|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 4, 2023 13:57:39 GMT
But in the end, I have no effing idea what it is exactly thomas that you are attempting to say or prove ? I personaly do not have a British passport, so how do you propose that I might prove that I am in fact "British" ? If, as you say, a birth certificate is not proof of nationality, then what is ? Would you not say that proof that you were born in England or Scotland would go Some Way to pointing that you are PROBABLY British. ? The same would apply to a Jamican born between 1948 and 1962, if they can prove that they were born in Jamaica, would that go some way to indicating they are most likely British. ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for Freedom Of Movement, it was not a Labour policy ( as you wrongly suggest ), it was contained within The Maastricht Treaty, and signed by two Ministers of John Majors Conservative government. So the influx of Eastern Europeans COULD OF been delayed by up to 5 years, but then what ? For me personally, I agree with Freedom Of Movement, I have no problem with it, I supported it, but it had absolutely nothing to do with a Labour government. Are you attepting to defend what the Tory government did to these people who were wrongly deported ? What about your own SNP government ?, no political party supports Freedom Of Movement more than the SNP quite clearly im saying a birth certificate is proof of nationality , just not uk nationality as the uk doesnt issue birth certificates as it isnt a nation , but multi nation. So while in part agreeing with you earlier , your argument falls flat on its face at the first hurdle. Like i said , i wouldnt want you representing me at border control.
you are what we would call a citizen of england and wales by your birth certificate.
see this is why no one likes labour , or its supporters , because of their lies and poor attempts at sophistry. I diditnsay FOM was labour policy.......i said labour abused FOM and allowed mass uncontrolled immigration fro meastern europe which pissed off many in the uk , especially the red wall labour voters , and helped give ukip a political hand up.
sure there are many for or against FOM who absolutely would not trust the labour party over immigration. As you repeatedly prove , with your lies , outright denial of new labours migration failure , and inept handling of eastern european nations joining the EU and their citizens flooding west to the uk , when most other EU nations put a block on it.
No. Im saying labour are no better , and demonstrably worse .
What about them? Are you unaware immigration and border control is a reserved matter? I tell you sid , for someone who comes on here claiming to l.ove your yookay , you dont half know feck all about it. As ever with labour cult members , its nothing more than tory bad in every post , without an original thought or ounce of substance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Aug 4, 2023 20:47:22 GMT
Let me make this clear
Having a legal right to come to the UK, they neither needed nor were given any documents upon entry to the UK, nor following changes in immigration laws in the early 1970s. Many worked or attended schools in the UK without any official documentary record of their having done so, other than the same records as any UK-born citizen.
Once again - The Windrush Scandal was 100% the fault of the British government
Writing in big letters doesnt improve your case Fiddler .In fact you are completely wrong . The Immigrants from the West indies were all given landing slips which would go on to support immigration status claims in years to come . As I have pointed out but you refuse to accept is that anyone entering the UK whether they have a right to be here or not has always needed to prove their identity and Nationality . The landing slip was at the time accepted as proof of arrival . It was the destruction of those slips that caused the windrush problems |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2023 22:51:04 GMT
And does Dogburger have a link or evidence to what he / she states (above) ?
NO I dont think so
Another load of Bull Shit
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Aug 5, 2023 20:29:24 GMT
And does Dogburger have a link or evidence to what he / she states (above) ? NO I dont think so Another load of Bull Shit Well I thought I already had in previous posts that you chose to ignore . But if government records of debate in parliament isnt enough maybe an article from the left wing Bible might push you in the direction of admitting you have been missed informed www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-stafferEven the horrible racist Lammy has got this one right ''The Home office destroyed the landing cards also known as registration slips which proved the persons date of entry but did not provide reliable evidence relating to ongoing residence in the UK or immigration status .'' This could be proved by further registration leading to continuous Nat insurance and tax records . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2023 9:30:59 GMT
And does Dogburger have a link or evidence to what he / she states (above) ? NO I dont think so Another load of Bull Shit Well I thought I already had in previous posts that you chose to ignore . But if government records of debate in parliament isnt enough maybe an article from the left wing Bible might push you in the direction of admitting you have been missed informed www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-stafferEven the horrible racist Lammy has got this one right ''The Home office destroyed the landing cards also known as registration slips which proved the persons date of entry but did not provide reliable evidence relating to ongoing residence in the UK or immigration status .'' This could be proved by further registration leading to continuous Nat insurance and tax records . The suggestion is that the migrants themselves had to register, or had to file papers to prove to authorities in this country that they were British subjects, born in a British colony. That suggestion is not true - none of the arrivals from the Caribbean had to do anything, and this has been the argument. The Windrush Scandal was wholly ant totaly the fault of the British government, there can be no blame put upon the migrants. All your link proves, is that it further makes our government ( that of David Cameron when Theressa May was Home Secretary ) GUILTY of further exacerbating the situation and making it worse, but it does not show that the migrants themselves did anything wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 6, 2023 9:33:27 GMT
Well I thought I already had in previous posts that you chose to ignore . But if government records of debate in parliament isnt enough maybe an article from the left wing Bible might push you in the direction of admitting you have been missed informed www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-stafferEven the horrible racist Lammy has got this one right ''The Home office destroyed the landing cards also known as registration slips which proved the persons date of entry but did not provide reliable evidence relating to ongoing residence in the UK or immigration status .'' This could be proved by further registration leading to continuous Nat insurance and tax records . The suggestion is that the migrants themselves had to register, or had to file papers to prove to authorities in this country that they were British subjects, born in a British colony. That suggestion is not true - none of the arrivals from the Caribbean had to do anything, and this has been the argument. The Windrush Scandal was wholly ant totaly the fault of the British government, there can be no blame put upon the migrants. All your link proves, is that it further makes our government ( that of David Cameron when Theressa May was Home Secretary ) GUILTY of further exacerbating the situation and making it worse, but it does not show that the migrants themselves did anything wrong. Yet it seems if you had bothered reading what some of their descendants have said here, you are talking complete hogwash.I know its another of those thoroughly annoying habits, I can speak and listen and retain information. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 6, 2023 11:46:45 GMT
Well I thought I already had in previous posts that you chose to ignore . But if government records of debate in parliament isnt enough maybe an article from the left wing Bible might push you in the direction of admitting you have been missed informed www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-stafferEven the horrible racist Lammy has got this one right ''The Home office destroyed the landing cards also known as registration slips which proved the persons date of entry but did not provide reliable evidence relating to ongoing residence in the UK or immigration status .'' This could be proved by further registration leading to continuous Nat insurance and tax records . The suggestion is that the migrants themselves had to register, or had to file papers to prove to authorities in this country that they were British subjects, born in a British colony. That suggestion is not true - none of the arrivals from the Caribbean had to do anything, and this has been the argument. The Windrush Scandal was wholly ant totaly the fault of the British government, there can be no blame put upon the migrants. All your link proves, is that it further makes our government ( that of David Cameron when Theressa May was Home Secretary ) GUILTY of further exacerbating the situation and making it worse, but it does not show that the migrants themselves did anything wrong. while sid virtue signals about windrush and immigrants , meanwhile over at labour party hq .........
Labour would use barges to temporarily house asylum seekers, says Stephen Kinnock
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2023 15:03:28 GMT
The suggestion is that the migrants themselves had to register, or had to file papers to prove to authorities in this country that they were British subjects, born in a British colony. That suggestion is not true - none of the arrivals from the Caribbean had to do anything, and this has been the argument. The Windrush Scandal was wholly ant totaly the fault of the British government, there can be no blame put upon the migrants. All your link proves, is that it further makes our government ( that of David Cameron when Theressa May was Home Secretary ) GUILTY of further exacerbating the situation and making it worse, but it does not show that the migrants themselves did anything wrong. while sid virtue signals about windrush and immigrants , meanwhile over at labour party hq .........
Labour would use barges to temporarily house asylum seekers, says Stephen Kinnock
I have absolutely no problem what so ever with barges been used to house Asylum Seekers, and you will not find any of my posts where I do object to their use. However, what I do object to is the FACT that the barge about to be used, would not be allowed to to house 500 prisoners, hotel guests or students because it breeches fire regulations. The government have changed the law so that Fire Regulations do not apply to Asylum Seekers, and I find that morally unacepptable - and indefensible. But more to the point, the topic is specifically about The Windrush Scandal ( Not Asylum Seekers ), and I stick to my assertion, which some posters have challenged. No person from any British colony was required to do anything, they were not required to register, fill in papers or prove they had the right to be here. STICK TO THE TOPIC |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 6, 2023 16:07:40 GMT
I have absolutely no problem what so ever with barges been used to house Asylum Seekers, and you will not find any of my posts where I do object to their use. However, what I do object to is the FACT that the barge about to be used, would not be allowed to to house 500 prisoners, hotel guests or students because it breeches fire regulations. The government have changed the law so that Fire Regulations do not apply to Asylum Seekers, and I find that morally unacepptable - and indefensible. But more to the point, the topic is specifically about The Windrush Scandal ( Not Asylum Seekers ), and I stick to my assertion, which some posters have challenged. No person from any British colony was required to do anything, they were not required to register, fill in papers or prove they had the right to be here. STICK TO THE TOPIC The so called 'barge' is far more comfortable and well appointed than any barrack accommodation I ever experienced, and we had to pay for the privilage of living in sub standard barracks. And they are not refugees or asylum seekers or economic migrants. They are criminals. Unless of course you are of the opinion that it's perfectly legal to pay a people smuggler to get you from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2023 16:56:11 GMT
I have absolutely no problem what so ever with barges been used to house Asylum Seekers, and you will not find any of my posts where I do object to their use. However, what I do object to is the FACT that the barge about to be used, would not be allowed to to house 500 prisoners, hotel guests or students because it breeches fire regulations. The government have changed the law so that Fire Regulations do not apply to Asylum Seekers, and I find that morally unacepptable - and indefensible. But more to the point, the topic is specifically about The Windrush Scandal ( Not Asylum Seekers ), and I stick to my assertion, which some posters have challenged. No person from any British colony was required to do anything, they were not required to register, fill in papers or prove they had the right to be here. STICK TO THE TOPIC The so called 'barge' is far more comfortable and well appointed than any barrack accommodation I ever experienced, and we had to pay for the privilage of living in sub standard barracks. And they are not refugees or asylum seekers or economic migrants. They are criminals. Unless of course you are of the opinion that it's perfectly legal to pay a people smuggler to get you from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B'. Any Barracks which you stayed in, and which were the property of the British Army, British government or Ministry Of Defence HAD TO comply with the same fire regulations as applicable to any other building. Whether they are refugees, asylum seekers, criminals or economic migrants, they are all human beings, first and foremost. To say that normal fire safety standards should not apply to these people is a moral disgrace, its like saying that they are inhuman, and do not deserve safe accommodation. Also - as the Fire Brigade Union has correctly pointed out to the government, the breeches of Fire Safety Regulations not only potentially puts asylum seekers lives at risk, but also the lives of firemen. You would think that the government would want to learn from the Grenfell Tower Disaster ... but no |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 6, 2023 17:10:09 GMT
The so called 'barge' is far more comfortable and well appointed than any barrack accommodation I ever experienced, and we had to pay for the privilage of living in sub standard barracks. And they are not refugees or asylum seekers or economic migrants. They are criminals. Unless of course you are of the opinion that it's perfectly legal to pay a people smuggler to get you from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B'. Any Barracks which you stayed in, and which were the property of the British Army, British government or Ministry Of Defence HAD TO comply with the same fire regulations as applicable to any other building. Whether they are refugees, asylum seekers, criminals or economic migrants, they are all human beings, first and foremost. To say that normal fire safety standards should not apply to these people is a moral disgrace, its like saying that they are inhuman, and do not deserve safe accommodation. Also - as the Fire Brigade Union has correctly pointed out to the government, the breeches of Fire Safety Regulations not only potentially puts asylum seekers lives at risk, but also the lives of firemen. You would think that the government would want to learn from the Grenfell Tower Disaster ... but no I'm afraid Sidney, you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect few will be surprised. Most of the barrack and married quarter accommodation I lived in was not owned by British Army, British government or Ministry Of Defence. The rest of your post is little more than simpering left wing drivel which again, was to be expected. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 6, 2023 17:19:49 GMT
The so called 'barge' is far more comfortable and well appointed than any barrack accommodation I ever experienced, and we had to pay for the privilage of living in sub standard barracks. And they are not refugees or asylum seekers or economic migrants. They are criminals. Unless of course you are of the opinion that it's perfectly legal to pay a people smuggler to get you from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B'. Any Barracks which you stayed in, and which were the property of the British Army, British government or Ministry Of Defence HAD TO comply with the same fire regulations as applicable to any other building. That is untrue.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2023 17:34:33 GMT
ALL building in the United Kingdom, no matter who owned them had to comply with the same Fire Regulations, and that included ALL barracks, prisons, homes, public buildings, schools, public halls, churches or shops. There was no exceptions.
Overseas - I very much doubt that any barracks in Germany or elsewhere did not either belong to the Ministry of Defence or were not leased by the Ministry of Defence, and I would be very highly suprised if the Ministry did not expect such buildings to match British minimum fire regulations.
Either way the matter is irelevant - its still wholly unacceptable to waive standard Fire Regulation rules, simply because these people are "Asylum Seekers" or whatever they are - its wrong, and it also potentially puts fire fighters lives at risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 6, 2023 17:40:43 GMT
ALL building in the United Kingdom, no matter who owned them had to comply with the same Fire Regulations, and that included ALL barracks, prisons, homes, public buildings, schools, public halls, churches or shops. There was no exceptions. Overseas - I very much doubt that any barracks in Germany or elsewhere did not either belong to the Ministry of Defence or were not leased by the Ministry of Defence, and I would be very highly suprised if the Ministry did not expect such buildings to match British minimum fire regulations. Either way the matter is irelevant - its still wholly unacceptable to waive standard Fire Regulation rules, simply because these people are "Asylum Seekers" or whatever they are - its wrong, and it also potentially puts fire fighters lives at risk. Total bollocks. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 6, 2023 21:21:26 GMT
ALL building in the United Kingdom, no matter who owned them had to comply with the same Fire Regulations, and that included ALL barracks, prisons, homes, public buildings, schools, public halls, churches or shops. There was no exceptions. Believe that if you wish Sid..  |
|
