simple1
-
Posts
19,490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by simple1
-
-
Will the father be forced to support this child according to Australian law.
The child & surrogate mother in Thailand are being supported by an Australian based charity.
In W.A. where the couple in the OP live it's actually illegal for an offshore surrogacy contract, although so far as I'm aware no Australian has ever been arrested and charged for the offense. As you probably know Thailand has now banned surrogacy for foreigners.
The whole scenario is bizarre as the Court in Oz has directed at no time can the 'father' be alone with the other child living in Oz, every three months the child must be informed why she cannot be alone with him and a person has been allocated by the extended family to live in the house to ensure the child is not alone with him.
-
The fear & terror in the faces of the girls in the video is heartbreaking.
Amnesty International says about 2,000 children have been abducted by Boko Haram since 2014. Many are used as sex slaves, fighters and even suicide bombers.
-
was just wondering why the IS dont round up all the rohinga littering various countries in SEA an ship them off to syria/iraq
That would be an interesting prospect. Being one of the most persecuted groups on earth, the Rohingyas would be ripe territory for recruitment. Many are desperately poor and the prospect of making money would be a real lure.
A number of Bangladeshi's have joined Islamist terror groups, but very limited activity by Rohingya in response to Taliban and Al Qaeda affiliated groups calls to rise up against their oppressors or to join them. Covered in fair amount of detail:
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/the-rohingya-and-islamic-extremism-a-convenient-myth/
-
Not sure how Ghostnigel is ignorant or ill informed when he is 100% correct. Muslims illegally entering the UK are not subject to UK law or immigration laws. Once they manage to set foot on UK soil they are in for life and will be given full benefits for ever. I wish this was not the case, and that the law was applied to all regardless of status or religious beliefs, but let us deal with on the ground reality. By the way, a close friend is a channel tunnel employee and he tells me that almost all of them have 10k plus sterling in their pockets. Interesting how desperate "refugees" get such a thick wad.
He, and you, are both ignorant about and ill informed on this subject because what you are saying is 100% incorrect!
Everybody in the UK, regardless of their religion, is subject to the law of the land.
Anybody claiming any sort of public fund has to provide evidence that they are a British citizen or, if not, that they are in the UK legally and the conditions of their stay allows them to claim.
Therefore it should be obvious to all that illegal immigrants, whatever their religion, do not get any help from the state; because they are in the UK illegally and if they tried to obtain state aid then not only could they not provide such evidence, the mere attempt to claim would bring the attention of the state upon them and their illegal presence.
Of course, some people do enter illegally and then claim asylum, as do people who have entered legally, and so do get some state aid. The UK is a civilised country and wont let them starve.
But asylum seekers are not given a nice house and bucket loads of cash.
Some may be accommodated in a flat or house, many more are put into hostels or bed and breakfasts and a substantial proportion into an immigration detention centre or, if their asylum claim has been refused, even prison..
As well as being accommodated, they will also be given £35.39 a week with which to buy food and other necessities; plus a bit more, up to a maximum of £5 per week, if they are pregnant or have young children up to the age of 3. They may also get support from various charities, but that, of course, is not funded by the state.
So tell me; how does that add up to £18,600 p.a. as claimed by Ghostnigel? How does that equate to full benefits as claimed by you?
The latest government figures I can find show that between 2011 and 2013 45% of asylum claims were successful, 55% unsuccessful. So much for your claim that they are here for life. Initial figures for 2014 show a similar proportion.
For some facts rather than ignorant and ill informed opinion see
- Claim asylum in the UK
- Asylum support
- Asylum applicants' rights and responsibilities
- Immigration detention in the UK
- Home Office guidance; chapters 46 to 62: detention and removals.
Interesting that a channel tunnel worker is apparently able to stop and search illegal immigrants. Are the police and UKVI aware of his activities? Does he report these illegal immigrants to the police or UKVI so that they can be detained? Or does he simply let them through?
BTW, any support asylum seekers get from the government is means tested; so anyone with that amount of cash wont get anything.
My reply to your post keeps disappearing, you are either above criticism or there is a glitch in the system. For the last time, you are theoretically absolutely correct on every point. My point, and it is a major one, is that theory and on the ground actualities are in no way the same. You claim 55% of illegal immigrants are deported. With an estimated 3 million illegals in the UK(reality is probably far more) that would mean that approx 5,000 of them get deported every day, which would take about 14 jumbo jets daily - and is not happening I don't care what you tell me. I can only think of one muslim that was deported from the UK ever, that tool with a hook for a hand and it took about a decade and countless millions of quid and the locals in Finsbury park were whinging cos they loved him so much.. BTW recent arrivals in Germany (you know who im talking about) receive 370 Eu per month, as opposed to out of work professional Germans that get 390 Euros per month. Bit more than 30 quid a week that you claim.
I trust Mods will permit a reply?
The fairly consistent estimation of illegal migrants in the UK is approx 1 million. The vast majority of illegal migrants from countries that require a visa to enter the UK are over stayers. It is claimed the majority of over stayers by way of nationality are Chinese and Indians. Generally deportation of over stayers, not meeting visa conditions and declined asylum applicants is under reported. e.g. 50k students deported for not complying to their visa conditions.
https://thepienews.com/news/uk-to-investigate-deportation-of-50k-international-students/
The complication for deporting, those reaching the legal benchmark for criminal / terrorism offences after serving their jail sentence. declined asylum seekers and so on is HMG must have in-place government to government agreements for returnees; this fact has been repeated on a number of occasions and repeatedly ignored by some posters. In addition home countries for deportees must be declared 'safe' by HMG, as was recently announced for Afghan deportees.
When comparing welfare rates, which is definitely off topic, a bit more accuracy should be utilised.
"first year of unemployment remains covered by unemployment pay. Those who were in paid employment for at least a year beforehand still receive 60% of their net salary for the first year and 67% if they provide for a family. The big drop now happens afterwards. Instead of receiving about half of their former salaries, single people currently get €391 a month".
More detail at:
-
The guardian piece was a perfect example of first last reporting. They emphasized all the supposed positive bits and washed over the inconvenient bits left to the end. Also the quite devastating conclusions Trevor Phillips reached were glossed over or omitted. Little wonder really as the guardian and independent have so much invested in the failed multicultural ideology.The poll results to which Trevor Phillips refers is covered at the URL below.
7x7 I would be interested to read your thoughts / opinions regards his Channel 4 broadcast - perhaps in the Bedlam forum - thanks.
Perhaps you should both save yourself the bother of watching and just wait for Loonwatch to do a hit piece on Mr Phillips.
IMO you have a particular political prism upon which you and others view media reporting, much of which spins every single incident of criminality and other crimes, and infers all Muslims are this or that. As the poll demonstrates this is not the case. The high level of analysis of the poll demonstrates targeting particular socio economic demographic groups and concentration on so called disadvantaged locations, not the general Muslim heritage community of the UK.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/12/heres-what-you-really-need-to-know-about-british-muslims-5811220/
Numerous polls of Muslim opinion are carried out, those that do not support the tabloid / alarmist generalist view of the Muslim community are constantly denigrated by certain members of this forum.
The never ending attacks against 7x7 on this forum and others when they provide supporting links for their posts, to me, smack of desperation to find the minutest bit of criticism to support the overwhelming bigotry against all Muslims.
I do note you personally occasionally try to provide a bit of balance in some of your posts, but often revert to type.
BTW both the Guardian and the Independent have articles that are heavily critical of aspects of Islamic society e.g.
-
What Germans do in Germany is not the business of Turkey.
The German government should know that an protect their citizens
Perhaps it's illegal in Germany to accuse people of having sex with children and animals?
Although I would have thought it's a civil matter rather than a criminal one.
In this case possibly a criminal matter, from the OP...
"German law forbids insults of organs or representatives of foreign states, prosecutors are examining whether criminal proceedings can be brought"
-
as far as i know this type of thing a war crime"CIA director says would refuse to torture even if ordered" he doesnt however have and qualms about obliterating whole villages full of innocent people using unmanned aerial drones
Does that mean something like he has no problem in blowing away those who harbour, hide, feed and support terrorists ?
Definitions of War Crimes:
-
The poll results to which Trevor Phillips refers is covered at the URL below.
7x7 I would be interested to read your thoughts / opinions regards his Channel 4 broadcast - perhaps in the Bedlam forum - thanks.
-
Only uneducated, low information, racist, hateful bigots would believe that this isn't secular and modern and liberal. Women's rights groups should follow this example. This is cultural enrichment at its finest.
deleted
-
No but if the child is an Australian citizen living in Thailand the Aus govt could seize any Aus assets on behalf of the child?
Don't know
-
You might find some useful information in the following link:
Irrelevant to the question raised by Kenny202 as Australia / Thailand currently do not have a
reciprocating jurisdiction agreement for child support.
-
you 100% sure? I know a Thai lady married (thai marriage) to an Aussie can claim a settlement from Australia, even if she's never set foot in AustraliaI suppose if our child obtains citezenship should things go pearshaped with us future would give her the right to apply to Australia for child maintenance?
No, only if living in Australia with appropriate visa to qualify for Centrelink benefits
Apologies, thought you were referring to Centrelink welfare. Not a lawyer, but my understanding the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations 1973 applies. With this law Thais can only apply for similar maintenance monies applicable under Thai law & would need to be able to navigate or engage a lawyer to assist in with a Court claim in Oz.
-
I suppose if our child obtains citezenship should things go pearshaped with us future would give her the right to apply to Australia for child maintenance?
No, only if living in Australia with appropriate visa to qualify for Centrelink benefits
-
For the full pension, isn't residency 35 years now (from age 16)? I'd have to go back and work until I retired just to get a full pension. I left when I was 31 and am 47 now.
Yes, currently at the age of 16 a total of 35 years "working Life residency" to qualify for full Age Pension under the portability arrangements, this will include any periods of unemployment / disability and unable to work whilst in Oz.
-
2
-
-
In my experience, once the visa has been granted the visa holder cannot request to have the duration of the visa changed.
The duration of a visitor visa visa is up to the discretion of the decision maker.
The visa application centre in Bangkok simply collects the applicant's documents before they are to sent to the Australian embassy where a decision is made on the application.
6 month visitor visas are issued by the embassy in Bangkok to thai nationals but a number of health examinations must be passed before the visa is granted.
Is condition 8503 attached to the visa? You will find this information on the visa grant notice.
As Will27 stated, so long as no further stay condition is not applied, one can request to extend a Tourist Visa once in Oz. From the Immi website:
"In Australia, all passport holders can apply online for a Visitor visa extension"
-
^ The FSA would on the face of it seem to be the best choice for moderates who wish to fight for their home and country. However , as it stands they are weak because they lack sufficient numbers to be a force to be reckoned with. An influx of strong young men would help them gain strength. But if no group is squeaky clean then you need more moderates staying behind to fight instead of leaving.
Hundreds of radicalized Muslims have managed to cross Europe to go and join Isis. Even young naive teenage girls have made the journey. And yet men already in country cannot somehow feel they should be doing more to resist oppression. Frankly it is disingenuous waste of time trying to defend people who should be doing more merely for the sake of political correctness.
Ask you a question, right now would you have your son / daughter to fight alongside 'moderates' with limited fire power, no or very minimal medivac capability and so on? It is claimed many FSA fighters have joined Islamist groups as they no longer believe they can 'win'. There are contradictory reports, but a number claim FSA has all but dissipated. There are those who now claim Syrian Democratic Forces (mainly a Kurd front who would be representing Kurdish objectives, not Syria as a national entity) are achieving some success against Deash, but are viewed as 'terrorists' by the Turks & Assad regimes, so targeted for killing.
As I said above, IMO, it's currently a cluster@#$%. Personally if I were a moderate Syrian, right now is not the time to send my son / daughter to a fruitless death whilst a political solution to stop the fighting is far out of reach as a reward for the sacrifices. If the Assad regime retained power as a result of peace negotiations do you really believe he would enable a peaceful existence for the 'moderates' who opposed him - don't think so with his background of mass torture & extrajudicial killings of opponents. If an international agreement is put in-place to remove Assad and his cronies with a viable replacement government I would have a very different attitude.
-
I don't know the specifics of the relationship between the Chechens and the Uighurs, but there are significant number of both of these groups in Turkey. During the Chechen war, many Chechens fled to Turkey. There was a fair amount of support, especially from Islamic groups, for the Chechens and their cause. There has been support for Uighurs who are considered to be an ethnically Turkish group. How these two groups have joined up and formed some sort of alliance, I don't understand.
Without knowing the relationship, it is hard to know what the target is. Chechens might target Russian interests, but Uighurs probably wouldn't. Uighurs might target Chinese, but would have little beef against Russia.
If the basis of this affiliation is purely religious, then pretty much anyone and anywhere could be the target.
It would be better if there was a little more background information about the nature of this group and what they might be up to.
Immigration denies claim of 'Intelligence report' citing Uyghur terrorists in Phuket
-
Insinuating there is some deep information or context that people are lacking that if known would appraise everyone that there are no cowards in this area is nonsense. I have never seen so many cowards in my life. Whereas there are always exceptions, troops of all nationalities have noted the cowardice in this region for decades (this is primarily due to forcing tribal men to fight for a national identity they care little about).
The only exception to this was Kurdish men. I have never worked with Kurdish females but apples rarely fall far from the tree. The Sham is entirely known for cowards in the face of battle (recent news yesterday from Mosul supports this again). The only time that the tendency toward cowardice is mitigated is when western troops are embedded as "observers" or "forward air support" or "commo." Basically, if left to their own face-saving they will collectively turn and run over and over again. With others present, the context is different and often some stalwart fighters are noted.
There is a reason so many western troops and contractors and aid workers, etc., are so fond of the Kurds: There is simply a deep seated honor and resilience in the most common of them. I suspect their women would be equally fearsome.
Using your example is it not true the various Kurdish forces are fighting for their traditional homelands, not for State entities such as Syria and Iraq.
Given your experience do you accept tribal groups can be fierce fighters and proven to be extremely courageous e.g. facing certain death when refusing to swear allegiance in Daesh occupied villages and towns. On the other side of the coin I have read Iraqi Sunnis have shown they were more fearful of the Shiite militias in Iraq than Daesh, at least when al-Maliki was PM. Thoughts?
-
Women with some balls. Pity a lot of those Syrian men fleeing to Europe don't feel as strongly about defending their homes and land.
Think you need to understand a little more about the conflict and it's geography before making such a statement. If the Syrian men were stuck in a town when ISIS arrived it wasn't so easy just to stand and fight.
Thank you for your insight but perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the difference is. Many of us have followed the tragic news from Syria and ask why so many have chosen to flee instead of fight.
I can well imagine how difficult it must be to decide what to do when invaded by a bloodthirsty and implacable enemy. It is easy for us armchair warriors to condemn those who have fled their homes as giving up too easily and yet as these women have said ,many of their own men have chosen not to fight. Notwithstanding the Kurds have a history of being oppressed and are therefore more familiar with having to defend themselves we can see that many men have chosen to leave rather than affiliate themselves with any resistance group. If those turning up on the borders of Europe were numbered in thousands it would be more understandable but what we are seeing is millions of people fleeing . There are many different groups fighting Isis and the government , but once the conflict escalated beyond rhetoric and street protests they have chosen to leave rather than affiliate themselves with any group struggling against oppression.
And yet there are many still fighting for one or other of the various groups opposed to Isis and the Assad government.
Yes , when your community is overrun by extremists it is natural in the first instance to leave and seek safety. But whereas that might apply to women and children why have so many young men not decided to stay and resist oppression as best as they can rather than deciding to attempt to further their careers in Europe.
If we can make apologies for those who have left what can we say about these women ? Are they just a bunch of fools who don't know when to quit or are they setting an example that others should follow , regardless of the difficulties.
Exactly which armed group/s should those who have fled Syrian have joined. Assad's Army and Militias have committed numerous war crimes, including being responsible for approx 70% of civilian deaths. The opposition forces are mainly Islamist and a few more moderate groups such as Free Syrian Army (FSA receive relatively minimal support from the West). So far as I know none of the so called moderate groups have viable political representation to form a national government. Putting aside the occasional armed confrontation between Kurdish factions, overall the Kurd national groups do seem to have organised and accepted representation. In any case, for the moment, doesn't look as though Assad would be removed from power as a part of the peace process. In summary a cluster@#$%.
BTW UNHCR figures show of the registered Syrian refugees 49.2% are male and 50.8% are female.
-
absolute nonsense. The vast majority of muslim immigrants do not work, have no salary and make a career from welfare bludging and invite all and sundry over as family. The couple in the story have problems because they are not muslim, therefore the rules apply to them. Sickening.Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!
This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.
Have a read of the content at URL below, especially ‘Sources that are not permitted’.
-
Your main point would probably take us off topic to reply to it, basically it boils down to source policing. Yes Thomas Wictor has written at length about dodgy NGO's backed up by photographs, kindly give me a source for evidence he doctored photos if you have it. I could equally ask you what's the agenda of HRW and who funds them? I have a stack of information regarding the bias and dishonesty of HRW. I will limit my observations to the Times, where it was mentioned that Iran was not a bad guy they were interested in highlighting. Now the Houthis in Yemen are proxies of Iran so it becomes obvious which side HRW will favour in the Yemen conflict.There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike
It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.
You need proof to assert 'mercenaries' don't abide by the rules of war. I can equally assert that the Houthis use the Hamas tactic of using human shields by placing their operations within the heart of civilian areas, they even kidnap migrants for said purpose.
http://www.almotamar.net/en/6636.htm
Your link is mostly just a regurgitation of the o.p. As for casualty lists they tend to be fiction when scrutinized. For example Amnesty international spent a stack of donors money on some software that supposedly showed the casualties from Israel's last operation in Gaza. The figures were actually a direct lift from those provided by Hamas proxies. Countless supposed child victims turned out to be adult combatants in their mid-twenties. Do you really expect any different from Human rights watch?
They should submit their 'evidence' directly to the ICC not lobby governments supplying Saudi Arabia, have they done that and if not why not?
No answer to my main question; nevermind.
Both AI and HRW report on abuses by various parties engaged in conflict and oppression, including non State actors plus lobbying, successfully, for the release of hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners held in detention who are usually subjected to torture. So yes, I do respect both AI & HRW..
Although it's off topic, in case you overlooked the report, AI also reported on Hamas abuse / war crimes in Gaza during the latest conflict with Israel. I'm assuming you're referring to the forensic tools utilised by AI for their reporting on the Gaza conflict.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/gaza-cutting-edge-investigation-rafah/
I agree none of the parties in the Yemeni conflict are clean skins. If you’re of the view the hundreds of mercenaries hired by the UAE from Latin America, Sudan and Eritrea are fighting a 'clean' war in Yemen, so be it. BTW both AI & HRW have reported on the use of torture, disappearances, detention of political prisoners and so on by the UAE
So far as ICC is concerned they usually act on requests from UN Security Council or individual member States, though they do work closely with NGO's for gathering evidence.
Post removed to enable reply.
Last response.
Doctored photo example:
http://gawker.com/david-frums-apology-for-his-nutty-theory-links-to-more-1613454088
I guess you're referring to Soros regards HRW, there are numerous conspiracy theories concerning Soros, but anyone who utilises Karl Popper for the development of his world view has my utmost respect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories
Don't know how you can link HRW supporting Iran & Houthis when HRW has issued a number of reports heavily criticising both.
-
Not wishing to lecture you, agreed the same info can be interpreted differently by us. I would observe that you appear to approve of the conviction of Le Pen just as you do the prosecution of Geert Wilders, whereas I don't approve of the prosecution of Geert Wilders, and I'm uneasy over the conviction of Mr Le Pen, even though I despise the man. Free speech does have a price, no free speech has a larger one in my opinion.
As I recall Wilders was charged with incitement of hatred & discrimination.
Personally I find the issue of 'free speech' quite complex. Last year a senior Australian politician observed people have the right to be bigoted - he was referring to anti Muslim commentary. Where should the law draw the line as we both know such speech does lead to to physiological and physical violence by both sides of politics, innocents do suffer.
France has deported Islamic hate speech preachers with which I agree.
On a personal note my wife has on three occasions been subject to spiteful anti Asian comments on public transport in Oz, I would have loved to see the bastards ending up in jail for a while.
Jail time for words? What other totalitarian ideas do you support?
Post removed to enable reply.
I have ignored previous similar posts by you in the past month or so. However, I'm getting tired of your nonsense so...
Racist abuse against an individual in a public place is a criminal act under law in Australia; up to you if you believe racist acts should not be criminalised, I don't.
As an example you have previously posted support for forcible deportation of all Muslim heritage people from Sweden, you support totalitarian ideology, not me.
Nonsense and totalitarian to think that words shouldn't lead to jail time?
Stop spreading lies about me as i have never ever said that all muslims should be deported from Sweden. I have however said that anyone who does commit a crime should be deported.
So what was said that was so racist against your wife? Under swedish law it's also perfectly fine to say anything to a white person without getting convicted for hate crime all the while you can't basicly even look at any minority at the bus without the police knocking on your door. I have hard time believing it would be that much different in Australia.
Furthermore, what heritage do "muslims" have? To my knowledge anyone can convert to islam. You clearly associate islam with arabs, bit ignorant?
I have a clear memory of a post you made wishing for all Muslims to be deported from Sweden, not just those convicted for a criminal offense. Apologies if incorrect.
Am I not correct there are non Arab Muslims living in Sweden e.g. Kurds & Turks.
-
It's all totally bogus, just as NGO's slander Israel they have moved on to Saudi Arabia. The question being why?
http://www.thomaswictor.com/disgracing-its-name-human-rights-watch/
There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?
Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike
It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.
You need proof to assert 'mercenaries' don't abide by the rules of war. I can equally assert that the Houthis use the Hamas tactic of using human shields by placing their operations within the heart of civilian areas, they even kidnap migrants for said purpose.
http://www.almotamar.net/en/6636.htm
Your link is mostly just a regurgitation of the o.p. As for casualty lists they tend to be fiction when scrutinized. For example Amnesty international spent a stack of donors money on some software that supposedly showed the casualties from Israel's last operation in Gaza. The figures were actually a direct lift from those provided by Hamas proxies. Countless supposed child victims turned out to be adult combatants in their mid-twenties. Do you really expect any different from Human rights watch?
They should submit their 'evidence' directly to the ICC not lobby governments supplying Saudi Arabia, have they done that and if not why not?
No answer to my main question; nevermind.
Both AI and HRW report on abuses by various parties engaged in conflict and oppression, including non State actors plus lobbying, successfully, for the release of hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners held in detention who are usually subjected to torture. So yes, I do respect both AI & HRW..
Although it's off topic, in case you overlooked the report, AI also reported on Hamas abuse / war crimes in Gaza during the latest conflict with Israel. I'm assuming you're referring to the forensic tools utilised by AI for their reporting on the Gaza conflict.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/gaza-cutting-edge-investigation-rafah/
I agree none of the parties in the Yemeni conflict are clean skins. If you’re of the view the hundreds of mercenaries hired by the UAE from Latin America, Sudan and Eritrea are fighting a 'clean' war in Yemen, so be it. BTW both AI & HRW have reported on the use of torture, disappearances, detention of political prisoners and so on by the UAE
So far as ICC is concerned they usually act on requests from UN Security Council or individual member States, though they do work closely with NGO's for gathering evidence.
-
It's all totally bogus, just as NGO's slander Israel they have moved on to Saudi Arabia. The question being why?
http://www.thomaswictor.com/disgracing-its-name-human-rights-watch/
There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?
Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike
It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.
Thailand scuppers migrant rescue ship's operations
in Thailand News
Posted
The various organisations you refer to and NGO's in Myanmar have been lobbying the Myanmar authorities for years.
The Rohingya were officially made stateless & disenfranchised by the then dictatorship in Burma in 1982. The Rohingya situation has actually worsened with some international groups now warning there is a possibility the Myanmar authorities may descend into genocide.
Rohingya have been targeted by Islamist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban to encourage them to take up arms against their oppressors; to be frank I'm surprised there has been very minimal activity by Rohingya is this respect in the past twenty years or so. Other ethnic groups (non-Muslim) in Myanmar have been active with armed resistance for years.