Keir Starmer

[TRITON]

By definition if these alleged asylum seekers have passed through other safe countries in order to get to the UK and not sought asylum in the first safe country they entered then arguably they're not genuine asylum seekers, they are in fact illegal immigrants.

Just for a bit of clarification.
Asylum seekers are not held by any international law to claim asylum in any country other than the one of their choosing. So they may want to come to the UK for a host of reasons. Family already settled here, or born here. They might have a better command of English than any other European
language
They might be choosing Britain because in some European countries they're facing far more racism and bigotry.

The other point, and this is a biggie, and one that those who think Farage is their savior and listened to the lies he's been preaching is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

If someone comes to the UK and claim asylum, it is under International law their right to do so.
From then their case is heard, and if unsuccessful will be removed from these shores as an illegal immigrant, because their had their case and were unsuccessful. This lack of success is what then deems them as illegal.. But until their case is heard they have asylum seeker status.

If you want an example of someone who is looking to become an immigrant purely for economic reasons, then look no further than the tax evader Charlie Mullins. Who wants to leave the UK because he might be asked to put his hand in his pocket and pay his fair share.
He's looking to move to either Spain, or Dubai, 2 countries where he speaks neither language

Or you could look towards the tens of thousands of UK pensioners who moved to Europe to be a burden on their health system again purely for economic reasons.
Did you know that 36 thousand of those pensioners living abroad have been happily claiming their UK winter heating allowance.

Many people leave the UK each year, last year 535,000 left to go elsewhere, and more than likely did so for economic reasons.

 

[spanner48]

I wonder (not really) how many politicians enter politics for the good of the country? Is it just naivity to believe election promises? Should politicians be held accountable when they do not follow up in their advertising?

It strikes me that all Western countries - it is the same here in Oz - began a fast downhill slide when parties sought to appeal to everyone, making promises that they could not keep (simply as they were contradictory), and stopped standing for a specific issue. The wishy-washy, low moral and low ethical standards are the result. We shall see a backlash in extremists, who at least have a clear message (not necessarily good ones).

I, too, thought Starmer might bring order into the chaos I see in the UK. Unhappily, now I view him just adding to the chaos.

Regards from Perth

Derek

A good word for Guido Fawkes: "The only man ever to enter Parliament with completely honest intentions"

 

[TRITON]

A good word for Guido Fawkes: "The only man ever to enter Parliament with completely honest intentions"

Except he did so for religious reasons, not political.

I thought everybody knew that.

 

[spanner48]

Just for a bit of clarification.
Asylum seekers are not held by any international law to claim asylum in any country other than the one of their choosing. So they may want to come to the UK for a host of reasons. Family already settled here, or born here. They might have a better command of English than any other European
language
They might be choosing Britain because in some European countries they're facing far more racism and bigotry.

The other point, and this is a biggie, and one that those who think Farage is their savior and listened to the lies he's been preaching is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

If someone comes to the UK and claim asylum, it is under International law their right to do so.
From then their case is heard, and if unsuccessful will be removed from these shores as an illegal immigrant, because their had their case and were unsuccessful. This lack of success is what then deems them as illegal.. But until their case is heard they have asylum seeker status.

If you want an example of someone who is looking to become an immigrant purely for economic reasons, then look no further than the tax evader Charlie Mullins. Who wants to leave the UK because he might be asked to put his hand in his pocket and pay his fair share.
He's looking to move to either Spain, or Dubai, 2 countries where he speaks neither language

Or you could look towards the tens of thousands of UK pensioners who moved to Europe to be a burden on their health system again purely for economic reasons.
Did you know that 36 thousand of those pensioners living abroad have been happily claiming their UK winter heating allowance.

Many people leave the UK each year, last year 535,000 left to go elsewhere, and more than likely did so for economic reasons.

This is complete nonsense.

1: Geneva Convention of 1951 on Asylum-seekers and Refugees: Article 31 of the Convention:
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

2: This, from ASILE:
The right to choose the country of asylum is neither openly provided for nor denied under international law. The 1951 Convention does not contain an explicit provision on this issue.

In the decades following the 1951 Convention, the general practice was based on the assumption that the country responsible for providing asylum is the one receiving the asylum claim, leaving a margin of choice to the asylum seeker. The emergence of the concept of a safe third country in the early 1990s triggered an understanding that the right to seek and enjoy asylum does not necessarily include a right to choose where to enjoy asylum.

2: Illegal immigrants
It is fundamental to the existence of any nation-state that it has control over who does - or does not - have the right to live in it. An 'asylum seeker' whose status is accepted by a host country becomes a 'refugee', and is entitled to remain - SO LONG as the situation in that person's home country does not allow of their safe return. An asylum seeker whose status is NOT accepted by a host country is an 'illegal immigrant'. And is universally subject to deportation.

 

[TRITON]

" Under existing British law, it’s illegal to enter the country without a visa or special permission. That means someone who reaches the UK on a small boat could face up to four years in prison.

But people who make the Channel crossing are protected by international law if they claim asylum once they arrive.

That means they can’t be punished while their application is being considered – and if they’re successful, they won’t be prosecuted for the way they arrived.

So, arriving by small boat is only illegal if you don’t claim asylum – or if you make an asylum claim and it’s rejected.

Though, even then, the chances of someone being prosecuted are thought to be low. "

Robert McNeil, deputy director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford,

 

[Yorkieguy]

Yet another miss-step:

Rachel Reeves set to call off her planned pension tax raid
Rachel Reeves has called off her planned pension tax raid after being warned that it would unfairly impact up to a million teachers, nurses and other public sector workers. The Chancellor had planned to raise funds by reducing tax relief on those earning £50,000 or more per year.
But senior Treasury officials said the move would disproportionately hit those who have given their careers for the state.

The original proposals would have seen public sector workers on £50,000 a year face an additional annual tax bill of £1,000. But last night a senior government figure said it would be 'madness' to inflict large tax rises on workers who have just been handed a pay rise, according to The Times.

Don't they talk to each other?

Public sector workers don't 'give their careers to the state' - they enjoy high salaries, take 50% more sickness absence than private sector employees, on the whole have a level of job security which doesn't apply in the private sector, and have overly generous terms and conditions of employment, and generous pensions underpinned by taxpayers. That doesn't mean they're not to be valued and don't try to do a good job, but please - they're employees - they're not in holy orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...1&cvid=da1be574e4ce4bf8a96fd711d7a1bc8b&ei=16

 

[Amplidyne]

Yet another miss-step:

Rachel Reeves set to call off her planned pension tax raid
Rachel Reeves has called off her planned pension tax raid after being warned that it would unfairly impact up to a million teachers, nurses and other public sector workers. The Chancellor had planned to raise funds by reducing tax relief on those earning £50,000 or more per year.
But senior Treasury officials said the move would disproportionately hit those who have given their careers for the state.

The original proposals would have seen public sector workers on £50,000 a year face an additional annual tax bill of £1,000. But last night a senior government figure said it would be 'madness' to inflict large tax rises on workers who have just been handed a pay rise, according to The Times.

Don't they talk to each other?

Public sector workers don't 'give their careers to the state' - they enjoy high salaries, take 50% more sickness absence than private sector employees, on the whole have a level of job security which doesn't apply in the private sector, and have overly generous terms and conditions of employment, and generous pensions underpinned by taxpayers. That doesn't mean they're not to be valued and don't try to do a good job, but please - they're employees - they're not in holy orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...1&cvid=da1be574e4ce4bf8a96fd711d7a1bc8b&ei=16

And yet another U Turn.

They're doing doughnuts!

I'm not a fan of Labour anyway, but they were supposed to put right all the "faults" of the Tories.

Or at least that they and the media kept telling people they had.

Instead we have just more of the same (Only worse!)

 

[TRITON]

Pension tax raid on pensioners. Utterly shocking. Its almost the type of thing the tories would do.
Wait a mo, they already did that
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/p...ng-tax-hits-record-high-as-tory-raid-on-brit/

 

[ey_tony]

Just for a bit of clarification.
Asylum seekers are not held by any international law to claim asylum in any country other than the one of their choosing. So they may want to come to the UK for a host of reasons. Family already settled here, or born here. They might have a better command of English than any other European
language
They might be choosing Britain because in some European countries they're facing far more racism and bigotry.

The other point, and this is a biggie, and one that those who think Farage is their savior and listened to the lies he's been preaching is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

If someone comes to the UK and claim asylum, it is under International law their right to do so.
From then their case is heard, and if unsuccessful will be removed from these shores as an illegal immigrant, because their had their case and were unsuccessful. This lack of success is what then deems them as illegal.. But until their case is heard they have asylum seeker status.

If you want an example of someone who is looking to become an immigrant purely for economic reasons, then look no further than the tax evader Charlie Mullins. Who wants to leave the UK because he might be asked to put his hand in his pocket and pay his fair share.
He's looking to move to either Spain, or Dubai, 2 countries where he speaks neither language

Or you could look towards the tens of thousands of UK pensioners who moved to Europe to be a burden on their health system again purely for economic reasons.
Did you know that 36 thousand of those pensioners living abroad have been happily claiming their UK winter heating allowance.

Many people leave the UK each year, last year 535,000 left to go elsewhere, and more than likely did so for economic reasons.

The answer whether or not you like it is that this country doesn't have the capacity in the form of infrastructure and finances to service the people already living here let alone 1000s of migrants turning up on our doorstep week after week.
I get where you are coming from but realistically where are they going to be housed for starters? More to the point who is covering the costs because it's very unlikely that they have a home in their backpack or enough money to fund the rental of a property, feed themselves etc.

I believe we have a duty to give shelter to those who suffer genuine threats because of their religion, politics or sexual orientation but living in in a dung-hole is not a good enough reason to accept migrants looking to improve their quality of life.

It's no coincidence that the quality of services in the UK have been falling as the population has been growing, just as the demand for housing has risen leaving a shortfall of millions of homes needed for the people already here.
There comes a point where the people of the UK have got to turn around and say, sorry NO, we can't afford to let more people in until we have the quality infrastructure needed and a growing economy to fund all of the infrastructure and services required to meet demand.

What is happening is we are being taxed so that others from other countries who have put nothing into our system can come here and instantly take advantage of our social benefits system. It's completely wrong. That may seem harsh but I believe that the people who have paid into the system all of their working lives should come first and have priority.
The reason why migrants head to the UK is because we are stupid and far too generous and sooner or later the country needs to wake up otherwise the UK will end up being a bankrupt dung-hole just like many of the countries from where they have migrated.

 

[woodieallen]

You mean the institutionally racist and misogynistic police service ?. Yes I can understand why they might feel like that should be an option



As to politicians jumping on a bandwagon, can you name me a politician who hasn't ? and as such why direct towards Keir Starmer

Politicians have to try to show solidarity to all groups in this country

Sticking you back on Ignore. Bye.

 

[John Brown]

I fear you are missing the point Triton. We want good quality politicians. We know we don't have them. The question is why.

The answer is the job is not attractive to people with ethics and intellect and who are not narcissists hungry for social media clicks. This recruitment block is because they are hounded mercilessly by the media, and it is dramatically underpaid for people who look at the opportunity cost of choosing ethical politics.

Assuming you are not being disingenuous about the kneeler reference, the answer is he jumps on every passing bandwagon. When the BLM craze for "taking the knee" craze was briefly popular, he was shown in full "marry me" pose with Ms Rayner. He's been kneeler ever since as many people thought, well maybe all lives matter equally. Two tier has since been added because it's a different law for him and his ilk with regard to policing and enforcement, and not long after that we had lots of examples of freebies, which some think are ever so similar to bribes. For a former DPP director who stood for election on the basis of ethical government, it all adds to a sense of tone deaf personal entitlement and greed.

To be honest, you've surprised me with this silly name calling. I thought you were better than that.
Having said which, I confess to being disappointed with Kier, I expected better of him, too.