The Conservative Party

hilts said:
Sadly you seem to be making up a false picture in your own head. I find the story upsetting as I have already stated so either reply to what I have posted and stop making up shit or kindly shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

The post I quoted says differently.

Playing the hard man on an internet forum is not a good look.
 
Rascal said:
We have never walked in there shoes and therefore should not judge them by our standards. The West loves to moralise but will not accept the consequences of that moralisation. Thankfully I and I expect you and pretty much everybody who posts on here will never understand what is going on in there world. They have lived lives under constant threat and who are we to judge their actions if the choice is between living in a hell hole in a war torn country or risking getting into a dinghy across a body of water 21 miles wide. Its a rock and a hard place choice that must be as difficult a position any parent of a small child will face. They want the best for their children as we all do and to them the risk is obviously acceptable, because the choice of not taking the risk is worse than the risk itself and the reward for taking the risk outweighs the reward for not taking the risk. No parent will do this lightly and without due concern for their child, they undoubtedly see it as their only viable option to secure a future for their child. That is what is really sad, they have no other option and as much as you say France is a safe country which it is for us it may not be for them, they may not know the language, where as English is universal. French migrants tend to come from former colonies that have French as a second language like Algeria and Morocco, immigrants who attempt to come this country are probably from countries that were once Pink on the globe. There is also the matter that the UK has a reputation for being a country where the Rule of Law and the Judiciary are held in high regard (until Johnson that is) and if you escape a country where corruption is rife then the UK does shine like a beacon to people who just want a chance and to be treated fairly.

I hate the anti-immigration rhetoric, its sullies our nations good name and standing on the world stage. We have always been a country that welcomes peoples from other countries. Manchester has its China Town, its former Little Italy area of Ancoats, its West Indian community, its Jewish areas and even historically a Flemish influx of weavers helped start the legend of Cottonopolis. I wouldn't mind but the English themselves are bastard race of people with lineages through Anglos, Saxons, Normans, Jutes, Vikings, we even a Royal Family of German heritage yet we have allowed ourselves to become propagandised by the exceptionalist's and the Nationalist's who don't see the irony in what they proselytise.

I don't advocate open borders, I support brexit as it ends free movement and free movement does affect the working class the most, but as a Socialist I am Internationalist and believe we should honour our obligations under the various treaties we are signed up to and granting Asylum is integral to those treaties as we should be setting as an example as a free and fair democratic nation. I really do not buy the economic migrant narrative at all, the only economic migrants we see in the UK are the capitalist class who migrate to tax havens to avoid UK taxes. Why are we not more angry at their abdication of duty than we are some poor family whose life is so desperate they risk death of their young in trying to seek a better life for themselves and their children.
Click to expand...

You can do all of those things at the same time though. You can be angry with tax avoiders, you can be angry with the capitalist class, you can empathise with the situation of those who find themselves in Calais, you can believe that the asylum system needs reforming, and you can still criticise their decision to leave France - a country that's not war-torn - on a dinghy to cross the English channel with their children aboard who almost certainly can't swim.
 
Fame Monster said:
you can still criticise their decision to leave France - a country that's not war-torn - on a dinghy to cross the English channel with their children aboard who almost certainly can't swim.
Click to expand...
They are not coming from France, they are traversing through France. Of course its not a war torn country but it is likely their original departure point was.

The Jews that came from Germany on the Kinder transports didn't stay in Holland, the English who migrate to Spain don't stop in France. Firstly, there is no obligation in the Refugee Convention, either explicit or implicit, to claim asylum in the first safe country reached by a refugees, it is basically about whether a person has a well founded fear of being persecuted in his or her country or origin. Whether that person travelled through several countries before claiming asylum simply has no bearing on fear of persecution at home. Additionally, 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.This has been recognised by the courts in England and Wales. In the landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, 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:

This stay in the first country stuff is nonsense and is confused with the Dublin Agreement. This piece of EU law provides broadly that where an asylum seeker has been fingerprinted in an EU Member State but then moves on to another EU Member State, the asylum seeker can be sent back to the first country to have the asylum claim processed there. As we have now left the EU the agreement is no longer there and even if it was if they hadnt claimed asylum there it didn't matter anyway.

Now you can argue whether its there moral duty not to try and cross the channel in a dinghy and I might agree with that but as I said we don't walk in there shoes and it is not up to us to pass moral judgement on them. As I have stated, they are not acting illegally, they are victims of a disgusting UK policy towards them that denies them basic rights. It doesn't have to be like this, the Government could change tack and allow it. We take 1/3 of the number of asylum seekers that France does, Germany takes 5 times more, Italy has taken 100,000 more and even Greece has taken more than us. Us the UK the 5th largest economy on the planet and a member of the coalition that invaded there homelands and destroyed their society.
 
Rascal said:
They are not coming from France, they are traversing through France. Of course its not a war torn country but it is likely their original departure point was.

The Jews that came from Germany on the Kinder transports didn't stay in Holland, the English who migrate to Spain don't stop in France. Firstly, there is no obligation in the Refugee Convention, either explicit or implicit, to claim asylum in the first safe country reached by a refugees, it is basically about whether a person has a well founded fear of being persecuted in his or her country or origin. Whether that person travelled through several countries before claiming asylum simply has no bearing on fear of persecution at home. Additionally, 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.This has been recognised by the courts in England and Wales. In the landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, 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:

This stay in the first country stuff is nonsense and is confused with the Dublin Agreement. This piece of EU law provides broadly that where an asylum seeker has been fingerprinted in an EU Member State but then moves on to another EU Member State, the asylum seeker can be sent back to the first country to have the asylum claim processed there. As we have now left the EU the agreement is no longer there and even if it was if they hadnt claimed asylum there it didn't matter anyway.

Now you can argue whether its there moral duty not to try and cross the channel in a dinghy and I might agree with that but as I said we don't walk in there shoes and it is not up to us to pass moral judgement on them. As I have stated, they are not acting illegally, they are victims of a disgusting UK policy towards them that denies them basic rights. It doesn't have to be like this, the Government could change tack and allow it. We take 1/3 of the number of asylum seekers that France does, Germany takes 5 times more, Italy has taken 100,000 more and even Greece has taken more than us. Us the UK the 5th largest economy on the planet and a member of the coalition that invaded there homelands and destroyed their society.
Click to expand...

My point was on the morality of it and even though I haven't walked in their shoes, I'm still capable of making a moral judgement in the same way I'm able to make a moral judgment about lots of other things that I haven't personally been affected by. An extreme analogy but I don't think it was the moral thing to do to behead that teacher in France even though I've never walked in the shoes of a Muslim who might be offended by the Mohammed cartoons. Likewise my opinion in this situation is that it was not the moral thing to do to put their kids in the dinghies and, while I don't envy the life they would have had to live in France or any other country they passed through, it's a better option than the Russian roulette of crossing the channel.

As for the other points on the legality of them crossing, that's fine but my discussion with another poster was simply to say that there are other legal means for someone to claim asylum.
I would argue though that crossing the channel doesn't automatically make someone an asylum seeker in law which is why we rightly check their status.
 
Fame Monster said:
My point was on the morality of it and even though I haven't walked in their shoes, I'm still capable of making a moral judgement in the same way I'm able to make a moral judgment about lots of other things that I haven't personally been affected by. An extreme analogy but I don't think it was the moral thing to do to behead that teacher in France even though I've never walked in the shoes of a Muslim who might be offended by the Mohammed cartoons. Likewise my opinion in this situation is that it was not the moral thing to do to put their kids in the dinghies and, while I don't envy the life they would have had to live in France or any other country they passed through, it's a better option than the Russian roulette of crossing the channel.

As for the other points on the legality of them crossing, that's fine but my discussion with another poster was simply to say that there are other legal means for someone to claim asylum.
I would argue though that crossing the channel doesn't automatically make someone an asylum seeker in law which is why we rightly check their status.
Click to expand...
And they would argue it is absolutely the moral thing to do to try and cross the channel because the chance of a better life is better than no life at all because a chance with a risk is better than no chance at all. That is the problem, we look at this issue through Western morality eyes. We thankfully do not face their problems, we live in a safe if flawed country and nobody is likely to drop a bomb on our heads as we lie in bed tonight. I totally see there reasoning and if the choice is between a dinghy or a bomb then it really is not much choice at all.

We also have our own moral obligations as signee's to the convention on refugees/asylum seekers and if anything it is the UK that is acting immorally and allowing people to die needless deaths for purely political reasons. I also find it repugnant that the poor souls who died recently were Kurds, who were allies against al-Qaieda and who were dropped because they had established a Socialist Republic which the Americans are against. The Kurds have been treated appallingly for centuries , they have no homeland, they are victimised by Turkey and were forced into Iraq and Syria by the British, French and Russian backed Sykes Picot agreement of 1917 after the fall of the Ottoman empire. Our colonial legacy really is embarrassing at times, we not only fucked them up in 1917, we are still fucking them up 100 years later. It is morally reprehensible that our Government act with such disregard to human life in order to sate the wishes of a few hard right crackpots.
 
Fame Monster said:
I can't think of any circunstance where I'd put my children on a dinghy to get from France to the UK tbh with you. France is a safe country. If I wanted to claim asylum in the UK, I'd fly there.
Click to expand...


To fly there you would each need a passport , enough money for your tickets and visas, Don't forget to put the true reason for your journey on your visa application because if you lie it'll make your application invalid. If you haven't got a passport then you will need to apply at your local passport office. Make sure that your not being pursued for your

1603955310749.png


political, religious beliefs , or for your ethnicity because applying for a passport might alert those that mean you ill. Then obviously wait for the postman to deliver your visa once it's been approved.

Of course, it would be simpler if the Tories allowed asylum applications to be made at embassies or consulates abroad but they closed that door years ago. ...... instead they're quite happy to let you and yours cross the channel on a kids toy.
 
Honest Bobby Jenrick is on Kay Burley

Are the Tories that short of competence they have to wheel out this fucking idiot out on a regular basis. He is a crook a con man and a massive ****. You can tell he is telling lies because his mouth is moving.

Fuck me, he is talking himself up his own arse. He is actually talking about mental health issues rising, his fucking government have cut mental provision to the bone.

He is just another British exceptionalist half wit.

Can any of our Coppers who post on here answer this. Do police enforce the law or the rules? That seems a very grey area to me and could put our police into some really difficult situations.
 
Pablo1 said:
You’re a citizen of the Uk by a quirk of fate and should be forever grateful that’s the case.
For those unfortunate enough to be born in a country where the simplest everyday task is impossible due to war, famine or whatever it may be, they deserve a chance of happiness like everybody else.
We should do all we can to help those who aren’t lucky enough to live a life with relatively little to worry about.
It’s that simple for me.
Click to expand...
Nailed it there.
 
Rascal said:
And they would argue it is absolutely the moral thing to do to try and cross the channel because the chance of a better life is better than no life at all because a chance with a risk is better than no chance at all. That is the problem, we look at this issue through Western morality eyes. We thankfully do not face their problems, we live in a safe if flawed country and nobody is likely to drop a bomb on our heads as we lie in bed tonight. I totally see there reasoning and if the choice is between a dinghy or a bomb then it really is not much choice at all.

We also have our own moral obligations as signee's to the convention on refugees/asylum seekers and if anything it is the UK that is acting immorally and allowing people to die needless deaths for purely political reasons. I also find it repugnant that the poor souls who died recently were Kurds, who were allies against al-Qaieda and who were dropped because they had established a Socialist Republic which the Americans are against. The Kurds have been treated appallingly for centuries , they have no homeland, they are victimised by Turkey and were forced into Iraq and Syria by the British, French and Russian backed Sykes Picot agreement of 1917 after the fall of the Ottoman empire. Our colonial legacy really is embarrassing at times, we not only fucked them up in 1917, we are still fucking them up 100 years later. It is morally reprehensible that our Government act with such disregard to human life in order to sate the wishes of a few hard right crackpots.
Click to expand...

Their choice wasn't between being bombed or putting their kids in a dinghy because they were in France. It was a choice between claiming asylum in a number of other safe countries that they passed through/living illegally in those countries or risking their childrens' lives to get to this country by doing something extremely dangerous. It's on that basis that I criticise them. I don't buy into the argument that because they were from Sudan or Iran or whatever (not made by you) that they didn't understand how dangerous the trip was either. It's 20+ miles of sea in freezing cold, stormy weather.

As for your last paragraph, I agree with part of it but the reality is, there already is a system for people to claim asylum. It might not be a good system but it doesn't mean we don't already help people, which was the point of my discussion with another poster. The question is whether we help enough asylum seekers and I don't know whether we do or don't but it's wrong to say that the UK doesn't help at all or has closed borders if we've granted 20,000+ asylum applications and help 700,000+ others leave their country every year if you reject the distinction between an economic migrant and asylum seeker.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
To fly there you would each need a passport , enough money for your tickets and visas, Don't forget to put the true reason for your journey on your visa application because if you lie it'll make your application invalid. If you haven't got a passport then you will need to apply at your local passport office. Make sure that your not being pursued for your

View attachment 4550


political, religious beliefs , or for your ethnicity because applying for a passport might alert those that mean you ill. Then obviously wait for the postman to deliver your visa once it's been approved.

Of course, it would be simpler if the Tories allowed asylum applications to be made at embassies or consulates abroad but they closed that door years ago. ...... instead they're quite happy to let you and yours cross the channel on a kids toy.
Click to expand...

Ok but you're having a bit of an argument with yourself here. Not once have I said the system is perfect or that there aren't problems with it. I agree with some of the problems you identify but that doesn't mean the UK doesn't already help some asylum seekers and have a legal mechanism for doing so.
 
Fame Monster said:
Their choice wasn't between being bombed or putting their kids in a dinghy because they were in France. It was a choice between claiming asylum in a number of other safe countries that they passed through/living illegally in those countries or risking their childrens' lives to get to this country by doing something extremely dangerous. It's on that basis that I criticise them. I don't buy into the argument that because they were from Sudan or Iran or whatever (not made by you) that they didn't understand how dangerous the trip was either. It's 20+ miles of sea in freezing cold, stormy weather.

As for your last paragraph, I agree with part of it but the reality is, there already is a system for people to claim asylum. It might not be a good system but it doesn't mean we don't already help people, which was the point of my discussion with another poster. The question is whether we help enough asylum seekers and I don't know whether we do or don't but it's wrong to say that the UK doesn't help at all or has closed borders if we've granted 20,000+ asylum applications and help 700,000+ others leave their country every year if you reject the distinction between an economic migrant and asylum seeker.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine the criminals that supplied the dinghy gave them assurances that all they needed to do was put to sea and the French / British authorities would be obliged to ensure their safe delivery to UK shores. Tragically it went horribly wrong on this occasion.
 
Labour getting a shoeing today.

Keep an eye out for what those Tory bastards will release under the radar today.
 
Fame Monster said:
Their choice wasn't between being bombed or putting their kids in a dinghy because they were in France. It was a choice between claiming asylum in a number of other safe countries that they passed through/living illegally in those countries or risking their childrens' lives to get to this country by doing something extremely dangerous. It's on that basis that I criticise them. I don't buy into the argument that because they were from Sudan or Iran or whatever (not made by you) that they didn't understand how dangerous the trip was either. It's 20+ miles of sea in freezing cold, stormy weather.

As for your last paragraph, I agree with part of it but the reality is, there already is a system for people to claim asylum. It might not be a good system but it doesn't mean we don't already help people, which was the point of my discussion with another poster. The question is whether we help enough asylum seekers and I don't know whether we do or don't but it's wrong to say that the UK doesn't help at all or has closed borders if we've granted 20,000+ asylum applications and help 700,000+ others leave their country every year if you reject the distinction between an economic migrant and asylum seeker.
Click to expand...
It depends how you define safe then. Chances are they speak some English as its the primary language of the planet, that immediately makes you feel safer. No doubt you may do it abroad by going in an English bar that serves bacon butties rather than a foreign bar that serves pastel de natas. As they are under no obligation to seek asylum in the first country they visit, they can choose to try and come to the UK and try here, but our Govt make it hard for them in order to satisfy the far right crackpots.

I also do not buy into the economic migrant argument, if they are seeking asylum the economic case is null and void as they get barely subsistence levels of support whilst doing so.
 
Rascal said:
It depends how you define safe then. Chances are they speak some English as its the primary language of the planet, that immediately makes you feel safer. No doubt you may do it abroad by going in an English bar that serves bacon butties rather than a foreign bar that serves pastel de natas. As they are under no obligation to seek asylum in the first country they visit, they can choose to try and come to the UK and try here, but our Govt make it hard for them in order to satisfy the far right crackpots.

I also do not buy into the economic migrant argument, if they are seeking asylum the economic case is null and void as they get barely subsistence levels of support whilst doing so.
Click to expand...

If you are discarding ease of travel and geography then you want a system where a asylum seeker can pick any country in the world to start their new life. Good luck with that but at least we can dispense with comparisons with Germany and spreading the burden equally then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top