Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
Let The Authorities Deal With It!
25 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kuiperbelt. 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.
RH \It’s part of the police job though\
Migrant Hunters won't change anything other than to stir up ill feeling and waste valuable police time!
Let the processes behind asylum applications run their due course!!
At some point, those successful immigrants will have to be assimilated into communities up and down the land. Surely harmonious relations within our neighbourhoods is what we all seek!!!
Migrant Hunters won't change anything other than to stir up ill feeling and waste valuable police time!
Let the processes behind asylum applications run their due course!!
At some point, those successful immigrants will have to be assimilated into communities up and down the land. Surely harmonious relations within our neighbourhoods is what we all seek!!!
//Surely harmonious relations within our neighbourhoods is what we all seek!!!//
I'm sure it is. However, the enforced influx of large numbers of people - overwhelmingly single young men - who have little to do with their time is hardly a way to engender that. Nobody invited these people to come here; they arrived illegally without leave. Furthermore, they set off from a country where they were perfectly safe. The authorities here now seek to provide facilities for them which are clearly to the detriment of the people already here. In short, the requirements and wishes of the people arriving are being prioritised over those already here. The only surprising thing is that trouble like we're seeing has not kicked off before because when the authorities do nothing to address people's concerns, the people will eventually take matters into their own hands.
I'm sure it is. However, the enforced influx of large numbers of people - overwhelmingly single young men - who have little to do with their time is hardly a way to engender that. Nobody invited these people to come here; they arrived illegally without leave. Furthermore, they set off from a country where they were perfectly safe. The authorities here now seek to provide facilities for them which are clearly to the detriment of the people already here. In short, the requirements and wishes of the people arriving are being prioritised over those already here. The only surprising thing is that trouble like we're seeing has not kicked off before because when the authorities do nothing to address people's concerns, the people will eventually take matters into their own hands.
NJ , agreed. The problem of people thinking the government are doing nothing(whether they are or not) will always affect those opposed to immigration in the same way. Conversely those who think opening the doors to all and sundry is a really good idea will turn to oppose those so affected. Recent developments in dealing with “asylum applications” will not help at all . Why would anyone think that opening the doors, so to speak, is a good idea, with our economy creaking at the seams, services failing etc etc , is beyond me
Migrant Hunters won't change anything other than to stir up ill feeling and waste valuable police time!
________
Aye, and shut up about losing your job at the hotel you far right bigot.
My nieces have had to stop going round town because they struggle to suppress their far right bigotry when they are being arrased by poor migrants who have little else to do.
The country is full to capacity of far right bigots.
Yours
Roy
Far right bigot.
________
Aye, and shut up about losing your job at the hotel you far right bigot.
My nieces have had to stop going round town because they struggle to suppress their far right bigotry when they are being arrased by poor migrants who have little else to do.
The country is full to capacity of far right bigots.
Yours
Roy
Far right bigot.
kuiperbelt, our government is not listening to the will of the people or its discontent with illegal migrants, peole are fedup with it, tory or labour much of muchness, heads in sand springs to mind, kick the problem down the road, what has to happen although drastic, is to end legal recourse to law that illegals use to stay here, they broke the law, yet have the nerve to basically use our legal system to stay here at our expense, we don't want them here...lala headphones are on.
fender \although drastic, is to end legal recourse to law that illegals use to stay here, they broke the law\
In fact it would be the other way around. In that event, the UK would be deemed to have broken the law. Refugees are protected by international law.
Article 31(1) of the 1951 UN Convention relating to Refugee Status. See below:
"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."
fender \...lala headphones are on\
(Gingerly turns down volume control on headphone set...) Ah good! Now that I have your attention, let me remind you. Article 14 of the UDHR equates... It is a fundamental human right to claim asylum! I'm afraid your 'illegal' argument holds little water!
As I said at the beginning, let the authorities deal with asylum applications and all those who are opposed, to STOP wasting the valuable time of the police!!
In fact it would be the other way around. In that event, the UK would be deemed to have broken the law. Refugees are protected by international law.
Article 31(1) of the 1951 UN Convention relating to Refugee Status. See below:
"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."
fender \...lala headphones are on\
(Gingerly turns down volume control on headphone set...) Ah good! Now that I have your attention, let me remind you. Article 14 of the UDHR equates... It is a fundamental human right to claim asylum! I'm afraid your 'illegal' argument holds little water!
As I said at the beginning, let the authorities deal with asylum applications and all those who are opposed, to STOP wasting the valuable time of the police!!
Nick Lowles said in that article:
"The question is not whether this will happen again, but what the Government is going to do to ensure it doesn’t."
I would have thought that was obvious. Stop illegal immigrants from entering this country. Put an effective deterrent in place and stop welcoming phoney asylum seekers and refugees.
"The question is not whether this will happen again, but what the Government is going to do to ensure it doesn’t."
I would have thought that was obvious. Stop illegal immigrants from entering this country. Put an effective deterrent in place and stop welcoming phoney asylum seekers and refugees.
Kuiperbelt @12:43
\\Article 31(1) of the 1951 UN Convention relating to Refugee Status. See below:
"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//
Their life and fredom wasn't threatened in France.
\\Article 31(1) of the 1951 UN Convention relating to Refugee Status. See below:
"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//
Their life and fredom wasn't threatened in France.
//Refugees are protected by international law.//
Not quite in the way you suggest. I have often quoted A31 on here before. You seem to have neglected a bit of it:
"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,...//
Note: "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"
People arriving from France (where most of them have spent some time awaiting a berth for their crossing) do not come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. The UN seems recently to have unilaterally declared that people spending weeks if not months roaming across Europe finally to arrive in the destination of their choice, are deemed to have come "directly" from a place where they were under threat. Nobody with a reasonable grasp of English would interpret their arrival in the UK as coming "directly" from such a place. If the UN wants the signatories of its Convention to agree to something other than the text in that Convention, it should place an amendment before them for agreement and not simply declare that it means something that it doesn't.
It is quite clear from its text that the intention of A31 is to allow people fleeing danger to reach a place of safety and then apply for asylum there. It is not to give carte blanche to people who simply don't like it where they are to seek a destination of their choice. A government with any gumption (and consideration for the people in the nation it governs) would point out this reasonable interpretation of the Convention and stick to it.
I must say I find it odd that you consider the people to be "wasting police time" are those protesting at having large numbers of single young men deposited in their midst. Those who glue themselves to the M25 in furtherance of their climate change protests are said to be exercising their democratic right to protest. I haven't seen too many accusations that they are wasting police time. So why are those who are protesting against wholesale changes to their community so labelled?
Not quite in the way you suggest. I have often quoted A31 on here before. You seem to have neglected a bit of it:
"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,...//
Note: "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"
People arriving from France (where most of them have spent some time awaiting a berth for their crossing) do not come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. The UN seems recently to have unilaterally declared that people spending weeks if not months roaming across Europe finally to arrive in the destination of their choice, are deemed to have come "directly" from a place where they were under threat. Nobody with a reasonable grasp of English would interpret their arrival in the UK as coming "directly" from such a place. If the UN wants the signatories of its Convention to agree to something other than the text in that Convention, it should place an amendment before them for agreement and not simply declare that it means something that it doesn't.
It is quite clear from its text that the intention of A31 is to allow people fleeing danger to reach a place of safety and then apply for asylum there. It is not to give carte blanche to people who simply don't like it where they are to seek a destination of their choice. A government with any gumption (and consideration for the people in the nation it governs) would point out this reasonable interpretation of the Convention and stick to it.
I must say I find it odd that you consider the people to be "wasting police time" are those protesting at having large numbers of single young men deposited in their midst. Those who glue themselves to the M25 in furtherance of their climate change protests are said to be exercising their democratic right to protest. I haven't seen too many accusations that they are wasting police time. So why are those who are protesting against wholesale changes to their community so labelled?
It's possibly not that they particularly want them here, naomi. But their encouragement is rather more designed to display their virtue. Unfortunately they don't seem to consider the impact this influx is having on communities up and down the country. But that doesn't seem to matter; the consideration that might be shown for the people of say, Skegness or Newquay (towns that depend heavily on tourism for their existence) is well and truly trumped by that shown for a bunch of chancers who didn't particularly like it where they previously were.
The bottom line is that probably half the (considerable) population of Africa, together with large numbers from the Middle East and Asia would prefer to live in Europe. It's just "turn up and go". All the facilities they crave have been developed by our ancestors and they would far prefer to simply cross into Europe to take advantage of them than they would to stay in their homelands to help develop them along similar lines. And pathetic European governments are facilitating this exodus by allowing them to settle here. The unrest seen over the past few days is but the tip of the iceberg. If people see their communities destroyed by the lack of responsibility their government is showing towards them, I fear far worse is to come.
The bottom line is that probably half the (considerable) population of Africa, together with large numbers from the Middle East and Asia would prefer to live in Europe. It's just "turn up and go". All the facilities they crave have been developed by our ancestors and they would far prefer to simply cross into Europe to take advantage of them than they would to stay in their homelands to help develop them along similar lines. And pathetic European governments are facilitating this exodus by allowing them to settle here. The unrest seen over the past few days is but the tip of the iceberg. If people see their communities destroyed by the lack of responsibility their government is showing towards them, I fear far worse is to come.
NJ \You seem to have neglected a bit of it:\
LOL... It is abundantly clear you did not read fully my post >12.43
NJ \Note: "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"\
LOL... Make no mistake, not only was it noted, I published it in >12.43
Make a note too, that there is no obligation for a refugee to claim asylum in the first country they flee to.
Given all the resources at their disposal, it can still take years for the authorities to ascertain the refugee status of an individual.
I think it is fair to say, you're the least qualified person to determine whether someone making a perilous crossing in a rubber dinghy is fleeing from persecution or not!
NJ \The UN seems recently to have unilaterally declared that people spending weeks if not months roaming across Europe finally to arrive in the destination of their choice, are deemed to have come "directly" from a place where they were under threat\
LOL... Do keep up! It's not just the UN, think closer to home!
Firstly let me remind you again of my post >12.43 - Article 31 of the Convention protects refugees against prosecution for illegal entry to a receiving country:
"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 above was recognised by the courts in England and Wales. In the landmark case R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that
refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31:
"… I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions
adopted by UNHCR’s Executive Committee (‘ExCom’), and the writings of well-respected academics and commentators
(most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway, & Dr Paul Weis), that some element
of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum."
I'm afraid precedents had already been set. Whether they come from France, Andromeda or planet Zog, anyone who makes it to these shores has a legitimate claim to asylum!!
Sadly, although I guess you already know, your rhetoric serves to encourage the far right. Perhaps that's where you allegiances lie??
LOL... It is abundantly clear you did not read fully my post >12.43
NJ \Note: "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"\
LOL... Make no mistake, not only was it noted, I published it in >12.43
Make a note too, that there is no obligation for a refugee to claim asylum in the first country they flee to.
Given all the resources at their disposal, it can still take years for the authorities to ascertain the refugee status of an individual.
I think it is fair to say, you're the least qualified person to determine whether someone making a perilous crossing in a rubber dinghy is fleeing from persecution or not!
NJ \The UN seems recently to have unilaterally declared that people spending weeks if not months roaming across Europe finally to arrive in the destination of their choice, are deemed to have come "directly" from a place where they were under threat\
LOL... Do keep up! It's not just the UN, think closer to home!
Firstly let me remind you again of my post >12.43 - Article 31 of the Convention protects refugees against prosecution for illegal entry to a receiving country:
"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 above was recognised by the courts in England and Wales. In the landmark case R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that
refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31:
"… I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions
adopted by UNHCR’s Executive Committee (‘ExCom’), and the writings of well-respected academics and commentators
(most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway, & Dr Paul Weis), that some element
of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum."
I'm afraid precedents had already been set. Whether they come from France, Andromeda or planet Zog, anyone who makes it to these shores has a legitimate claim to asylum!!
Sadly, although I guess you already know, your rhetoric serves to encourage the far right. Perhaps that's where you allegiances lie??
