More Tory lies

[Japan Jambo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Yeah, they're not illegal.

It's internationally understood that if, for example, you don't have a passport, you can't be expected to go through normal channels.

 

👍 Guess when the narrative is constantly about illegal immigrants that wee nuance gets lost in the telling!

[Unknown user]

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

 

https://www.levinslaw.co.uk/dinghies-in-the-channel-illegal-entrants-and-immigration-offences/

 

 

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

 

https://www.levinslaw.co.uk/dinghies-in-the-channel-illegal-entrants-and-immigration-offences/

 

 

So not those coming on the boats from France ? 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Japan Jambo said:

 

👍 Guess when the narrative is constantly about illegal immigrants that wee nuance gets lost in the telling!

It's complicated but it's the international thing we're signed up to. Although it's termed illegal entry, it doesn't necessarily make you an illegal entrant.

[Unknown user]

Just now, Dazo said:

So not those coming on the boats from France ? 

Oh I don't know them, do you?

[Dazo]

Just now, Smithee said:

Oh I don't know them, do you?

Well I assume France didn’t threaten their life or freedom. It was a genuine  question as I’d always considered those passing through several countries to cross the channel as illegal. 

[Japan Jambo]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

So not those coming on the boats from France ? 

 

The point being that they weren't being persecuted in France so had no reason to flee from there and should of applied for sanctuary in France itself?

[Dazo]

Just now, Japan Jambo said:

 

The point being that they weren't being persecuted in France so had no reason to flee from there and should of applied for sanctuary in France itself?

Exactly that. Thought it was a fair question for someone who appeared knowledgeable  🙄

[The Mighty Thor]

4 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Well I assume France didn’t threaten their life or freedom. It was a genuine  question as I’d always considered those passing through several countries to cross the channel as illegal. 

 

3 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

The point being that they weren't being persecuted in France so had no reason to flee from there and should of applied for sanctuary in France itself?

 

The 1951 Refugee Convention is what you need boys. It busts the oft peddled myth you're both espousing. 

 

Guess who was at the forefront of drafting it? The UK. 

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

The point being that they weren't being persecuted in France so had no reason to flee from there and should of applied for sanctuary in France itself?

 

But they are people keen to come and work hard. 

 

Growth Growth Growth. 

[Mikey1874]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

 

 

The 1951 Refugee Convention is what you need boys. It busts the oft peddled myth you're both espousing. 

 

Guess who was at the forefront of drafting it? The UK. 

 

I would ask the Government what they think is going to happen in court.

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

 

The 1951 Refugee Convention is what you need boys. It busts the oft peddled myth you're both espousing. 

 

Guess who was at the forefront of drafting it? The UK. 

I don’t need anything forward it to Smithee though. 👍

[Cade]

There is no such law which states that refugees have to submit their claim or stay in the "first safe nation they enter"

That is a right-wing myth.

 

Anybody can claim asylum anywhere they please.

[Japan Jambo]

3 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

 

The 1951 Refugee Convention is what you need boys. It busts the oft peddled myth you're both espousing. 

 

Guess who was at the forefront of drafting it? The UK. 

 

Refugee status

In 1951, the UK became a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This landmark treaty initially protected only those fleeing events in Europe before 1 January 1951, but a Protocol signed in 1961 extended the Convention’s protection to anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” who was outside his own country and unable to return.

Article 31 of the Convention states that:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

The potential for conflict between the domestic law as explained above and Article 31 of the Convention is obvious. Refugees often have no option but to travel with false papers or no papers at all, and they will typically find it difficult to apply for leave at the British embassy or consulate in their home country. They are therefore at risk of prosecution for a number of offences...

 

This 1951 convention?

I have my issues with the French but even I wouldn't suggest their life was in danger there.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

Refugee status

In 1951, the UK became a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This landmark treaty initially protected only those fleeing events in Europe before 1 January 1951, but a Protocol signed in 1961 extended the Convention’s protection to anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” who was outside his own country and unable to return.

Article 31 of the Convention states that:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

The potential for conflict between the domestic law as explained above and Article 31 of the Convention is obvious. Refugees often have no option but to travel with false papers or no papers at all, and they will typically find it difficult to apply for leave at the British embassy or consulate in their home country. They are therefore at risk of prosecution for a number of offences...

 

This 1951 convention?

I have my issues with the French but even I wouldn't suggest their life was in danger there.

 

Aye that one

 

The Convention does not require refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, or make it illegal to seek asylum if a claimant has passed through another safe country.

[Mikey1874]

People think there is refugee status and a right to work (economic migrant). 

 

But there is another sneeky category - 'indefinite leave to remain'. Which everyone and anybody gets which is the same in practice to refugee status giving right to work and benefits etc. Basically suspended, temporary but really permanent right to live here - people the Daily Mail definitely wouldn't want to be here.

 

Open system. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Mikey1874

[briever]

16 minutes ago, Dazo said:

I don’t need anything forward it to Smithee though. 👍

 

You absolutely do as you're ignorant of it - otherwise you wouldn't be peddling its all the French fault fallacy.

[Jeffros Furios]

I don't think we have any schemes available to asylum seekers anymore and that's why they come over in the boats. 

It's pretty obvious the government don't want any and I'd rather some so-called  journalists and others tell the truth instead  of hiding behind they're coming from safe countries. 

 

Then we have the problem of vetting thier asylum claim which due to cutbacks can take years and they are housed at considerable cost in  hotels .

Truss with her lower taxes pish and Kwatangs reckless 7 days means less money to deal with the problem when we really need to invest more.

 

We also need to work with the French something that been sadly lacking for years and Brexit hasn't helped .

 

[Dazo]

10 minutes ago, briever said:

 

You absolutely do as you're ignorant of it - otherwise you wouldn't be peddling its all the French fault fallacy.

I’m blaming the French now ? You’re on the ball today Bri. 😂

[Unknown user]

40 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Well I assume France didn’t threaten their life or freedom. It was a genuine  question as I’d always considered those passing through several countries to cross the channel as illegal. 

You should read the article, there's a lot more to it than that, how the principle's evolved into law, kind of thing.

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

I don't think we have any schemes available to asylum seekers anymore and that's why they come over in the boats. 

It's pretty obvious the government don't want any and I'd rather some so-called  journalists and others tell the truth instead  of hiding behind they're coming from safe countries. 

 

Then we have the problem of vetting thier asylum claim which due to cutbacks can take years and they are housed at considerable cost in  hotels .

Truss with her lower taxes pish and Kwatangs reckless 7 days means less money to deal with the problem when we really need to invest more.

 

We also need to work with the French something that been sadly lacking for years and Brexit hasn't helped .

 

 

You mean safe routes and means to apply. 

 

There are some routes but take several years. 

[Jeffros Furios]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

You mean safe routes and means to apply. 

 

There are some routes but take several years. 

I was under the impression that the scheme for Syrians and Afghans finished and there were no others ,

A few journalists and those working for refugees have also stated there were no other means of asylum 

I've not checked Mikey and maybe there is but the fact is our asylum system seems to be inadequate. 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Jeffros Furios said:

I was under the impression that the scheme for Syrians and Afghans finished and there were no others ,

A few journalists and those working for refugees have also stated there were no other means of asylum 

I've not checked Mikey and maybe there is but the fact is our asylum system seems to be inadequate. 

 

 

 

It is. 

 

They could stop the unsafe Channel crossings by putting immigration control in France. 

[Jeffros Furios]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It is. 

 

They could stop the unsafe Channel crossings by putting immigration control in France. 

The government would like the French to stop the boats from leaving the beaches but the fact remains 

that they do not want any asylum seekers .

The issue will get worse due to drought , floods , famine etc and millions more will be heading north to Europe every year .

[Japan Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

I don't think we have any schemes available to asylum seekers anymore and that's why they come over in the boats. 

It's pretty obvious the government don't want any and I'd rather some so-called  journalists and others tell the truth instead  of hiding behind they're coming from safe countries. 

 

Then we have the problem of vetting thier asylum claim which due to cutbacks can take years and they are housed at considerable cost in  hotels .

Truss with her lower taxes pish and Kwatangs reckless 7 days means less money to deal with the problem when we really need to invest more.

 

We also need to work with the French something that been sadly lacking for years and Brexit hasn't helped .

 

 

👍 On one level you'd just like to say 'welcome, we have job vacancies left right and centre how can you help and when can you start'? On the other there will be security concerns/a sense of fairness to factor in; what we actually need is fewer dog whistles and a Home Secretary with the intellectual heft to cut through the issues. Whether the government doesn't want or just isn't competent enough to fix I'm not sure but it amounts to the same mess either way.

[Japan Jambo]

24 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You should read the article, there's a lot more to it than that, how the principle's evolved into law, kind of thing.

 

It's a good article, thanks for the link.

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

The government would like the French to stop the boats from leaving the beaches but the fact remains 

that they do not want any asylum seekers .

The issue will get worse due to drought , floods , famine etc and millions more will be heading north to Europe every year .

 

They could refuse people's applications in France. 

 

But their problem is they know most of the boat people are refugees with a pretty clear right to be accepted. 

[Costanza]

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/10/04/the-tentacles-of-tufton-street-think-tank-alumni-handed-top-government-roles/

 

We're being run by Tufton Street. Never knew Truss met with the IEA more than any other politician..m

[il Duce McTarkin]

 

[briever]

Labour are worse than the Tories, at least the Tories dont try to deny who they are.

[briever]

[Japan Jambo]

1 minute ago, briever said:

Labour are worse than the Tories, at least the Tories dont try to deny who they are.

 

Must be trolling her surely? I'd imagine Reeves will be extremely confident that the jumped up para legal will make an arse of her first moves, particularly if she acts before the adults are able to sit her down.

[Unknown user]

49 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

It's a good article, thanks for the link.

👍

[The Mighty Thor]

49 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

Must be trolling her surely? I'd imagine Reeves will be extremely confident that the jumped up para legal will make an arse of her first moves, particularly if she acts before the adults are able to sit her down.

Exactly that.

 

She's goading the should be at Home Secretary. She knows fine well that to deport anyone they'd have to break both UK and international law.

 

I suspect that's the bits in the legal text book Sue Ellen wasn't asked to photocopy. 

[briever]

44 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Exactly that.

 

She's goading the should be at Home Secretary. She knows fine well that to deport anyone they'd have to break both UK and international law.

 

I suspect that's the bits in the legal text book Sue Ellen wasn't asked to photocopy. 

 

I think you rather underplay what has happened to Labour in England - horrified their working-class racists in the north didn't vote for them in 2019 they've gone full on Brexit bigots.

[Mikey1874]

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

23 minutes ago, jonesy said:

She's all yours, Dirk. I'm keeping Penny M, though. Filth.

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

[Dazo]

6 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

Pretty sure they were racist too. Made up exclusive there for you James. 👍

[Victorian]

Wasn't this mad bint ranting on about party loyalty and people shouldn't be criticising policy,  etc?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/06/suella-braverman-speaks-out-against-likely-uk-trade-deal-with-india

 

[manaliveits105]

Red Paul Brand still hurting that his “exclusive” party gate wasn’t emnough to topple the Government 

[WorldChampions1902]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

Wasn't this mad bint ranting on about party loyalty and people shouldn't be criticising policy,  etc?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/06/suella-braverman-speaks-out-against-likely-uk-trade-deal-with-india

 

It is yet another example of the absolute omnishambles this Junta is. India made it crystal clear a long time ago that if the U.K. wants a trade deal (and boy oh boy are we desperate), we have to agree to a massive increase in immigrants from India. That is exactly what is going to happen and many in the Tory Party are about to have a reality check.
 

If you want trade deals, you have to be prepared to compromise, including giving up a degree of “sovereignty”.

 

Sound familiar?

[Mikey1874]

 

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I laughed out loud at work at that. It's almost a parody and the guy's face at the end😂

[WorldChampions1902]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

An undeniable fact, so let’s not answer the question.

[Horatio Caine]

1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I laughed out loud at work at that. It's almost a parody and the guy's face at the end😂

Very shifty eye movements.  Clearly uncomfortable.  (So he should be ofc)

[briever]

11 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

Very shifty eye movements.  Clearly uncomfortable.  (So he should be ofc)

 

His spin doctor is out of shot mouthing the lines.

[JudyJudyJudy]

12 hours ago, Dazo said:

Pretty sure they were racist too. Made up exclusive there for you James. 👍

👍 theres plenty ammo one can use against the Tories so making up   stuff or distorting an incident is pretty desperate.  What next " Liz Truss ate my hamster " ? its also pretty condescending to " the gays " too. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by JudyJudyJudy

[Mikey1874]

Fiona Bruce did quite well on Question Time last night. Just watching it on catch up. With Truss and the Government getting devastated by Piers Morgan and Brian Cox she herself asked some direct questions mainly embarrassing the Tory mouth piece Nadim Zahawi. 

[dobmisterdobster]

On 05/10/2022 at 18:17, briever said:

 

Immigrants thinking for themselves instead of listening to white saviour JOB.