|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 15:53:52 GMT
Get a sense of proportion Sandy. It might not be a human right to have one but even you know that a questionable criticism of our laws on discrimination is in no way evidence that we have 'no human rights' It is a sense of proportion I seek. The argument runs that there are reasons in history why the human rights of some in the UK should be suspended. All that seems to be said is that there is a current argument why human rights of interlopers should be temporarily suspended as we are finding it difficult to deal with the problem effectively. But no the Human Rights brigade say it must not be so as the human rights are inviolate. Well they are not inviolate as the positive action law clearly displays. There is hypocrisy around. Admit it Sandy you haven't even read the Human Rights Act you're spouting so much crap about have you here have a read (this true version may be somewhat different from what you read in the Daily Express): www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 16:47:42 GMT
Who invented freedom of world movement? If every country allowed everyone and anyone to just row in to their country and claim asylum the world would be a complete and utter mess. The reason we have 'legal' processes of entry in every country is to root out the undesirables, otherwise you will end up as the 'dumping ground'.... ringing any bells yet? We don't have legal processes of entry from all countries though do we? And that is the cause of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 20, 2022 17:12:50 GMT
Who invented freedom of world movement? If every country allowed everyone and anyone to just row in to their country and claim asylum the world would be a complete and utter mess. The reason we have 'legal' processes of entry in every country is to root out the undesirables, otherwise you will end up as the 'dumping ground'.... ringing any bells yet? We don't have legal processes of entry from all countries though do we? And that is the cause of the problem. Don't we?
I see, so migrants or whatever you want to call them, asylum seekers, refugees are free to wander willy-nilly with freedom throughout every country, is that what your are saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 20, 2022 17:25:28 GMT
It is a sense of proportion I seek. The argument runs that there are reasons in history why the human rights of some in the UK should be suspended. All that seems to be said is that there is a current argument why human rights of interlopers should be temporarily suspended as we are finding it difficult to deal with the problem effectively. But no the Human Rights brigade say it must not be so as the human rights are inviolate. Well they are not inviolate as the positive action law clearly displays. There is hypocrisy around. Admit it Sandy you haven't even read the Human Rights Act you're spouting so much crap about have you here have a read (this true version may be somewhat different from what you read in the Daily Express): www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents I am referring to the UN declaration on Human Rights that we have signed up to that is a contract between our government and every individual in the country. Any legislation that allows discrimination is at odds with that declaration irrespective of reasons for that divergence. Our Human Rights act is no different if it allows discrimination. That is exactly the point of the declaration.to prevent such legislation allowing/mandating discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 18:12:56 GMT
We don't have legal processes of entry from all countries though do we? And that is the cause of the problem. Don't we?
I see, so migrants or whatever you want to call them, asylum seekers, refugees are free to wander willy-nilly with freedom throughout every country, is that what your are saying?
I'm saying that there are only safe routes for specific countries. There are no safe routes from anywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 20, 2022 18:18:52 GMT
Don't we?
I see, so migrants or whatever you want to call them, asylum seekers, refugees are free to wander willy-nilly with freedom throughout every country, is that what your are saying?
I'm saying that there are only safe routes for specific countries. There are no safe routes from anywhere else. We need a safe route from France?.. What is the issue with selecting refugees from specific areas? - why do we need to have any route for people from Albania to claim asylum? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 18:34:13 GMT
We need a safe route from France?. I'd say yes, unless we want the dinghies to carry on. What is the issue with selecting refugees from specific areas? - why do we need to have any route for people from Albania to claim asylum? Because our asylum laws don't discriminate like that. We get refugees from places like China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen. If it was down to you, you'd be saying that they are not genuine asylum seekers because they are not from Ukraine, Afghanistan or Hong Kong. Bit of a bizarre way to do things. But it has to work both ways too. In the same way that not everyone from Afghanistan may qualify, being from Albania does not mean that they shouldn't. I totally accept that there are many from Albania who are not genuine asylum seekers. We should assess them and then return them whence they came where that is the case, no issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 20, 2022 18:40:48 GMT
We need a safe route from France?. I'd say yes, unless we want the dinghies to carry on. What is the issue with selecting refugees from specific areas? - why do we need to have any route for people from Albania to claim asylum? Because our asylum laws don't discriminate like that. We get refugees from places like China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen. If it was down to you, you'd be saying that they are not genuine asylum seekers because they are not from Ukraine, Afghanistan or Hong Kong. Bit of a bizarre way to do things. But it has to work both ways too. In the same way that not everyone from Afghanistan may qualify, being from Albania does not mean that they shouldn't.
I totally accept that there are many from Albania who are not genuine asylum seekers. We should assess them and then return them whence they came where that is the case, no issues. So what do we do when they have 'no papers' and we can't prove they are from Albania?
Isn't that making a mockery of the system as a whole?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 18:47:17 GMT
I'd say yes, unless we want the dinghies to carry on. Because our asylum laws don't discriminate like that. We get refugees from places like China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen. If it was down to you, you'd be saying that they are not genuine asylum seekers because they are not from Ukraine, Afghanistan or Hong Kong. Bit of a bizarre way to do things. But it has to work both ways too. In the same way that not everyone from Afghanistan may qualify, being from Albania does not mean that they shouldn't.
I totally accept that there are many from Albania who are not genuine asylum seekers. We should assess them and then return them whence they came where that is the case, no issues. So what do we do when they have 'no papers' and we can't prove they are from Albania?
Isn't that making a mockery of the system as a whole?
Wouldn't that be the same regardless of where they come from? And if we establish safe routes, aren't they MORE likely to have their paperwork? 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 20, 2022 18:53:16 GMT
So what do we do when they have 'no papers' and we can't prove they are from Albania?
Isn't that making a mockery of the system as a whole?
Wouldn't that be the same regardless of where they come from? And if we establish safe routes, aren't they MORE likely to have their paperwork? 😉 HELLO!!!
They are coming from 'France' with no 'Identification'?
How do we know they are not from Albania?
Bloody hell, is the mentality that we are dealing with? LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 20, 2022 18:53:58 GMT
Because our asylum laws don't discriminate like that. We get refugees from places like China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen. If it was down to you, you'd be saying that they are not genuine asylum seekers because they are not from Ukraine, Afghanistan or Hong Kong. Bit of a bizarre way to do things... What's bizarre about it? It's perfectly reasonable not to accept asylum claims from countries that we ajudge to be safe. We do not owe every Tom, Dick & Harry access to this country. We simply don't. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 19:11:39 GMT
So China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen are "safe"?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 20, 2022 19:18:02 GMT
So China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen are "safe"? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 we are talking about the row people from France, not witnessed any row boats from China, South Sudan or Yemen, they are all from F R A N C E .
Get it ... F R A N C E.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 19:24:28 GMT
So China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen are "safe"? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 we are talking about the row people from France, not witnessed any row boats from China, South Sudan or Yemen, they are all from F R A N C E .
Get it ... F R A N C E.
Hang about - didn't you just say that asylum seekers from every country had the right to come here? 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 20, 2022 21:38:35 GMT
It is a sense of proportion I seek. The argument runs that there are reasons in history why the human rights of some in the UK should be suspended. All that seems to be said is that there is a current argument why human rights of interlopers should be temporarily suspended as we are finding it difficult to deal with the problem effectively. But no the Human Rights brigade say it must not be so as the human rights are inviolate. Well they are not inviolate as the positive action law clearly displays. There is hypocrisy around. Admit it Sandy you haven't even read the Human Rights Act you're spouting so much crap about have you here have a read (this true version may be somewhat different from what you read in the Daily Express): www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contentsIt's not the text of the articles which are particularly taxing for the mind, it is their interpretation in case law. You see law is a hierarchy, and this is the top level. The higher the court the more the case law goes into finer and finer points and typically some piece of case law will reference a ton of other cases. I do not think many people understand just how difficult this is to do. It took me a great deal of time trying to suss out the case law on my tax case. Unless you think of everything the other side will come at you with some obscure judgement and play on that. It is very easy to lose if you just ignorantly sail into court and think your argument sounds good. The more you inspect it the more holes you find. It's often difficult to know which way you search will go. I got the right case law in the end, but even that had certain other case law the government lawyer could have spotted which could have created doubt, but fortunately it was not spotted. |
|
