ChatterBank1 min ago
Hunt For On-The-Run Asylum Seeker
gobsmacked is not the word, begining of a giant iceberg for the uk, sadly we will become like sweden, and there rape explosion let alone gangsterism, anyone disagree.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//When Chamberlain declared war on Germany, nothing happened in the field of battle for 9 months. Initially therefore it was dubbed the phony war.//
You really are full of "it" aren't you.
The United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland. France also declared war on Germany later the same day. In early September 1939, France began the limited Saar Offensive before Germany had made a move. Dunkirk wasn't phoney, you are.
You really are full of "it" aren't you.
The United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland. France also declared war on Germany later the same day. In early September 1939, France began the limited Saar Offensive before Germany had made a move. Dunkirk wasn't phoney, you are.
//Perhaps then, we can at least align ourselves to the general acceptance that this is a legal minefield?//
I don’t think we can. There can be no misconstruction of the phrase “….coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened….” by anybody with a grasp of plain English. Furthermore, you say this:
//From the above, it is clear the UK's interpretation is in contention with the UN's intended meaning.//
The “UN’s intended meaning” is neither here nor there. Those who drafted A31 were quite clear – protection should be given to those arriving directly from a place where they were under threat. If the UN intended it to mean something else they should have said so and had the wording changed before the Convention was enacted rather than promoted their “intended meaning” as fact some time later.
Contained within the Convention are a number of notes and amendments which have been adopted by the signatories. Nowhere can I find any reference to a reconstruction of the above phrase. In fact I can find no mention of it at all. The Home Secretary’s argument is sound. It is only the UN which has placed a different construction on a perfectly clear and straightforward phrase. People who have crossed half a dozen countries and spent some time in France have not come directly from a territory where they are under threat. They have come directly from France.
I don’t think this have ever been tested because UK governments have, for some unknown reason, taken it upon themselves to decide that the UK must examine the merits of allcomers, regardless of where they have come from. I don’t realistically see any chance of this changing under the Nationality & Borders Act because there seems no political will.
I don’t think we can. There can be no misconstruction of the phrase “….coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened….” by anybody with a grasp of plain English. Furthermore, you say this:
//From the above, it is clear the UK's interpretation is in contention with the UN's intended meaning.//
The “UN’s intended meaning” is neither here nor there. Those who drafted A31 were quite clear – protection should be given to those arriving directly from a place where they were under threat. If the UN intended it to mean something else they should have said so and had the wording changed before the Convention was enacted rather than promoted their “intended meaning” as fact some time later.
Contained within the Convention are a number of notes and amendments which have been adopted by the signatories. Nowhere can I find any reference to a reconstruction of the above phrase. In fact I can find no mention of it at all. The Home Secretary’s argument is sound. It is only the UN which has placed a different construction on a perfectly clear and straightforward phrase. People who have crossed half a dozen countries and spent some time in France have not come directly from a territory where they are under threat. They have come directly from France.
I don’t think this have ever been tested because UK governments have, for some unknown reason, taken it upon themselves to decide that the UK must examine the merits of allcomers, regardless of where they have come from. I don’t realistically see any chance of this changing under the Nationality & Borders Act because there seems no political will.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Travel27 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News31 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.