|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 10, 2023 16:31:00 GMT
No, my reasoning is based on the fact that legislation made 70 years ago in the shadow of WW2, is 'obviously' not fit for purpose today. A bit like the second ammendment Red. It doesn't keep up with the present timeframe Do you believe that an updated convention would stop the UK being a source of asylum for refugees? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 16:33:01 GMT
A bit like the second ammendment Red. It doesn't keep up with the present timeframe Do you believe that an updated convention would stop the UK being a source of asylum for refugees? Do you beleive your side have the guts to not be virtual signalling arseholes? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 10, 2023 16:36:42 GMT
Do you believe that an updated convention would stop the UK being a source of asylum for refugees? Do you beleive your side have the guts to not be virtual signalling arseholes? Not really a constructive reply. I'd also suggest avoiding using "sides" as most things are not black and white, but shades of grey. By trying to box everyone together you actually miss what they are saying. Ill try again. Do you believe that an updated convention would stop the UK being a source of asylum for refugees? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 16:39:30 GMT
Do you beleive your side have the guts to not be virtual signalling arseholes? I'd also suggest avoiding using "sides" as most things are not black and white, but shades of grey. By trying to box everyone together you actually miss what they are saying. Ill try again. Do you believe that an updated convention would stop the UK being a source of asylum for refugees? Yourside are reknowned for it.
Do you beleive the second ammendment is now valid when it was written when only muzzle loading muskets were in existence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 10, 2023 16:44:20 GMT
A bit like the second ammendment Red. It doesn't keep up with the present timeframe Do you believe that an updated convention would stop the UK being a source of asylum for refugees? Do you believe that countries not covered by the ECHR do not take in asylum seekers? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 10, 2023 16:46:57 GMT
Not really a constructive reply. I'd also suggest avoiding using "sides" as most things are not black and white, but shades of grey. By trying to box everyone together you actually miss what they are saying. Ill try again. Do you believe that an updated convention would stop the UK being a source of asylum for refugees? Yourside are reknowned for it.
Do you beleive the second ammendment is now valid when it was written when only muzzle loading muskets were in existence?
The reason the UK still has medieval laws, especially those concerning slavery, which a lot of these asylum seekers are being told to abuse by the blood sucking human rights lawyers, is because the EU stifled our laws.
We had to abide and obey EU laws for over 46 years, unable to update the laws to modern day, so now because we were shackled and bound by the EU for so long we now having to unravel our own mess caused by the EU.
CUT TIES WITH EU laws and start updating our own, and you do know if Starmer and Labour win the next General Election our UK laws will be further bound and gagged and ruled by the EU.
TAKE YOUR CHOICE.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 10, 2023 16:48:58 GMT
Is anyone within the ECHR looking to re-write its rules?
Just wondered if the rest of Europe think its fit for purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 10, 2023 16:50:54 GMT
Flip, I forgot you can't read. Zany wrote: Either way are you agreeing with Jonsky that refugees must by law seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Dan Dare wrote: No, but since January 2021 asylum claims can be deemed inadmissible if the claimant has a demonstrable connection to a safe country. There, I've highlighted the important words for you to help. The impotant thing is that you know jackshit on the subject just the same as your lack of knowledge on the supposed global warning bullshit. The important thing is you were wrong and wrong again. But so lacking in confidence you can't admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 16:53:51 GMT
The impotant thing is that you know jackshit on the subject just the same as your lack of knowledge on the supposed global warning bullshit. The important thing is you were wrong and wrong again. But so lacking in confidence you can't admit it. But I am not wrong am I? Maybe you should try a spoonfull of your own illthought out medicine....You prattle on regardless of the overwhelming evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 16:56:26 GMT
Tory row over call to quit human rights treaty as small boats numbers top 100,000 more The Independent The Independent Tory row over call to quit human rights treaty as small boats numbers top 100,000 Story by Kate Devlin • 1h Migrant Channel crossing incidents Migrant Channel crossing incidents © PA Wire Rishi Sunak is facing another damaging rift in his party over calls for the UK to quit a key human rightsv treaty as the number of people crossing the channel on small boats topped 100,000. Senior figures within the party - including cabinet ministers – want the Conservatives to campaign to leave the the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR ) at the next election – if flights to Rwanda remain grounded. There is growing frustration that the government’s flagship plan to stop thousands arriving in the UK on dangerous small boats crossings have been stalled by legal challenges. Immigration minister Robert Jenrick hinted at quitting the ECHR on Tuesday, saying ministers would do “whatever is necessary ultimately to defend our borders and to bring order to our asylum system."
But former Tory leadership contender David Davis hit out at the plan, suggesting those advocating it as a solution did not understand the problem. He tweeted: “Calls to leave the ECHR are from those who clearly do not understand the basis of the problem” above a news article featuring a prominent photo of the home secretary Suella Braverman.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 10, 2023 16:58:40 GMT
The important thing is you were wrong and wrong again. But so lacking in confidence you can't admit it. But I am not wrong am I? Maybe you should try a spoonfull of your own illthought out medicine....You prattle on regardless of the overwhelming evidence. Yes you are wrong. You said Dan agreed with you. He didn't. Even you must be able to read that well. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 10, 2023 16:59:07 GMT
Anti slavery rules are antiquated and not fit for purpose? Pillock. At least he has a talent for something , he has it off to a T |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 17:00:17 GMT
But I am not wrong am I? Maybe you should try a spoonfull of your own illthought out medicine....You prattle on regardless of the overwhelming evidence. Yes you are wrong. You said Dan agreed with you. He didn't. Even you must be able to read that well. I can read the FACT that your side haven't a bloody clue and are just bleading heart virtual signallers. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 17:03:43 GMT
Maybe the bleading hearts would like to point out the women and children in this pic of this dross running for their lives from war torn frogland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 10, 2023 17:04:42 GMT
Is anyone within the ECHR looking to re-write its rules? Just wondered if the rest of Europe think its fit for purpose. Does it matter? - the ECHR may suit some foreign countries but that doesn't mean it will suit the specific circumstances of every country. |
|
