|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 1, 2023 11:30:15 GMT
The same principles apply, as I highlighted with the High Court judgment. Lawyers, activist judges the legacy media attack the government of the day and its asylum policies with the gusto of velociraptors. It's little wonder they're frightened of their own shadows and choose the path of least resistance which is one of masterful inaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 1, 2023 11:34:30 GMT
In respect of the High Court Judgement you refer to, the law is well defined, well publicised and of course was written by the Government Department concerned. Wouldn't they be well advised to act within the law they designed rather than flout it as with the cases you mention. Presumably they value tabloid headlines and acting tough ahead of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 1, 2023 11:49:33 GMT
Perhaps the law itself might be an ass and not fit for purpose? That's a possibility isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 1, 2023 11:56:52 GMT
Its still the law and so should be complied with.
The Government is free to change the law
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 1, 2023 12:00:19 GMT
Isn't it the duty of the government to act within the law?
They have the power through parliament to make changes, but they can't ignore the law, the same as you and me.
And you can't blame the judiciary for upholding the law either. That's the sort of ignorance that I'd expect from the less thinking members of this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 1, 2023 12:04:49 GMT
The fundamental problem with making laws is that liberals insist on including loopholes and exceptions in them to account for awkward boundary cases. The 'destitute' asylum seeker provisions in the aforementioned Act is one, the 'human rights' get-out enabling foreigners to evade deportation is another.
Judges ought to be able to recognise these as flaws in the law and refuse to rule on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 1, 2023 12:20:27 GMT
The Home Office employ and have access to very experienced legal brains to draft laws. Any proposed new laws are then scrutinised in detail by HoC Committees. It is surely reasonable to assume that the law written by the Home Office and approved by the House of Commons reflects the intention at te time of the HoC. The Government should then take the trouble to comply with the laws it wrote!!
You seem to be advocated a system where judges ignore the intentions of the HoC and the law as it is written and instead rule based on what Dan Dare thinks is just. A novel concept.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 1, 2023 12:31:36 GMT
Isn't it the duty of the government to act within the law? They have the power through parliament to make changes, but they can't ignore the law, the same as you and me. And you can't blame the judiciary for upholding the law either. That's the sort of ignorance that I'd expect from the less thinking members of this forum. They can only act within the law where it's feasible.
So you tell us, if there is no place to house illegal migrants where do you suggest the government put them?
It's clear migrants wont settle for what's available, they want instant, and it has to be up to their 'demands'
So the government has to tell the law they have to accept what is available, turning their noses up at barges, marquees, army barracks is all that's on offer, where the fuck does the 'law' think is going to happen ....
We all get kicked out of our houses so they can have them, so there are no breaches of the migrant laws ....give it a rest, the law needs to be told if we can't house them too bad, the law should make it illegal to over populate the UK with foreigners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 1, 2023 12:40:26 GMT
Actually both the laws I mentioned were enacted by Labour governments which placed therein the booby-traps in question, whether by intention or not it's impossible to say at this distance in time.
It's probably unfair to tar the Blairites alone, we observed much of the same process continuing as the Illegal Immigration Bill made its way through the Commons with many sensible provisions being sacrificed on the altar of liberal-progressive sensibilities.
A government which took its responsibilities seriously would not permit legislation to reach the statute book with that many loopholes, exceptions, omissions and anomalies, but then it's been a very long while since the UK had such a government.
It's not as though there aren't enough existing models of good practice in things like asylum management elsewhere in Europe, let alone as far away as Australia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 1, 2023 12:53:26 GMT
The majority of people claiming asylum are subsequently found to be genuinely fleeing persecution, torture or death, Handyman. I agree that those found not to be should be removed. So why do we have a problem. Well compare us to France. Last year they had around 110,000 asylum applicants and made decisions on 120,000 contributing to clearing their (already low) backlog. We had 70,000 applications and made decisions on 17,000. Why is our decision making rate so slow compared to France? Cynics would say that our government enjoys having the asylum accommodation crisis to divert tabloid attention away from its dismal record on everything else. The whole point of the barge - which is likely to cost more per head per night than even hotel accommodation - is to grub for votes from more gullible tabloid readers and their equivalent on TV by stirring up hatred. By the way the money used for hotel stays almost all comes from the aid budget and hence any money saved on hotels would be used for much needed International Development support in poorer countries overseas and not for hospitals, homes etc. These very slow decision times benefit no-one - not the UK public, not the asylum seeker whose lives are in limbo, not the local communities where bored people unable to work are forced to live, not the needy in countries that would otherwise receive the aid. The only who gains is Braverman and Sunak who seek power on the back of human misery. You really are out-of-touch with reality, aren't you.
The latest crossings take the provisional total so far for 2023 to 12,119, which is just seven per cent below the cumulative total of 13,000 for this time last year. A record total of 45,755 migrants crossed the Channel in 2022.
So we know 57,874 ^^ were illegal migrants from FRANCE, so you explain what genuine Torture persecution and death they were facing in France?
Although having said that, if I was living in France the thought of Macron would probably want to make me jump in a dinghy.
We don't know how many of these Alleged Asylum Seekers are genuine at all , give the fact that Legal Eagles that the DM Undercover Journalist were exposed was telling Asylum Seekers to lies to the authorities/ From an article in today Guardian " Three law firms in England accused of wrongdoing in dealing with asylum applications have been shut down by the solicitors’ watchdog. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has also suspended the practising certificates of three solicitors – one from each of the firms that have been shut down. The practices were named in a Daily Mail investigation, which alleged that several individuals working with solicitors firms had been charging thousands of pounds to submit false asylum and human rights claims. An undercover reporter for the newspaper said they had been offered help in obtaining refugee status in the UK, despite having made it clear to several advisers they had no legitimate right to stay. The justice secretary, Alex Chalk, has since written to the SRA demanding that it came down hard on any proven cases of wrongdoing. On Monday, replying to Chalk, Anna Bradley, chair of the SRA board, said that she was “shocked” by the apparent behaviour of the solicitors under scrutiny. She wrote: “We obtained from the Daily Mail recordings and transcripts of conversations with four of the solicitors in question and have reviewed that material. “We have commenced an urgent on-site inspection of two of the firms involved to gather further evidence. Based on the evidence available, we have taken the following urgent action: intervening into three of the firms, this has the effect of suspending from practice the individual solicitors involved and closing the firms.” The solicitors and firms in question are Rashid Khan, from Rashid & Rashid, which is based in Wimbledon, south London, Muhammad Ahmad, from Kingswright solicitors in Birmingham and Muhammad Hayat at Lincoln Lawrence solicitors in Hounslow, west London. Additionally, an order was issued against VP Lingajothy, formerly of Duncan Ellis Solicitors, south London, which means that he cannot work in another solicitor firm without the SRA’s permission. " As I understand this criminal behaviour is under scrutiny and could be just the tip of the iceberg , IMHO how many more bent Legal Eagles are out there ? and how long has it been happening ? weeks ? month ? or years ? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 1, 2023 13:02:53 GMT
It's not even rocket science, we don't need any laws to tell us that any illegal migrants crossing the channel from France are ..... Bogus asylum seekers.
They should not be considered to claim asylum, it's absolutely dumbfounding that solicitors are telling illegal migrants how to beat the system, when it's as clear as the nose on your face, every criminal on a dinghy coming from France should be blocked from legal aid, and given the very basics we have to offer.
Why even one illegal migrant is being considered as a genuine asylum seeker fleeing torture, persecution, death, when they are coming from France, just makes the UK a fucking big world wide laughingstock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 1, 2023 13:21:29 GMT
The EU is even more swamped by them than we are, people are getting very angry IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 1, 2023 13:46:04 GMT
I thought members might be interested to review the full-board arrangements for asylum seekers, sorry that should be ‘Service Users’, who are being accommodated in hotels up and down the country. This is extracted from the standard Asylum Accommodation and Support Contract.
Additionally £9 spending money is provided for each adult and additional funds paid for children and pregnant women.
**********************************************
4.1.4 The Provider shall provide full board service to applicable Service Users:
1. The Provider shall provide a full board service entitled Service Users who are:
a. supported under Section 4 or Section 98 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and
b. accommodation in full board style accommodation without access to facilities for food storage and preparation.
2. The Service shall be provided in a location easily accessible to the Service User and/or within the relevant accommodation within which the Service Users are accommodated.
3. The food provision under the full board service shall include:
a. breakfast;
b. lunch and evening meal, with a choice of at least one hot and one cold selection. At least one vegetarian option shall be provided at each meal;
c. a beverage service with each main meal;
d. a food service for babies and small children with the appropriate foodstuffs. This service shall enable babies and small children to be fed whenever necessary;
e. options which cater for special dietary, cultural or religious requirements (including, without limitation, gluten free and diabetic options where necessary); and
f. additional foodstuffs or meals as required to meet the nutritional needs of Service Users for whom three daily meals may be insufficient.
4. The food service shall meet appropriate nutritional standards for each varied menu and satisfy cultural, religious, health or other specific requirements. The Provider shall also clearly advertise the availability of religious or cultural sensitive meals to relevant Service Users, where appropriate.
5. The Provider shall ensure that each varied menu is validated by a suitably qualified nutritionist or health professional as being appropriate to the dietary needs of Service Users.
6. The full board service shall include additional support items required by Service Users, including:
a. baby care equipment and disposable nappies; and
b. personal toiletries and feminine hygiene products."
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 1, 2023 13:48:35 GMT
I thought members might be interested to review the full-board arrangements for asylum seekers, sorry that should be ‘Service Users’, who are being accommodated in hotels up and down the country. This is extracted from the standard Asylum Accommodation and Support Contract. Additionally £9 spending money is provided for each adult and additional funds paid for children and pregnant women. ********************************************** 4.1.4 The Provider shall provide full board service to applicable Service Users: 1. The Provider shall provide a full board service entitled Service Users who are: a. supported under Section 4 or Section 98 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and b. accommodation in full board style accommodation without access to facilities for food storage and preparation. 2. The Service shall be provided in a location easily accessible to the Service User and/or within the relevant accommodation within which the Service Users are accommodated. 3. The food provision under the full board service shall include: a. breakfast; b. lunch and evening meal, with a choice of at least one hot and one cold selection. At least one vegetarian option shall be provided at each meal; c. a beverage service with each main meal; d. a food service for babies and small children with the appropriate foodstuffs. This service shall enable babies and small children to be fed whenever necessary; e. options which cater for special dietary, cultural or religious requirements (including, without limitation, gluten free and diabetic options where necessary); and f. additional foodstuffs or meals as required to meet the nutritional needs of Service Users for whom three daily meals may be insufficient. 4. The food service shall meet appropriate nutritional standards for each varied menu and satisfy cultural, religious, health or other specific requirements. The Provider shall also clearly advertise the availability of religious or cultural sensitive meals to relevant Service Users, where appropriate. 5. The Provider shall ensure that each varied menu is validated by a suitably qualified nutritionist or health professional as being appropriate to the dietary needs of Service Users. 6. The full board service shall include additional support items required by Service Users, including: a. baby care equipment and disposable nappies; and b. personal toiletries and feminine hygiene products." I wonder why the same law isn't applicable to our very own homeless people. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 1, 2023 13:57:40 GMT
£9 per week - shocking luxury Dan. Surely they could get by on £8.50.....
|
|
