|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 20, 2022 22:06:03 GMT
So China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen are "safe"? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 China is safe. I'd say the big cities in China are actually safer than the same major cities in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 22:15:35 GMT
I think you may be the only one who thinks that. Hence our offer to those in Hong Kong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 22:41:29 GMT
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. How irrelevant. Sandy is pretending we have no human rights in the UK. He's either deluded or being malicious |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 20, 2022 23:01:55 GMT
It'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. How irrelevant. Sandy is pretending we have no human rights in the UK. He's either deluded or being malicious You either have human rights or you do not. Is there a halfway house? If you deny human rights to some then you have no human rights. If a country prides itself on its human rights then there are no exceptions which specifically disadvantage individuals. If you can exclude one then you can exclude any at your whim. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 20, 2022 23:05:25 GMT
It'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. How irrelevant. Sandy is pretending we have no human rights in the UK. He's either deluded or being malicious You get a lot of forum opinion on what people think is OK and what is not under the human rights law. Some even believe claims can be processed in a day or so. No bloody chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 20, 2022 23:20:48 GMT
I think you may be the only one who thinks that. Hence our offer to those in Hong Kong. There are other reasons for that. According to Hong kongers, during colonial times all the plum jobs went to the Brits and as they did there was a lot of financial corruption. Word had it the government had some ideas of doing some audits. If any Hong Kong people were found to have participated in any corrupt activity they would be looking at long prison sentences, and likewise for anything that would prove they were undermining the government. Prior to that the central government had taken a bit of a hand's off approach to Hong Kong, as they saw the value of it as a gateway to the East for Western capital and did not want to rock the apple-cart too much. As the riots started though the central government felt it needed to tighten up a notch or two. You see they tried to honour what Mr Thatcher wanted, even thought they did not have to, but it's like having kids you let out and play and then one day something bad happens as a result of being too liberal. Anyway, there is nothing to worry about living in Hong Kong if you are just being a reasonable law abiding citizen. It's said to have a unique atmosphere to it like nowhere else in the world. It's the two cultures of East and West meet in Hong Kong. What they say is the future of Hong Kong will be where the central government pour money in to modernise it. The high cost of rent is the biggest negative in that place. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 23:43:48 GMT
How irrelevant. Sandy is pretending we have no human rights in the UK. He's either deluded or being malicious You either have human rights or you do not. Is there a halfway house? If you deny human rights to some then you have no human rights. If a country prides itself on its human rights then there are no exceptions which specifically disadvantage individuals. If you can exclude one then you can exclude any at your whim. Bollocks ^ When there are 17 separate human rights in the HRA then any intelligent person knows it is possible to have some people support only a number of them. it ain't all or nothing. I support them all. But as it happens you've pathetically failed to back your assertion that the ability of organisations to in certain circumstances use positive discrimination violate any single one of those human rights. Because your assertion was made up crap that's why. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 21, 2022 7:52:21 GMT
So China, Iran, South Sudan and Yemen are "safe"? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Well you would be surprised at how safe these countries that asylum seekers 'flee' from actually are. Sweden did a survey of their asylum seekers and found that 80% actually returned to these 'dangerous' countries for a holiday after they were granted asylum. It has become such an issue that the German Interior Minister Horst announced the government will be cracking down on Syrians with asylum status who go on holiday back to Syria. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 21, 2022 8:00:10 GMT
So which countries would you be prepared to accept asylum seekers from?
And how would this restriction apply to our reciprocal agreement with Rwanda?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 21, 2022 8:08:20 GMT
my preference is not to do any selection - or have the Rwanda scheme.
I'd like to see Parliament debate each year and set a figure for the amount of asylum seekers to be allowed entry in the following year. Then we tell the UN to select that number from those that are residing in refugee camps scattered around the globe. The only way to be given asylum in the UK is to be selected by the UN - there would be no option to claim individually. Then we help those who really need it - not those who can afford $5000 to pay people smugglers.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 21, 2022 8:28:16 GMT
Whilst I'm not against that principle, I'm not sure that it would stop the dinghies?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 21, 2022 8:47:23 GMT
Whilst I'm not against that principle, I'm not sure that it would stop the dinghies? Well then you treat them like any other illegal immigrant. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 21, 2022 8:47:34 GMT
You either have human rights or you do not. Is there a halfway house? If you deny human rights to some then you have no human rights. If a country prides itself on its human rights then there are no exceptions which specifically disadvantage individuals. If you can exclude one then you can exclude any at your whim. Bollocks ^ When there are 17 separate human rights in the HRA then any intelligent person knows it is possible to have some people support only a number of them. it ain't all or nothing. I support them all. But as it happens you've pathetically failed to back your assertion that the ability of organisations to in certain circumstances use positive discrimination violate any single one of those human rights. Because your assertion was made up crap that's why. I see you are all human rights lawyers now, firstly they are lying to receive those human rights and secondly we are being drawn in by them.So basically you are arguing the case for criminals. Which isn't the first time either. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 21, 2022 9:43:53 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?
Which part of every one who enters the UK, by what ever means, including you. Either when the UK was in the EU, or not. Is subject to passport control. And it is up to the UK authority .. ie the present wankers in Government, who make the law, who allow or do not allow a asylum seeker to be awarded status or not. You do understand but I doubt it. The UK was not in the Schengen area. And asylum or immigration had SFA to do with the EU. I have a better idea. You tell me who is 100% to blame for them wandering in the UK willy nilly. Keir Starmer, the First minister.. Is that what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 12:19:13 GMT
Bollocks ^ When there are 17 separate human rights in the HRA then any intelligent person knows it is possible to have some people support only a number of them. it ain't all or nothing. I support them all. But as it happens you've pathetically failed to back your assertion that the ability of organisations to in certain circumstances use positive discrimination violate any single one of those human rights. Because your assertion was made up crap that's why. I see you are all human rights lawyers now, firstly they are lying to receive those human rights and secondly we are being drawn in by them.So basically you are arguing the case for criminals. Which isn't the first time either. Had you bothered to read you'd have seen I was actually shredding Sandy's deliberately false assertion so you snide little rant and further false assertion is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Do fuck off. |
|
