The trouble with all these spoof articles is that I nearly believed that Matt Hancock had signed up for the jungle.
But it’s all in the context of a government who have no qualms about breaking international laws, and a Home Secretary who is insisting that we leave the ECHR.For the avoidance of confusion to all those who think that somehow refugee's enter the UK illegally - we are signatories to the 1951 convention - these are the relevant sections
ARTICLE 3. NON-DISCRIMINATION The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.
ARTICLE 31. REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE 1. 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.
2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
If anyone wants the whole document is here
But it’s all in the context of a government who have no qualms about breaking international laws, and a Home Secretary who is insisting that we leave the ECHR.
Alienating ourselves seems to be what we are doing best.In which case we dip out of the other 200 odd pages - alienate ourselves from something we may well need in the future. Like they did with Dublin 3.
Are we illegally alienating ourselves though?Alienating ourselves seems to be what we are doing best.
‘Invasion’ also conflates the current issues in Ukraine and resonates in more people. The use of these words aren’t a coincidence.Calling this an invasion is really dangerous language that panders to the worst elements in our society. Cruella has a screw loose, and should be nowhere near public office in a supposed civilised country. She's Inciting a section of the public, who will see her words as a justification for using violence. This **** needs fucking off, out of her depth and an embarrassment to the country.
Good point.‘Invasion’ also conflates the current issues in Ukraine and resonates in more people. The use of these words aren’t a coincidence.