asians ( from Uganda and Kenya ) who were expelled actually held British passports, and they had the right to come here. The way in which an asylum seeker applies for asylum is to present themselves to the authorities on the soil or territory of the country which they are to apply for asylum. Let me make just one suggestion How about the Sovereign Base Area of Cyprus, bang in the middle of the Mediterranean, but far enough away from the UK I mean its not really rocket science is it, refugees have a legal right to apply for asylum to the UK, but we are an island, so how do they apply. No, I do not want hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers to come here, or to be swamped, and I do not believe that would happen. I also believe that many asylum seekers, if processed properly and quickly, would be repatriated to the safe countries from which they have come from. But the bottom line here is that genuine people in distress, needing safe santuary, should not be turned away, and should have a legal route to enable our authorities to consider their case. Nor should they be labelled as criminals or invaders for attempting to claim asylum. They should be processed according to international law which is why the current proposals are outside the law and doomed to fail. They were never intended to succeed though, they are just intended to win votes from the far right. But they are criminals by crossing international borders between safe countries. They have an obligation to obey the law in any safe country they find themselves, they are not exempt. If they have arrived in Italy and crossed into France they are involved in criminal action and travel in Schengen with no visa and no right to do so. The French police can seek to have identities checked but seem to refrain from doing so. It is an excellent business model for France, we give them loads of cash, the migrants spend money in France and then bugger off to UK where we also give them loads of cash. I agree on one point though, it does seem to be a move to further kick the can down the road and pass the blame on failure to Labour and to lefty lawyers and does not appear to be a genuine attempt to bring a solution to the problem. If they do not solve it then there is no way the centre right will vote for them let alone the far right and to be honest there are many on the left who wish it to be resolved so that the influx is much curtailed |
|
