ECHR Madness.

[brush2805]

13 hours ago, fellow said:

Off topic.

HPC never used to be full of this shit.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 hours ago, abbot26 said:

What makes you think he/she is correct ? Do you always thank people for spouting any old cr@p or is it just when it fits your narrative ?

I know partly because I have worked in the HO and partly because I am not a guilible idiot who swallows the BS pumped out by this government and its supporters. The rules were set by the UN's universal declaration of human rights in 1948 and elaborated by the UN Convention in 1951.

The Convention sets out the basic rights of refugees. These include:

• The right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution.
• 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.

In short there are no illegals as the goverments refusal to provide safe routes into the UK gives asylum seekers the right to bypass UK border rules.

The real question is why you and many others with opinions on the topic never bother to find out the facts prefering instead to swallow the BS being fed to them (Or ask inteligent questions like why does it take 3 yrs to process a claim in the UK versus 6 months in France and Germany). 

Is that perhaps because it fits your narrative? 

 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

4 hours ago, abbot26 said:

Any evidence to back that up ? My understanding is the French won’t allow the British police to police the French shores but you say they are ok to build and man processing centres ?

They made multiple offers to discuss hosting processing centres during my time at the HO. The UK government refused to progress discussions so that, if questioned,  they could claim there never was any formal offer.

Normally that would have been the end of the matter but Boris pissed off the French so much they made their offer public

On Channel crossings, France is sick of UK ‘outsourcing’ problems

Quote

Instead, France has proposed setting up joint processing centres on French soil, where applications for asylum in Britain could be examined by British immigration officers.

But it is Johnson’s final proposal, a bilateral returns agreement with France plus talks to establish a UK-EU returns agreement, that seems to have sparked the fiercest reaction. Since Britain left the EU, it is no longer able to use the bloc’s Dublin system for returning migrants to the first member state they entered. It has not so far negotiated any bilateral deals.

Macron has repeatedly stated the French view that France is merely a transit country for the very small percentage – roughly 3% – of migrants who enter the EU with the UK as their preferred final destination, and that the only long-term solution is greater Europe-wide cooperation to tackle a European – indeed, global – issue.

 

[Mrs Doyle]

7 hours ago, Insane said:

We hear so many different claims from different people that it is difficult to get a grip on what is fact and what is fiction. I have heard that the French would not let the UK set up a processing centre in France. I am not saying you are right or wrong I am just saying that I have heard both statements, so don't know which one is true. 

I don't actually believe our government thought they could hide behind the Channel leaving the French with the problem as why would our rescue boats go into French waters and pick people up before they are in British Waters. Again I have heard they don't and I have heard that they do do this. 

I have also been told by various members of Parliament that their hands are tired due to ECHR rules. However I have also heard that countries in the ECHR Germany and Sweden for instance will not accept Asylum Applications from Albanians who at one point were 80% of the people on the boats. So is that true or not? If other countries are not accepting Albanian Asylum Applications why can we not do the same? 

As I said we hear so much contradictory statements that it is difficult to know what is and what is not true.  

You find out the truth by doing some research and not by things you've heard. 

[Insane]

1 minute ago, Mrs Doyle said:

You find out the truth by doing some research and not by things you've heard. 

When I say heard I mean read and seen how do you know the research you undertake it telling the truth? 

[Mrs Doyle]

5 hours ago, abbot26 said:

Any evidence to back that up ? My understanding is the French won’t allow the British police to police the French shores but you say they are ok to build and man processing centres ?

 

I think most people are fed up with people suggesting these people are genuine asylum seekers fleeing war/famine/torture, where this suggestion falls flat is if that was the case why would they continue to trek thousands of miles within safe countries where there is no war/famine/torture, these people are economic migrants, that’s the reality of it. 
 

let’s then examine why someone would deliberately destroy their ID, I think it’s pretty obvious why, I’d love to hear your thinking on it 

Asylum seeker is a description of status. 

Once you apply your case is heard. 

Over 85% of applications are approved. 

Of those rejected it's not a simple equation that they weren't genuine as the process involves subjective decision making by humans in complex cases in an underfunded system. 

Unless you have personal knowledge of these cases then you're just chirping out loud your own prejudices or ignorance. 

For the relative very few that come here there are a myriad if reasons; language, community, family, cultural and colonial links, our reputation for fairness, and hell, I even read one interview with someone thinking we are compassionate because of our reaction to Princess Di's death. 

If I was to leave everything and every person I'd ever know behind I'd make an effort to give me and my family the best chance to make a new life. I'm assuming you would too. 

And here's another reality for you. Many of those coming g here don't get to hail and ride, once they are in the hands of human traffickers your choices are limited. 

 

Yes, let's examine the case you are citing about passport destroyal. Can you tell us which case you are specifically referring to so we can 'examine' it? 

 

[Mrs Doyle]

14 minutes ago, Insane said:

When I say heard I mean read and seen how do you know the research you undertake it telling the truth? 

Facts are objective. 

The basic principle of research is to use a wide range of credible and verifiable sources. 

What credible and verifiable sources did you use for your reading? 

[Insane]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Asylum seeker is a description of status. 

Once you apply your case is heard. 

But different countries have different rules of who they allow to apply. Germany and Sweden won't accept applications from Albania for instance. 

3 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Over 85% of applications are approved. 

Of those rejected it's not a simple equation that they weren't genuine as the process involves subjective decision making by humans in complex cases in an underfunded system. 

Well flip that around just because someone is approved why would that mean they were genuine. 

5 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Unless you have personal knowledge of these cases then you're just chirping out loud your own prejudices or ignorance. 

You can flip that as well. Someone defending an Asylum Seeker could be doing it out of ignorance and prejudice in their favour. 

7 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

For the relative very few that come here

100,000 you think is relative very few. What would you say was a lot? How many do you think we can take a year? 

8 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

come here there are a myriad if reasons; language, community, family, cultural and colonial links, our reputation for fairness, and hell, I even read one interview with someone thinking we are compassionate because of our reaction to Princess Di's death. 

Waffell 

9 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

If I was to leave everything and every person I'd ever know behind I'd make an effort to give me and my family the best chance to make a new life. I'm assuming you would too. 

How do you know are leaving everything and every person they have ever known? Once granted Asylum and Citizenship they can always pop back home for a holiday and or apply for family to join them? 

10 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

And here's another reality for you. Many of those coming g here don't get to hail and ride, once they are in the hands of human traffickers your choices are limited. 

Can you expand on that ? Why would they need anything to do with human traffickers once here and in the system? 

 

[Insane]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

What credible and verifiable sources did you use for your reading? 

To numerous to list but I am reading what you are writing and a lot of it is both waffle and full of your own view points. 

[thecrashingisles]

16 hours ago, Postman said:

It's the new Brexit culture war nonsense. The Tories are relying on the fact that the general population can't tell the difference between the EU and the ECHR to garner more votes from the rightwing nutters who are oblivious to the fact that they are very different and very separate institutions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jan/27/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices

Tony Blair yesterday held out the prospect of Britain withdrawing from its obligations under the European convention on human rights if its latest wave of asylum reforms failed to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers.

[Insane]

8 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jan/27/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices

Tony Blair yesterday held out the prospect of Britain withdrawing from its obligations under the European convention on human rights if its latest wave of asylum reforms failed to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers.

What an excellent find. 

It is a great pity that here we are 20 years later and in the current mess. The politicians said the situation was  unacceptable and they were going to change it. A pity they did not carry through with any changes. 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

5 minutes ago, Insane said:

What an excellent find. 

It is a great pity that here we are 20 years later and in the current mess. The politicians said the situation was  unacceptable and they were going to change it. A pity they did not carry through with any changes. 

 

Not really context is everything and Blair's government managed to get on top of it without leaving the civilised world.

This is a new Tory mess 

How many people do we grant asylum or protection to? - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[Insane]

4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Not really context is everything and Blair's government managed to get on top of it without leaving the civilised world.

So what did Blair change that got on top of the situation that cannot be used now to keep on top of it? 

[thecrashingisles]

2010: German interior minister says asylum seekers should be kept in camps in North Africa and sees nothing wrong with sending people back

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/sz-interview-mit-otto-schily-ich-finde-nichts-anstoessiges-daran-menschen-zurueckzufuehren-1.305629

[debtlessmanc]

6 hours ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Over 85% of applications are approved. 

In the U.K., in other EU states the fraction that are approved is far lower - eg in Italy 10% I believe. Almost as though different countries are using different criteria. Don’t forget the guy who murdered the guy in Dorset had his asylum claim approved - then it was found he was wanted for double murder in Serbia. So the system clearly has flaws.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11669871/amp/Asylum-seeker-killed-Thomas-Roberts-Bournemouth-murdered-two-men-Serbia.html

He convinced officials he was 14 so he could not have had a valid passport.  Not only that Norway had refused him asylum already.

Edited August 11, 2023 by debtlessmanc

[captainb]

18 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

In the U.K., in other EU states the fraction that are approved is far lower - eg in Italy 10% I believe. Almost as though different countries are using different criteria. Don’t forget the guy who murdered the guy in Dorset had his asylum claim approved - then it was found he was wanted for double murder in Serbia. So the system clearly has flaws.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11669871/amp/Asylum-seeker-killed-Thomas-Roberts-Bournemouth-murdered-two-men-Serbia.html

He convinced officials he was 14 so he could not have had a valid passport.  Not only that Norway had refused him asylum already.

Don't get why biological checks for age arnt undertaken on those claiming to be children and have gone through puberty (like in Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden etc etc).

 

Seems the right not to have teeth/hair examined trumps the right of other children not to have potentially convicted murderers in a gsce maths lesson. Madness. 

[Mrs Doyle]

7 hours ago, Insane said:

But different countries have different rules of who they allow to apply. Germany and Sweden won't accept applications from Albania for instance. 

Well flip that around just because someone is approved why would that mean they were genuine. 

You can flip that as well. Someone defending an Asylum Seeker could be doing it out of ignorance and prejudice in their favour. 

100,000 you think is relative very few. What would you say was a lot? How many do you think we can take a year? 

Waffell 

How do you know are leaving everything and every person they have ever known? Once granted Asylum and Citizenship they can always pop back home for a holiday and or apply for family to join them? 

Can you expand on that ? Why would they need anything to do with human traffickers once here and in the system? 

 

Wont accept or reject once applied for? 

What facts did your research throw up to evidence this claim you read and from what credible and verifiable sources? 

The more evidence provided the more likely the claim will be approved. 

Like I said, claiming asylum involves a complex set of circumstances judged by humans. 

I don't understand that bit about defending an asylum seeker? 

Do you understand what the word relative means? 

Your last two paragraphs show that you clearly haven't understood my points. 

You clearly have an agenda but I'm happy to examine any evidence you can provide from your extensive research. 

[Mrs Doyle]

39 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

In the U.K., in other EU states the fraction that are approved is far lower - eg in Italy 10% I believe. Almost as though different countries are using different criteria. Don’t forget the guy who murdered the guy in Dorset had his asylum claim approved - then it was found he was wanted for double murder in Serbia. So the system clearly has flaws.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11669871/amp/Asylum-seeker-killed-Thomas-Roberts-Bournemouth-murdered-two-men-Serbia.html

He convinced officials he was 14 so he could not have had a valid passport.  Not only that Norway had refused him asylum already.

All systems are flawed. 

"Earlier, the court heard how as a 15-year-old child, Abdulrahimzai had been tortured and left for dead by the Taliban - who had previously executed both his parents when he was just four or five. "

[Mrs Doyle]

42 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

In the U.K., in other EU states the fraction that are approved is far lower - eg in Italy 10% I believe. Almost as though different countries are using different criteria. Don’t forget the guy who murdered the guy in Dorset had his asylum claim approved - then it was found he was wanted for double murder in Serbia. So the system clearly has flaws.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11669871/amp/Asylum-seeker-killed-Thomas-Roberts-Bournemouth-murdered-two-men-Serbia.html

He convinced officials he was 14 so he could not have had a valid passport.  Not only that Norway had refused him asylum already.

"In Italy, 52,625 applications were examined: 53% (27,385) of claims were rejected, 12% (6,161) were granted refugee status, 13% (6,770) subsidiary protection and 21% (10,865) special protection."

[debtlessmanc]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

All systems are flawed. 

"Earlier, the court heard how as a 15-year-old child, Abdulrahimzai had been tortured and left for dead by the Taliban - who had previously executed both his parents when he was just four or five. "

No evidence? He has lied and lied and lied, but you are happy to believe this? 

[Bruce Banner]

It looks like the Brexiteers are falling back on the Cortez gameplay .

[Mrs Doyle]

7 hours ago, Insane said:

To numerous to list but I am reading what you are writing and a lot of it is both waffle and full of your own view points. 

Ah, the old, 'I'm not going to produce any actual evidence because (insert crap reason here)', defence.

[Mrs Doyle]

6 hours ago, Insane said:

What an excellent find. 

It is a great pity that here we are 20 years later and in the current mess. The politicians said the situation was  unacceptable and they were going to change it. A pity they did not carry through with any changes. 

 

Which human rights do you think should be taken away from us? 

[debtlessmanc]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

"In Italy, 52,625 applications were examined: 53% (27,385) of claims were rejected, 12% (6,161) were granted refugee status, 13% (6,770) subsidiary protection and 21% (10,865) special protection."

So 12% only slightly out. 

[Mrs Doyle]

6 hours ago, Insane said:

So what did Blair change that got on top of the situation that cannot be used now to keep on top of it? 

You do realise we have a backlog of over 50,000 claims because the Tories have run the system into the ground?