Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Merpedy

VIP Member
Are the ECHR policies enforceable in UK ?? or can they override it on national security grounds or just simply make a new bill??
Posted about it regarding ECHR under the Bill yesterday - deportations can’t be done until the court is “neutralised” (whatever that means) - this may also be the reason people are predicting the Bill is the path to another proposal by the gov to leave the ECHR

National security falls under margin of appreciation given to states. Human rights under the ECHR actually apply to everyone in the world but the technicality comes in with enforcement/linking it to a State who must be a member
 

Merpedy

VIP Member
OK so you are in favour of personal choice. On that we can agree. But surely you would have to agree that better choices are made if full clarity is available. (I wonder how many lives would have been saved in the 1950s if the link between smoking and cancer had been made public). But anyway I digress. Choices made are never free of consequence, and if the consequence of migrant A’s choice is that they spend an indeterminate time in detention and will not be able to claim asylum then frankly they have made a bloody stupid choice will therefore pay the consequence. Consequences which could be avoided by simply selecting another country to make their (in your example) second (3rd, 4th or 5th?) stab at an asylum grant. A journey, if taken within continental Europe, is surely much less hazardous by foot or train (or by breaking into the back of a lorry), than across the English Channel in a overcrowded boat? Therefore why should I feel even remotely sorry for the Sudanese guy in Monga’s example (Who in my opinion comes across as an entitled twat rather than a desperate man) if he is destined to be indefinitely detained on a disused airfield in Essex, be removed to Rwanda, or even die in an accident in the channel. His choice (which we are both fully supportive of) his consequence. He had lots of other options available, the current membership count of the EU is 26.
Choices and consequences don't mean that people have to agree with government policies which are unworkable and make those consequences harsher for no good reason. People are already suffering because the asylum claims are taking such a long time - every interaction I have with a claimant ends with "how long does it take to process an asylum claim" and normally includes something about the conditions at the hotel not being very nice or there not being anything to do - these people are basically living in lockdown limbo constantly, especially when these government policies are driving up problems with far right groups which mean that they don't feel safe leaving the hotels

We saw with Rwanda that deterrent policies don't work very well, even if there's a chance that they will go ahead

From my experience the majority of people have not sought asylum before, those who have did it only once. Thought it's important to point that out
 

monga

VIP Member
Maybe they’re trying to bring the rest of the UK into line with NI where democracy doesn’t exist and they do exactly what they want, I can confirm voter id isn’t that bad lol.
 

Moth

VIP Member
61% is not minimal
61% of what though?

But as we're bandying around percentages how about the fact that in 2021 the Refugee Council worked with a group of asylum seekers that the Home Office had decided were 'certainly' adults (and claimed 50% over 25) but 94% were later found to be children
 
Last edited:

monga

VIP Member
for ECHR to have a say a case has to be presented to them. That can only really happen once something is in progress of happening or has happened
It says they’ve had a few legal challenges maybe they can’t afford to take it to Strasbourg?
---
I believe I have mentioned this on another thread that some people seemed to disbelieve 😉
E768B320-714B-4C71-AB42-168044E13722.jpeg
 
Last edited:

monga

VIP Member
You mean isolated examples aren't representative of the full picture? That's a good lesson ... for all of us.
---



Oh dear!



I mean you posted that almost 41 hours ago and when you're so obviously more interested in quantity not quality of postings I guess it's easy to forget.
Looks like I forgot my comma in that post ! It’s economic freeloaders , criminals.
 

Merpedy

VIP Member


Stressing that he thought the illegal migration bill was compliant with international law, the prime minister said there “may well be” another adverse legal judgment from judges presiding over the European convention on human rights.

“We’re taking an approach that is novel that is untested, that’s ambitious. I don’t make any apologies for that,” he said.
The Home Secretary said, "our approach is robust and novel, which is why we cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998" - meaning she cannot make a statement that the law is compatible with the human rights in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. She has instead made a Section 19(1)(b) statement that says while she can't say the law is compatible with human rights, she wants to proceed with it anyway
.

...make it make sense
 

monga

VIP Member
There are people who flee from war and terror.
We saw them when Afghanistan fell to the Taliban when the Americans moved out. Remember that? People clinging to the wheels of aeroplanes?
And there are chancers. People who deliberately lie to get their hands on free accommodation and money from our benefit system. Who stay in hotels being fed and watered complaining about being bored. Pretending to be children. Lying pieces of shit. It stings. But the facts are these. The human race is on the move. We want to live in better conditions, safer countries, free from oppression. You’d have to be nuts to want to live in North Korea or other countries with nutters running them. I can only go by what I see on the news. And all I see is boat loads of able bodied young men. No children, no women. If life is so bad in your country why leave your loved ones behind? Don’t tell me it’s your custom or culture. Everyone reading this board, without exception, god forbid, would be grabbing hold of their kids, partners, parents even their pets if their lives were threatened.
My husband was an asylum seeker. I met him in 1993, we married in 1998. 25 years now, 30 really including the dating. The asylum system was probably easier back then. We spent probably £30,000 on lawyers fees. Yep, that much. But he was allowed to work, that is the problems with now. These men aren’t allowed to work.
Only last week on the news they were saying there were millions of job vacancies. No one to fill them. Well there are people to fill them. Give these men work visas. Tax them too. Pay national insurance, for the health system they will be using. They want to contribute. They didn’t come here to sit on their hands or chat with their firmness in shopping centres all day long.
In my town there are tents beside our railway station. Homeless people live in them. In Milton Keynes there are hundreds of tents, some close to the shopping centre, homeless people live there. No one is putting them in hotels. Or feeding them.
Im not saying put British people first. I am saying, put the blame where blame is due. Squarely, on the shoulders of The conservative government who have done nothing but make the asylum process worse, for users, abusers and claimants.
We need more social housing. Thousands and thousands of homes. New estates. Hundreds of them. Social housing, rent controlled housing.
Stop private landlords charging exorbitant rents. A thousand pounds a month is theft In a town, maybe not in central London, but certainly in suburbs and boroughs. Enough already. Someone do something. Unclog this drain and get this country moving again.
There’s no harm believing in miracles…
 

monga

VIP Member
How long before she’s cancelled…I’m sure the same could be said for UK tourism / businesses, I’d doubt the government will make up the shortfall.
 

Moth

VIP Member
The report in the Daily Telegraph that "Up to 20,000 migrants could be offered a new safe and legal route to the UK each year" was speculative nonsense. It was based on a call from a few Tory 'moderates' for the government to amend the Illegal Immigration Bill. One of them, Tim Loughton said that he would suggest his own amendment to the bill if he didn't get "some substantial reassurances from the government" that new routes will be introduced as part of the bill. Of course the government didn't amend the bill, Loughton didn't put forward his own amendment and all of the 'moderates' voted for the bill as it stood.

I may have got this wrong but as Denmark has not gone ahead with it's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, I believe that the 'some' tEU countries that are doing this is in fact 'none'.
 

Polythene Pam

Chatty Member
It said the HO challenged minor cases I asked are lawyers involved in these 🥴 61 % were found to be adults.
https://news.sky.com/story/asylum-seeker-who-claimed-to-be-15-and-joined-school-is-an-adult-11561810Asylum seeker removed from school is an adult
That article is also 5 years old and the 61% statistic is a bit misleading as it refers to assessed cases and the majority are not assessed.


This is all old data anyway.
 

Moth

VIP Member
I’d assume only those they’re aware of? If they don’t know someone is in the country or on false documents ( if any) how could they check? Those EU migrants had false documents and addresses, they’re still unsure of their true identity.
Sorry I don't understand what that means. All I want to know is whether the PSNI carry out the same checks on all EU citizens crossing the border into N. Ireland and if so whether you have the same 'concerns' about EU citizens born in the Republic that you have about EU citizens born in any of the other 26 member countries.
 

Merpedy

VIP Member
Sunak was set to discuss with Macron the possibility of an EU-UK returns deal, meaning those arriving from Europe without the right to remain in Britain could be immediately returned to their country of origin. It would also involve the UK taking Britons back who do the same in the EU.
I'm confused. Does "those arriving from Europe" mean EU nationals (i.e those who don't have settled status presumably?) or asylum seekers?

I'm only really asking because The Guardian live updates threw it in with asylum and stopping the boats
---
People who say we should stop or reduce the help with give refugees always reference how much it costs the taxpayer, but Rwanda, deportations, detention centres, legal proceedings... None of these are exactly money savers but they're being celebrated.
But it stops the country being invaded ;)

I wonder how much their new plans under the Bill are going to cost but HO hadn't published that report yesterday despite the 2nd reading being on Monday
 

monga

VIP Member
View attachment 2061605
Scrolling through Twitter alone it’s easy to see a lot of criticism for this specific scheme. People who worked for the UK in some capacity have been rejected - including those who worked in prisons that were holding terrorists. The wait times are long, there’s many who are stuck waiting in Pakistan. There seem to be problems with accessibility

There’s a case with a journalist:

It’s crazy how much a simple google and Twitter search can bring up
Who made them those promises?? It wasn’t a certain mumbling white haired tosser by any chance 🤔
---
https://news.sky.com/story/afghan-r...otel-accommodation-from-end-of-april-12844085Afghan refugees to get at least three months' notice to move out of hotel accommodation from end of April
 
Last edited:

monga

VIP Member
You seem to think that smuggling happens primarily through abusing the asylum system

The asylum system is simply another way to make money for these people
I know it’s another way for them to make money, smuggling is big business should that be people or anything else.
---
You seem to think that smuggling happens primarily through abusing the asylum system

The asylum system is simply another way to make money for these people
---
So they’re going to manufacture their own healthcare and accommodation?? How will it not make these situations worse?