.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
12 minutes ago, jesimps said:
They do have the time to request asylum in the first safe country. I think the UK has every right to ask why this wasn't done and tell France to accept them. Why does UK have to assume the moral responsibility just because it's the refugees' choice of destination. Also, why do they always show babies in the photos when most of them are really young men. Just the age to be causing the sort of trouble we've seen in UK and the rest of Europe.
Apart from there is no legal requirement to do so, the opportunity to seek asylum may not present itself. If a refugee is travelling has a stowaway in a lorry for example.
-
28 minutes ago, Fithman said:
Please stop the silly responses and detail how many 1000's of people, driven from their homes by war or terrorism have found sanctuary in Saudi or the Gulf States.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html
-
1 hour ago, Fithman said:
Please produce the evidence for what you claim.
If true why trek across Europe when comfortable life can be had in Saudi or one of the very wealthy Gulf states?
Which part do you want proof, an examination of the 1951 convention and 1967 protocol will tell you who are signaturies
-
1 hour ago, SgtRock said:
Is there any chance that you could stop trolling.
You are way out of your depth and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/documents
You cannot claim Asylum in the UK without documentation. PERIOD.
Every single man, woman and child, without paperwork, who is trying to get to the UK from the camps in France without paperwork are / will be breaking UK Law.
1951 convention
Article 1 (2)
As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term "the country of his nationality" shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.
Article 31
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.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx
Did you miss the part in brackets 'if you have them'
-
1 minute ago, halloween said:
What you said is ".... ,if the childs parents are in the UK and in a position to care for them then the UK has the responsibility to process the claim."
If the parents status is undecided, entry refused and under appeal, or they are waiting deportation, I see little reason to admit even more likely illegal immigrants. If the parents were admitted legally, their children would have been included in the admission.
BTW I assume that DNA testing is carried out to ensure the children are those of the parents?
An asylum seeker cannot be illegal .
-
31 minutes ago, Fithman said:
Why not ask these "children" why a Muslim state such as Saudi will not offer them "asylum"
But they do , the reason its not reported the gulf states are not signatories to the relevant UN protocols. Saudia Arabia dont class them as refugees but rather brothers requiring help
-
11 minutes ago, halloween said:
If the parents had been admitted legal entry to the UK, why would their children be left in a French camp?
I put forward the legal position that the UK voluntarily signed up to, how families become separated is moot
-
1 minute ago, SgtRock said:
It takes special people to master the trick of having no paperwork but having a pocketful of $$ to pay people traffickers to transport them 1000's of miles and across continents to get to the camps.
You cannot screen people that have no documentation, funny how you ignored that part, that it has been going on since the 80's and that it involves illegal activity.
Of course you can screen people without paperwork, the sheer number of failed asylum seekers is testamount to the process.
-
4 minutes ago, Fithman said:
Ask the Swedes about their experiences associated with admitting refugee "children" to their country.
Why not ask the children of their experience in Syria
-
17 minutes ago, SgtRock said:
You think that there might be a reason that they are currently sitting in a sh!thole in France trying to get to the UK illegally
Can you please provide some evidence in law EU or international that states their action is illegal
-
4 minutes ago, elliss said:
France , should accept them , or Italy , Poland , etc .
I thought UK , was leaving the EU ??
Under the Dublin regs ,if the childs parents are in the UK and in a position to care for them then the UK has the responsibility to process the claim
-
8 minutes ago, SgtRock said:
Whilst you are correct that the longer children remain in camps the greater the degree of physical and psychological problems that will be exposed to.
A couple of points that you should at least be aware of.
1. It is impossible to screen anyone without legitimate papers, this is one of the many problems that beset this and other camps.
2. This is not a new phenomenon that has suddenly sprung up in France with people illegally trying to reach the UK. This goes back to the late 80's, and perhaps even before that, with many camps throughout France filled with people illegally trying to get to the UK. The most notable being the Sangatte Camp.
Whether they are economic migrants, illegal migrants, Asylum Seekers or any other name that is given to them. When they tramp halfway around the world, passing through many safe Countries and in most cases paying people traffickers to get them to the camps. They lose any rights that they may have had to legitimately claim a legal status.
Does not help the children in any way, but it is time that a few realities were addressed.
Obviously someone fleeing persecution has the time, freedom and opportunity to collect their documents .
-
4 hours ago, Khun Han said:
Correct, Robin. It was purely a legal procedure to make Miller the sole claimant. This is her interpretation:
"I'm the only named client now but originally I wasn't the only one and the other people whose names were listed as clients received unbelievably vile abuse."
See the difference? See what she was trying to do there? It's blatant dishonesty.
Gina Miller is not the sole claimant,she is the lead claimant. The other claimants, Dos Santos and first interveners were heard (but not concluded ) after the lead claim on first day
-
17 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
But the difference is only slight. These multinationals do not have any kind of regional loyalty, let alone country loyalty. Everything for them is money-driven. Hell, look a Gilead, who I mentioned earlier. They are American, in the way that GSK is British. But they made their official home in Ireland because Ireland offered them absurdly good tax breaks. No loyalty to their home country there, was there? GSK would be out of the UK in a flash if they thought it wasn't working for them. It is working for them.
Dont GSK benefit from the UK patent box scheme, 10% tax on profits from IP
-
29 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
I believe that all all the countries that are EFTA members have to agree to the free movement of peoples. That's part of the deal.
The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 31 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.
EFTA have an emergency break clause, article 112,113.
If you go down EFTA route the EU regs apply and the EFTA court follows ECJ rulings.
-
22 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
Do you think that if the courts rule that parliament has the final say - they will endorse the brexit vote?
Personally I think the MPs will find it politically binding, a full debate will ensure that the government negotiations however constrained will go forward with the support of parliaament.
-
8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
Exactly, which is why they are looking for the courts to rule that the referendum should be ignored and only MPs get a vote on the subject.
The courts cannot rule the referendum to be ignored, it is your inference that the MPs will vote against. It seems ironic one of the arguments for Brexit was the EU primacy over UK law, but have no qualms regarding one person, the PM to remove laws at their whim.
-
2 hours ago, Khun Han said:
And I suspect that they will do their level best to sabotage brexit without actually calling a vote to reverse it.
With the vacuous statement ' Brexit means Brexit ', what is there to sabotage
-
2 hours ago, Khun Han said:
I'm not denigrating Gina Miller for excercising her right to bring this action: I'm denigrating her for her motivation in bringing it, and her lack of honesty (her 'my fellow petitioners were scared off' tale has already been exposed by the media).
Firstly the other claimants did not drop out, their case was heard after Lord Pannick presented the main argument.
Secondly can you back up the claim ' lack of honesty ', as I mentioned earlier her vote to remain is in the court transcript
-
22 minutes ago, Grouse said:
What EU policies do you disapprove of?
Euro based salaries are looking even juicier now ?
The issue with regards EU rules and regs lies with the UK insistence of gold plating
' he UK regulations are unnecessarily complicated – it takes almost 1000 words, for example, to transpose 10 words in the Directive on the qualifying period. '
How ridiculous is it that a 1000 words for 10
-
On 10/14/2016 at 4:10 AM, Muhendis said:
Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.
17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:Actually there are about 400,000 pensioners living abroad in Europe. At least according to this:
https://www.ft.com/content/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de
I think Margaret Thatchers speech regarding the referendum in 1975 is apt in where we are today
How tired one gets of the well-worn clichç ' the full-hearted consent of the people '. What exactly is meant by this? Referenda for every important piece of legislation? If this was the case, we would have no Race Relations Act, immigration would have been stopped, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force. All these laws were passed not only without this full-hearted consent nonsense, but, if the polls are to be believed, in the face of a determined 70 to 80 per cent. of the electors' wishes to the contrary.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1975/mar/11/eec-membership-referendum
The speech is long,with numerous interruptions but well worth reading
-
20 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
At the end of the day we all know that the vast majority of MPs want to stop Brexit, so they want a legal decision that says that its down to parliament - not the population who voted in the referendum to leave the EU.
If the courts determine that its a parliamentary choice, its obvious that the parliamentary choice will be to stay in the EU.
Whilst MPs are selected to represent their constituencies , their is no legal obligation to accept the result, they probably feel there is a political duty to do so.
I suspect rather than reversing the referendum MPs would like to fully involved.
-
11 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Merkel will probably be history after next year's elections, and the replacement coalition are going to be far, far less pro-EU. Let's see what happens then.
At that point if May follows with her timetable the 2yr period will have been reduced to 17 months, any deals in progress might be required to be scraped or revisited.
At the end of 2 yrs with UK sovereignty reclaimed any deal could be scuppered by Luxembourg.
-
4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Whilst Gina Miller has tried to be very careful with her words since bringing this action, she put her foot in it somewhat in her Sky interview. This case was brought in the hope that getting parliament involved would put a spanner in the works of brexit, using parliamentary democracy as window dressing for the case. All sides know this, and, hopefully, the judges will take this (and the claimant's lawyer's lie) into account.
The court will give its judgement based upon legalities, to denigrate a person for exercising their right to challenge is quite bewildering.
The case is not about parliamentary democracy but the extent and scope of the executives power to take away citizens rights using the prerogative .
UK to accept children from Calais Jungle camp 'within days'
in World News
Posted
A person seeking asylum is requesting sanctuary, and if the reason falls within the definition of 1951 convention then that person is a refugee. This does not give refugee status that is still to be determined.
The UK is a signatory to the convention and thus bound.
The following document acknowledges this
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-and-asylum-act-and-the-refugee-convention-process
Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 6. Section 31 affords a refugee, who has presented himself to the UK authorities without delay, showed good cause for his illegal entry or presence and has made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable, protection in England Wales and Northern Ireland against prosecution for the following offences: • Part 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 [forgery and connected offences]; • Section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 [deception]; • Section 26(1)(d) of the Immigration 1971 Act [falsification of documents]. • Sections 25(1) and (5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 [possession of false identity documents] – relevant up to 21 January 2011only. • Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Identity Documents Act 2010, which replaced Sections 25(1) and (5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 with effect from 21 January 2011