You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Why are you posting the same ridiculous response ?
Because it's the truth. The fact that you cannot cope with that is not my problem. Oh and also because it's not ridiculous.
So, @Telford, what is your understanding of the term *illegal immigrant*?
Someone who enters the UK illegally who is not an asylum seeker.
<snip>
How do you know whether or not someone entering the country is an asylum seeker until you ask them? [/b] How do you ask them when they land at run off ?
Just turning back their overcrowded little boat isn't going to help, is it?
If, because of poverty and unemployment, someone pays a man in Turkey for a small boat trip across the channel and intends to work in the black market for a while how can that person be categorised?
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.
My italics.
What has all that got to do with immigrants, here illegally, who are not claiming asylum ?
Why do you persist in celebrating your ignorance?
Why do you insist on being an obnoxious person who is always right. ?
The UK is also toughening penalties and introducing new criminal offences for people coming to the UK illegally. It will be a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance when one is required. You could face up to 4 years in jail and be removed to a safe country if you arrive illegally.
“Will be” it is not currently a criminal offence to arrive in the U.K. without a valid entry clearance.
Therefore, we have no illegal immigrants at this time.
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Why are you posting the same ridiculous response ?
Because it's the truth. The fact that you cannot cope with that is not my problem. Oh and also because it's not ridiculous.
So, @Telford, what is your understanding of the term *illegal immigrant*?
Someone who enters the UK illegally who is not an asylum seeker.
<snip>
How do you know whether or not someone entering the country is an asylum seeker until you ask them? [/b] How do you ask them when they land at run off ?
Just turning back their overcrowded little boat isn't going to help, is it?
If, because of poverty and unemployment, someone pays a man in Turkey for a small boat trip across the channel and intends to work in the black market for a while how can that person be categorised?
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.
My italics.
What has all that got to do with immigrants, here illegally, who are not claiming asylum ?
Why do you persist in celebrating your ignorance?
Why do you insist on being an obnoxious person who is always right. ?
You don't get it do you? I don't give a fig about being right. I do care about people fleeing torture and rape and war and threats to their lives. I care about people glibly joining in with dehumanising those most in need.
You apparently find my occasional use of swear words offensive. Fine. I don't aim to offend. However, your use of the term 'illegal immigrant' is orders of magnitude more offensive.
In the past it has been patiently explained to you why the phrase 'illegal immigrant' is both factually wrong and hugely problematic.
It has been explained again today.
There is a link to simple information that explains why this framing of those coming to the UK by boats as 'illegals' is really dangerous. We have had a terrorist incident this week that shows where this kind of thinking ends.
You accused me of being naive. I explained how this is the opposite of true.
You are wearing your ignorance as a badge. I don't care whether you think me obnoxious or arrogant or anything. You are writing deeply offensive things and when challenged you double down or try to change your argument. I see you.
Rhetoric leads to policy.
Policy means removing safe options and in this example, reducing the search and rescue boats. That policy leads to dead children.
At the risk of ITTWACW, dare I say that if I found myself approving a "hostile environment" as part of my country's ideology, then I would not think it a Sign of Grace.
I see Braverman using the language of the hard right, talking about an "invasion" of migrants. I guess she's fighting for her career. Of course, the irony is that the Tories have been in power for 12 years, and yet she says the system is broken.
If asylum seekers aren't being processed quickly enough, who's fault is it. I would say it's the people paid to do the job of processing
So when there weren't and as there aren't enough of the 80% of coppers who'd pass vetting to go round, that's their fault?
Now we hear that some people - including the local tory MP (Sir Roger Gale) - are concerned that asylum seekers at Manston are being deliberately kept, by the Home Office, in overcrowded conditions.
IF this is true (and please note the IF), then, coupled with Cruella's admission that she used her own email address for government business, Sunak must surely have no option but to sack her.
On so doing, he should immediately resign himself, and seek a General Election.
Please, let's get rid of these lunatics once and for all.
And pass the poison chalice to Sir Kier, who cannot possibly deliver according to expectation, like poor Gordon, as neither of them would dare deliver social justice.
I would settle for someone who can make headway in getting us out of this hell we are in as a nation. Someone who thinks about how things affect poor and working people. Someone who can see that closer relationships with the EU will help businesses no end.
That would at least put us I a better position
Who is that someone? They can think about that all they like, what are they going to do about it and stay in power? Agreed on the EU, at least the Tories are being concilia...tory to the Republic of Ireland. Brexit has ruined us regardless of course. And other little gems like we can't store gas.
Now we hear that some people - including the local tory MP (Sir Roger Gale) - are concerned that asylum seekers at Manston are being deliberately kept, by the Home Office, in overcrowded conditions.
IF this is true (and please note the IF), then, coupled with Cruella's admission that she used her own email address for government business, Sunak must surely have no option but to sack her.
On so doing, he should immediately resign himself, and seek a General Election.
Please, let's get rid of these lunatics once and for all.
And pass the poison chalice to Sir Kier, who cannot possibly deliver according to expectation, like poor Gordon, as neither of them would dare deliver social justice.
I would settle for someone who can make headway in getting us out of this hell we are in as a nation. Someone who thinks about how things affect poor and working people. Someone who can see that closer relationships with the EU will help businesses no end.
That would at least put us I a better position
Who is that someone? They can think about that all they like, what are they going to do about it and stay in power? Agreed on the EU, at least the Tories are being concilia...tory to the Republic of Ireland. Brexit has ruined us regardless of course. And other little gems like we can't store gas.
I am not aware of all MPs so cannot say who would. The problem is staying in power seems to be more important than doing what I said.
I saw something pointing out that his resignations makes 80 resignations or sackings from government since the last election. The severance pay bill must be huge.
I'm seeing that Williamson has refused the severance pay he could take (this time - whether he took severance the last two times is something I've not heard anything about).
I wonder if Sunak's shiny new image is getting tarnished. If it was a brand new govt, he would be OK, but behind him is the rubble of 12 years, May, Boris, Truss, and above all Brexit, hanging round his neck like a millstone.
The biggest problem Sunak seems to have in trying to present a shiny new image is that he's chosen to bring in a lot of people into his cabinet who are tarnished. Whether that's genuinely because there's no talent in the back benches he could promote, or that his support depended on being seen as a continuation of the previous 12y, or some other factors I don't know. But, with Braverman only recently out because she repeatedly sent sensitive documents in unsecure emails, and Williamson out twice (once for leaking sensitive defence documents) and best known for incompetent handling of student assessment during the height of the pandemic, it looks like he was scraping the bottom of the barrel to find people to take Cabinet positions.
Maybe that's part of the rubble of 12y - not enough Conservative MPs without the baggage of being in government in that period, and too many better MPs who were too vocally Remain to keep the Brexiteers quiet.
Too many tory MPs with integrity, or sufficient backbone to stand up for what they thought was right (eg opposing Brexit) were de-selected by Johnson so there are few left with much of any of those qualities left. Also as you say Alan, Sunak is hampered by trying to keep all wings of his party sweet enough to avoid open warfare.
Too many tory MPs with integrity, or sufficient backbone to stand up for what they thought was right (eg opposing Brexit) were de-selected by Johnson so there are few left with much of any of those qualities left. Also as you say Alan, Sunak is hampered by trying to keep all wings of his party sweet enough to avoid open warfare.
Sunak must have known this, though, when he was seeking to become Supreme Leader.
Too many tory MPs with integrity, or sufficient backbone to stand up for what they thought was right (eg opposing Brexit) were de-selected by Johnson so there are few left with much of any of those qualities left. Also as you say Alan, Sunak is hampered by trying to keep all wings of his party sweet enough to avoid open warfare.
No, but the local Conservative groups would have power to choose who they wanted to stand in the 2017, and especially 2019, elections - I don't know whether central office has powers to force candidates on a local group against their will. If the media reporting is accurate, and that local Conservative groups were strongly supportive of Johnson and Brexit then it seems possible that many Remain supporting MPs might have felt pressure from their local party to stand down (of course in 2017 many would have lost their seats even if selected as candidate) and for a Johnson supporting pro-Brexit candidate selected to replace them.
Johnson withdrew the whip from many MPs on appointment I believe. Those who had voted against the more egregious Brexit related motions mostly, from memory.
Johnson withdrew the whip from many MPs on appointment I believe. Those who had voted against the more egregious Brexit related motions mostly, from memory.
The wretched BoJo the Clown certainly had a malevolent influence, however it might have been manifested.
Too many tory MPs with integrity, or sufficient backbone to stand up for what they thought was right (eg opposing Brexit) were de-selected by Johnson so there are few left with much of any of those qualities left. Also as you say Alan, Sunak is hampered by trying to keep all wings of his party sweet enough to avoid open warfare.
Johnson never had the power to de-select MPs
Having the whip withdrawn bars you from selection, unless I'm mistaken.
Too many tory MPs with integrity, or sufficient backbone to stand up for what they thought was right (eg opposing Brexit) were de-selected by Johnson so there are few left with much of any of those qualities left.
I wrote that from memory but it seems I was right - that Johnson's actions prevented the better tory MPs from standing again. Only a fool would fail to understand or a pedant argue with this.
Too many tory MPs with integrity, or sufficient backbone to stand up for what they thought was right (eg opposing Brexit) were de-selected by Johnson so there are few left with much of any of those qualities left. Also as you say Alan, Sunak is hampered by trying to keep all wings of his party sweet enough to avoid open warfare.
Johnson never had the power to de-select MPs
Having the whip withdrawn bars you from selection, unless I'm mistaken.
If they are suspended at the time of selection I agree.
Not directly connected with Rish! (except that he's the unelected Prime Minister, and the place where the buck should stop), but here's a damning indictment on the plight of the saucy poor in fair Brexitannia Unhinged:
It says good things about Gordon Brown that he uses his retirement from being an elected politician to keep on working for the people in schemes such as the Big Hoose. I don't see any sign of David Cameron doing anything remotely similar, nor Tony Blair. And, when they lose their seat (or don't stand) at the next election does anyone imagine May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak will be out there trying their best to get people food and loo roll?
Comments
I note this paragraph:
“Will be” it is not currently a criminal offence to arrive in the U.K. without a valid entry clearance.
Therefore, we have no illegal immigrants at this time.
You don't get it do you? I don't give a fig about being right. I do care about people fleeing torture and rape and war and threats to their lives. I care about people glibly joining in with dehumanising those most in need.
You apparently find my occasional use of swear words offensive. Fine. I don't aim to offend. However, your use of the term 'illegal immigrant' is orders of magnitude more offensive.
In the past it has been patiently explained to you why the phrase 'illegal immigrant' is both factually wrong and hugely problematic.
It has been explained again today.
There is a link to simple information that explains why this framing of those coming to the UK by boats as 'illegals' is really dangerous. We have had a terrorist incident this week that shows where this kind of thinking ends.
You accused me of being naive. I explained how this is the opposite of true.
You are wearing your ignorance as a badge. I don't care whether you think me obnoxious or arrogant or anything. You are writing deeply offensive things and when challenged you double down or try to change your argument. I see you.
This is why I persist in being an 'obnoxious person':
http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2015/09/careless-words-cost-lives.html
Rhetoric leads to policy.
Policy means removing safe options and in this example, reducing the search and rescue boats. That policy leads to dead children.
AFZ
Meanwhile, living children throw notes over the camp fence, pleading for help:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/02/home-office-removing-asylum-seekers-from-manston-as-fears-rise-for-their-health
Shameful.
No. You change your ways.
I will try.
Dafyd Hell Host
So when there weren't and as there aren't enough of the 80% of coppers who'd pass vetting to go round, that's their fault?
Who is that someone? They can think about that all they like, what are they going to do about it and stay in power? Agreed on the EU, at least the Tories are being concilia...tory to the Republic of Ireland. Brexit has ruined us regardless of course. And other little gems like we can't store gas.
I am not aware of all MPs so cannot say who would. The problem is staying in power seems to be more important than doing what I said.
Perhaps you could change yours. Certainly you should.
Your support is appreciated.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/07/grant-shapps-joins-condemnation-of-gavin-williamson-abusive-texts
With friends like Braverman and Williamson, he certainly doesn't need enemies...
A *positive contribution* from Williamson would be to disappear, in the manner of a Boojum.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/08/pressure-grows-on-unethical-and-immoral-gavin-williamson
Dear oh dear.
What is the shortest period between a Prime Minister taking office and one of their newly appointed cabinet ministers resigning?
He was chancellor for over 6 months. That's a decade in tory years.
Don't worry. Sir Gavin will be back.
The way you concluded your post.
That's the worrying thing about this govt. It's a kind of permanent acid reflux.
🤮
Sir Gavin's appointments have all been a total mystery to me.
I glanced at this and read: Does David under Jonathon count?
Who knew Jonathan was the top in that relationship?
Maybe that's part of the rubble of 12y - not enough Conservative MPs without the baggage of being in government in that period, and too many better MPs who were too vocally Remain to keep the Brexiteers quiet.
Sunak must have known this, though, when he was seeking to become Supreme Leader.
Interesting times.
Johnson never had the power to de-select MPs
The wretched BoJo the Clown certainly had a malevolent influence, however it might have been manifested.
Having the whip withdrawn bars you from selection, unless I'm mistaken.
I wrote that from memory but it seems I was right - that Johnson's actions prevented the better tory MPs from standing again. Only a fool would fail to understand or a pedant argue with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/12/gordon-brown-big-hoose-fife-food-banks
Nota bene: this is in Scotland, which is AIUI rather better governed than the shitehole inhabited by we poor southerners.