|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 8, 2023 10:48:54 GMT
All "legal sharks" can do Wapentake is ensure Government acts within the law. Frankly the Government should be doing that anyway. It is shameful how casually they treat the law. If the Government doesn't respect the law and attempt to stay comfortably within it, why should a working class kid on a council estate? Why do you keep repeating kids on a council estate that’s the odd reply,what is shameful are legal sharks breaking the law,people smugglers and people trying to entwine this with brexit as though the eu have some high moral ground and that our departure is the cause of all these ills. If "legal sharks" break the law, they deserve to be punished in the normal way. Same goes for Government. Brexit is not relevant (and not mentioned by me) except in that we gave up the rights we did hold under the Dublin 2 agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 8, 2023 10:50:14 GMT
It's rather odd that someone who arrives in a dinghy is suddenly terrified of the water - wonder why this fear never materialized on the beach in Calais.. It must be very frightening crossing the channel in a small boat which is always at risk of capsizing. A 300 room barge in Portland Harbour is not at risk of capsizing..  |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 10:53:59 GMT
Asylum seekers are refugees Not in UK law they are not. S.94 of the 1999 Act defines an 'asylum seeker' as follows:
"asylum-seeker” means a person who is not under 18 and has made a claim for asylum which has been recorded by the Secretary of State but which has not been determined;
Under international law they are which all those bashing the UK constantly refere to. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 8, 2023 10:59:24 GMT
It must be very frightening crossing the channel in a small boat which is always at risk of capsizing. A 300 room barge in Portland Harbour is not at risk of capsizing.. Perhaps if it was towed out to sea, in a storm? Just thinking aloud... |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 8, 2023 11:02:18 GMT
Then they need to do their homework if by international law you mean the Convention on Refugees. The term 'asylum seeker' does not appear anywhere within the Convention or its protocols.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 11:13:09 GMT
Then they need to do their homework if by international law you mean the Convention on Refugees. The term 'asylum seeker' does not appear anywhere within the Convention or its protocols. Yes it does and I already posted |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 8, 2023 11:21:39 GMT
Can you cite the page or article number?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 8, 2023 11:24:34 GMT
all the illegals coming out of the woodwork to claim their £1600 a month untaxed unmeanstested basic income and free legal assistance to fight what should be done to the freeloaders There are a million 'asylum seekers' in Wales? Why are the leaving a safe country, England, to get to Wales? oh just piss off. You know exactly what i’m talking about. Wankford is looking to hand out free money equating to double the maximum old age pension and all the defence legal briefs you need to anyone who makes it across the severn bridge as part of his fucking insane nation of sanctuary plans. And if that doesn’t bring EVERY fucking illegal who’s ever jumped in a truck hopped in a boat or swam it to come and vote labour which he has enabled the bastards to do unlike england which has at least still got some sense …. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 8, 2023 11:45:42 GMT
At the time I posted it was reported in the media that only two people has boarded the Barge and that some had refused to go on board, later in the day only fifteen more boarded, it was also reported that Lawyers had intervened to stop some boarding, no kidding it has been in the media for ages that the Government wants to place 500 Alleged Asylum Seekers on board, a fact that you have only discovered now , outstanding there is hope for you yet. So you jumped on that number to sensationalise the fact but did not correct it when you found out. If it walks and talks like a Tory...... Wrong guess yet again |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 8, 2023 11:46:38 GMT
There are a million 'asylum seekers' in Wales? Why are the leaving a safe country, England, to get to Wales? oh just piss off. You know exactly what i’m talking about. Wankford is looking to hand out free money equating to double the maximum old age pension and all the defence legal briefs you need to anyone who makes it across the severn bridge as part of his fucking insane nation of sanctuary plans. And if that doesn’t bring EVERY fucking illegal who’s ever jumped in a truck hopped in a boat or swam it to come and vote labour which he has enabled the bastards to do unlike england which has at least still got some sense …. Reminds me any news on Drakefords rapist son , they've managed to keep that quiet. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 8, 2023 11:51:55 GMT
It's rather odd that someone who arrives in a dinghy is suddenly terrified of the water - wonder why this fear never materialized on the beach in Calais.. Or crossing the Med |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 11:55:46 GMT
Can you cite the page or article number? Page 5 second paragraph says this which is one good reason the international convention needs an overhaul. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Aug 8, 2023 12:22:30 GMT
Then they need to do their homework if by international law you mean the Convention on Refugees. The term 'asylum seeker' does not appear anywhere within the Convention or its protocols. That appears to be correct.
Though, for example, the CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES, "recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries".
It also uses the term "seeking of asylum" hundreds of times throughout the document. Could the term 'asylum seeker' have been thought of as sloppy use of language or too colloquial for a formal document...?
www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.2_108.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 12:28:10 GMT
Then they need to do their homework if by international law you mean the Convention on Refugees. The term 'asylum seeker' does not appear anywhere within the Convention or its protocols. That appears to be correct.
Though, for example, the CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES, "recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries".
It also uses the term "seeking of asylum" hundreds of times throughout the document. Could the term 'asylum seeker' have been thought of as sloppy use of language or too colloquial for a formal document...?
www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.2_108.pdfOr could it be pedantry? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Aug 8, 2023 12:35:35 GMT
Could be but, as the text was devised in 1951 and added to in 1961, the drafters are more likely to have been influenced by Quiller-Couch than by Fowler... |
|
