Keir Starmer

[RobinBHM]

They do try to arrest the ones who run…. Your rose tinted glasses are effecting your vision.

So we do agree that 93% of them are not illegal then?

If you read the whole post you would see that I don’t refer to them as illegal at any point.

yes, fair point, although you have been making the case in previous posts today they are illegal

They are not an asylum seeker until they have requested asylum.
Until they have done that you have no idea if their intent is to do so or to continue with an illegal entry

How about walking into a super market picking up an apple and eating it. You have consumed the property of the supermarket. Is that illegal until you pay for it on the way out or only if you fail to pay for it at all?

 

[RobinBHM]

What do people think will be in the budget on 30 Oct 2024?

my guess is lots of small increases in quite a few areas, but not on Employees NI, income tax or VAT

I would guess at:

Employees NI
CGT
Inheritance tax
fuel duty on diesel and petrol

also tax allowance bands to be frozen (which Tories have already included in the long term forecasts anyway until 2028)

 

[paulrbarnard]

I have already pointed out that is not the case

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, because seeking asylum is a legal process. It also isn't illegal to be refused asylum – it just means you haven't been able to meet the very strict criteria to prove your need for protection as a refugee.


https://www.google.com/search?q=if+...3NzcwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I’m convinced you only read what you think people say. No one has said it is illegal to seek asylum and no one has said it is illegal to be refused asylum. It is illegal to enter the country without a visa and to avoid requesting asylum. It is illegal to remain in the county once asylum, and appeals, have been refused and you are requested to leave either voluntarily or forced.

 

[paulrbarnard]

So we do agree that 93% of them are not illegal then?






yes, fair point, although you have been making the case in previous posts today they are illegal

Never questioned that the vast majority of immigrants come into the country legitimately and I welcome them. I have absolutely no issue with people following the rules. I have emigrated twice in my life time, once to Australia and then to Canada. That was all done using the appropriate channels and I didn’t resort to paying a people smuggler to put me in a dingy and then run off the beach when I arrived.
People have been deliberately reading posts to suit their own agenda…

 

[Chris152]

The arrival is illegal, until such time as asylum is requested.
Those that arrive and don't claim asylum remain illegal.
Claiming asylum does not make it legal entry. Entry is still illegal.
Once asylum is granted then it all changes

As the sentence requesting asylum is spoken, does the degree of illegality gradually reduce?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

to return to Keir Starmer / Labour government...........this constant bickering about how theyve done this, how he had a pair of free glasses or Taylor Swift had a police escort is all just trivial news cycle stuff

Appearances count. Freebies and hospitality were precisely that about which Labour were justifiably critical of their predecessors. It is not trivial. At best it evidences poor judgement.

The stone cold reality is, it will take at least a couple of years before anybody can judge how Labour are doing....and TBH we really need the full term to judge

I agree - but what criteria are they to be judged against - unemployment, growth, inflation, waiting lists etc etc.

In fact to sort out the structural failings of this country, like wealth inequality, low productivity, public services in a state of collapse, poorly skilled workers and a government which isnt drowning in debt............is going to take 10 to 15 years.

They won't get 10-15 years unless (a) they make very clear progress by the end of the first term, and (b) Tories and Reform differences remain unresolved. Labour won power not on an overwhelming popular vote (they managed only 34%) but "anyone but the Tories" sentiment.

But unless the media is regulated and our weak political system is changed, this country will carry on being dung because the public will carry on voting against their best interests.

Regulation of the media because it fails to reflect your views is not a happy place to be - see 1984.

It is worth noting the role of traditional media is becoming increasingly less important, being replaced by Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc etc. This is almost wholly unregulated at present.

The political system does need radical overhaul - not to achieve particular political goals, but to make it fit for for the 21st C. It may cover - role of House of Lords, proportional voting, aligning local and national political structures, properly delegating power and funding regionally,

 

[BC'er]

Is there a prize for whoever rearranges the deck chairs of the RMS Britannic in the most inclusive manner?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The arrival is illegal, until such time as asylum is requested.
Those that arrive and don't claim asylum remain illegal.
Claiming asylum does not make it legal entry. Entry is still illegal.
Once asylum is granted then it all changes ,that I agree.

No it's not personal bias, it's an understanding of the process and it's stages from travelling without permission to a country landing without permission in a country.
Once contact with recognised government authority and then claiming asylum changes their status, up till then they are illegal.

I what country are you saying this is true?
All countries?
Or particular countries that have effected a recent change in domestic law?

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

I agree to differ, based on when it was signed was the GFA inception.

Yes there us all sorts of historical implications, but the GFA only came into force in 1998, not before, even if the reasons prior go back centuries, does imply the GFA is that old.

Ok, I promised myself I wouldn’t post about this again, but you have so spectacularly misunderstood what I wrote I’ve got sucked back in, idk, maybe you’re just trolling, but I shall try to explain one last time.
Of course the GFA is not hundreds of years old, it was only signed in 1998, indeed, I would argue it did not become a reality until Paisley signed up to power sharing in 2007.
The point is, that this was a solution to a problem that goes back to the plantations of the 1500s, probably the first and definitely the most significant step in a positive direction in nearly 500 years.
The notion you seem to have of “ hey, the GFA is over 20 years old, let’s rip it up and make a new agreement, it’ll probably be loads better” demonstrates you have no grip on what a truly momentous thing it was/is. Both republicans and loyalists have had to accept massive compromises. There is no better agreement to be made, it either works or we’re back to the bloodshed and misery. The only people who could possibly gain from this are those from the loyalist and republican movements who actually thrived off the violence

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Wrong - Under section 24 (B1) of the Immigration Act 1971, a person who a) requires leave to enter the United Kingdom and, b) knowingly enters the UK without such leave, commits an offence.

Only when you have arrive and claimed asylum do a different set of rules kick in.

The premeditated intention is to claim asylum upon arrival.

Between domestic law and international law (several treaties signed by UK including 1948 and 1951 conventions).

1951 convention states:

*************************************

Asylum and human rights law​

Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country.

The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution.

It also includes the right not to be penalised for being in or entering a country without permission where this is necessary for them to seek and receive asylum.

*************************************

Interesting side-bar... This binding international convention predates the ECHR.
Would leaving the ECHR have any effect on refugees? No.
Would leaving the ECHR have any effect on the rights of British Citizens? Yes.

Who here is a Turkey?

 

[RobinBHM]

I point out that after they have been refused asylum and failed appeal and not been removed or have not left the country they are illegally residing in the country.

that is incorrect

if a person has been refused asylum and appeal and has not been returned by the government, then provided they are still available to be returned they are not illegal

If they have absconded, then they are acting illegally

by the way how do you think somebody with no money and no passport is able to leave the country?

Never questioned that the vast majority of immigrants come into the country legitimately and I welcome them

whataboutery

you said "the police try and arrest those that run"

well 93% of them arriving by small boats apply for asylum, so do you accept that 93% of those arriving by small boat are not illegal

 

[RobinBHM]

Ok, I promised myself I wouldn’t post about this again, but you have so spectacularly misunderstood what I wrote I’ve got sucked back in, idk, maybe you’re just trolling, but I shall try to explain one last time.
Of course the GFA is not hundreds of years old, it was only signed in 1998, indeed, I would argue it did not become a reality until Paisley signed up to power sharing in 2007.
The point is, that this was a solution to a problem that goes back to the plantations of the 1500s, probably the first and definitely the most significant step in a positive direction in nearly 500 years.
The notion you seem to have of “ hey, the GFA is over 20 years old, let’s rip it up and make a new agreement, it’ll probably be loads better” demonstrates you have no grip on what a truly momentous thing it was/is. Both republicans and loyalists have had to accept massive compromises. There is no better agreement to be made, it either works or we’re back to the bloodshed and misery. The only people who could possibly gain from this are those from the loyalist and republican movements who actually thrived off the violence

the "you just have to believe harder" mantra was born because brexit was sold for emotive reasons not technical or factual.

 

[AJB Temple]

the "you just have to believe harder" mantra was born because brexit was sold for emotive reasons not technical or factual.

Same applies to religion.

 

[paulrbarnard]

that is incorrect

if a person has been refused asylum and appeal and has not been returned by the government, then provided they are still available to be returned they are not illegal

If they have absconded, then they are acting illegally

by the way how do you think somebody with no money and no passport is able to leave the country?



whataboutery

you said "the police try and arrest those that run"

well 93% of them arriving by small boats apply for asylum, so do you accept that 93% of those arriving by small boat are not illegal

I clearly stated that the only ones that are illegal are the ones that don’t apply for asylum and the ones that abscond once they have been refused asylum. Now read that carefully a couple of times before you ask the same stupid questions trying to make points that are only in your head.