Yingluck considers asylum applications for UK, Germany and France

[wakeupplease]

1 hour ago, mikosan said:

I could never understand why Aus people even consider a visit here, unless they cannot pull a local bargirl back home.

 

Have you seen the local bar girls 'back home' recently?

Sorry I have to admit no, as I don't bother with bars as there are much nicer ladies walking around supermarkets than in bars and they do not carry a secondhand dartboard with them.

 

Next time you go home try doing a bit of shopping at the supermarket and then your bar days will be over when you see the quality.

 

Much easier than in the bars anyhow.

[Just Weird]

On 10/6/2017 at 4:16 PM, Thechook said:

She put up and election and the military backed Suthep blocked people getting to the election booths.  She may have been returned but people were squashed.

"She put up and election..."

Don't understand that, doesn't make much sense, no one was 'squashed'.

 

Fact is that she wasn't the PM when the coup happened, Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisan was.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes, the Dublin aggrement says what the country must do when an application is made, that they are not allowed to push them through to another country, that they must fully hear their request, nothing is said about what the applicant can do, that is all in the convention and nothing in that has been superseded.  You could have just read it!  What was happening was some countries were processing an applicant, logging them but not hearing their request, and then sending them off to another country.  What the Dublin agreement did was have them sent back to the country that first started processing them.  But what the applicant is free to do is not start their application process until they reach wherever they intend to go.

 

Yingluck, currently isn't a refugee though, is she? According to the OP she's in the UK on a tourist visa whilst she ponders her options.

 

Refugees don't have a private plane at their disposal to fly around the EU, nor do they get tourist visas issued.

 

Interesting comment about the visa. Wonder when that was applied for? 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Baerboxer

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yingluck, currently isn't a refugee though, is she? According to the OP she's in the UK on a tourist visa whilst she ponders her options.

 

Refugees don't have a private plane at their disposal to fly around the EU, nor do they get tourist visas issued.

 

Interesting comment about the visa. Wonder when that was applied for? 

 

Many refugees enter on tourist visas, you don't define the terms, it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with asylum.

[300sd]

5 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Sorry that words fail you although your posts would indicate otherwise.  Thaksin and his sister both fled the country to escape justice and are now both wanted criminals with warrants out for their arrest.  I would say that tars them with the same brush. 

Sis may have fled the country to escape injustice! Or if I may rephrase that: Can one really expect a fair trial and/or sentence in this country? If the answer is yes then I would agree with you.

Edited October 7, 2017 by 300sd

[Dogmatix]

On 10/6/2017 at 5:27 PM, ChrisY1 said:

Pretty sure most modern governments would accept that a justice system "managed" by a junta would be suspect of being biased....she shouldn't have an issue.

 

On the other hand her brother was convicted of corruption and sentenced to two years in prison when he was controlling the government and his nominee was prime minister.  This could be used as an argument that judicial independence exists or has sometimes existed in Thailand.  

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

On the other hand her brother was convicted of corruption and sentenced to two years in prison when he was controlling the government and his nominee was prime minister.  This could be used as an argument that judicial independence exists or has sometimes existed in Thailand.  

 

It could but it would be a weak argument.

[Dogmatix]

She has probably travelled to the UK on her Thai passport because no one has yet dared cancel her passports for some reason.  When they get around to cancelling them, her legal team will try to use this as evidence in support of her case for asylum. 

 

The problem with this will be that she will not be able to keep her other nationalities secret from the court which will give it a reason to deny the political asylum request.  She will need be able to argue that she must be given asylum in the UK because she will face persecution in her home nationality, unless  she can prove she faces persecution in Montegro, Fiji, Nicaragua, Uganda and whatever other countries have sold citizenships to her.  

 

Political asylum is for people who can't go home, not for people who have many homes they can go to.

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

She has probably travelled to the UK on her Thai passport because no one has yet dared cancel her passports for some reason.  When they get around to cancelling them, her legal team will try to use this as evidence in support of her case for asylum. 

 

The problem with this will be that she will not be able to keep her other nationalities secret from the court which will give it a reason to deny the political asylum request.  She will need be able to argue that she must be given asylum in the UK because she will face persecution in her home nationality, unless  she can prove she faces persecution in Montegro, Fiji, Nicaragua, Uganda and whatever other countries have sold citizenships to her.  

 

Political asylum is for people who can't go home, not for people who have many homes they can go to.

 

No, they just have to demonstrate a lack of allegiance to the country the have citizenship of, not at all difficult if you never go there or speak the language, also having bought the citizenship would strengthen their case.

[Dogmatix]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It could but it would be a weak argument.

 

Perhaps but the argument she can go to other countries she is a national of will be stronger .  It is unlikely she left Thailand a the  mercy of the junta with nothing but Thai passports.  

 

I can believe that Yingluck might be willing to wash her hands of politics after what has happened and just live quietly in England while her son goes to school and university there.  However, it is probably not worth the risk to the UK 

14 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, they just have to demonstrate a lack of allegiance to the country the have citizenship of, not at all difficult if you never go there or speak the language, also having bought the citizenship would strengthen their case.

 

She might try to argue that she can't speak English which is the official language of Fiji and Uganda and many would agree with the this, although others would point out that she obtained an MBA from Thaksin's alma mater in the US.    

[Dogmatix]

The of Yingluck will be highly unusual in the UK because not many refugees show up on the Home Office's doorstep so well heeled and with multiple nationalities and many other options apart from the UK.  At any rate she should be prepared for a long and difficult haul.  The Home Office first instinct is to reject most applications to the extent that 41% of its rejections were overturned by the courts in 2016.  Since Theresa May's 2005 initiative as Home Secretary political asylum has no longer been granted as a life-time thing first time.  It is only granted for five years in the initial instance and then reviewed.  After the first review it can be granted for a further five years, for life or denied, if conditions in the home country are believed by the Home Office to have improved.  So it might take her several years to get political asylum and then it will only be for an initial period of five years.

 

Personally I see no reason why she should not be told to go back to Montegro or Kampala or somewhere but I accept that the British courts might only consider her situation relative to her original homeland.  However, the Home Office will not necessarily see it the same way as the courts in the first instance.    

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That's what the Dublin Agreement on refugees entering the EU says is it?

 

That they can move freely from EU country to EU country and chose which one they prefer to apply for asylum in?

 

 

Yes and No , to being able to move through different EU countries.

 

It is all dependent upon the immigration status of the asylum applicant when they lodge the application seeking asylum. If they have a visa then it is the country which granted visa or residence that is liable for hearing the application.

If the asylum seeker as entered irregularly , then it is the first country entered

[phantomfiddler]

On 10/6/2017 at 2:11 AM, Thechook said:

More than welcome in Australia.

By that we may assume your reasoning being that she is better looking than a gin ?

[Media1]

Good luck to her. I wish her well. Who cares about the crooks in greens playing saviours. They couldn't save a soi dog. Nice amnesty also. Your not fooling anybody other than the peasants..keep those Isan visits up old boy.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Media1

[Trouble]

On 10/6/2017 at 2:19 AM, seajae said:

doubt it, we dont like corrupt criminals here, she was caught out and was found guilty by the same courts she presided over and found the opposition guilty.

 

If you are going to make a statement then get the facts correct. I believe she was found guilty of negligence NOT corruption. Unless someone can prove me wrong, I have seen no evidence presented by the government, nor have I seen where the government tried to present evidence  to indicate that she gained financially from her time in government.  We all know that if every politician was convicted of negligence they would all be in jail. 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

26 minutes ago, Trouble said:

We all know that if every politician was convicted of negligence they would all be in jail. 

If any could just stick to the manifesto it would be a start. But of course they are always full of false promises or worse implement them at a huge cost to the country as they were never costed.

 

I wonder when the nut-jobs and terrorists will target political gatherings not music festivals etc once again? Sad world.

 

No sympathy for Yinglucky, maybe Zimbabwe will take her, she might feel at home there.

Big brother likes an authoritarian state, but only if he is in charge.

Move over Mugabe old man... Next "election" could be different.

 

 

 

 

[kiwikeith]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:04 PM, bangrak said:

Why not Montenegro or Zimbabwe, Costa Rica (or Nicaragua?), does she not yet have a diplomatic(!) passport from these countries, like Thaksin does, among other ones?

What about her Thai passports? Does she still have them? Minimum minimorum would be to strip her at once of her Thai diplomatic one, I'd say!

 

Don't worry , wherever she is she will have fun . watching red bull events. the tennis circuit, ,  and reading about the soap operas going on in LOS, plenty to keep her occupied.

[Thechook]

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yingluck, currently isn't a refugee though, is she? According to the OP she's in the UK on a tourist visa whilst she ponders her options.

 

Refugees don't have a private plane at their disposal to fly around the EU, nor do they get tourist visas issued.

 

Interesting comment about the visa. Wonder when that was applied for? 

What about the high ranking thai policeman who applied for political asylum in Australia after he spoke out about the Thai military involvement in human trafficking?  He entered Australia on a tourist visa applied for asylum and now lives in South Yarra, an extremely affluent suburb of Melbourne.

[Thechook]

3 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

By that we may assume your reasoning being that she is better looking than a gin ?

My grandmother was a "GIN"  it's an extremely offensive and highly derogatory term for an aboriginal or woman of aboriginal decent. The term nigger is a compliment in comparison.  You're probably not Australian and didn't realise so no apology required.

[Kieran00001]

10 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Yes and No , to being able to move through different EU countries.

 

It is all dependent upon the immigration status of the asylum applicant when they lodge the application seeking asylum. If they have a visa then it is the country which granted visa or residence that is liable for hearing the application.

If the asylum seeker as entered irregularly , then it is the first country entered

 

No it isn't, it is first country to have registered them, generally who has fingerprinted them, if they refuse to be registered they can continue, there are camps full of them in Calais trying to get into the UK, when they do reach the UK and register there they do not get sent back to France or wherever they entered because they started their application in the UK.  A lot of people seem to think this agreement was aimed at the asylum seekers when it was actually aimed at the countries, some of which were pushing refugees into neighboring countries to avoid processing them, the refugees remain free to travel unhindered according to the Convention on Refugees.

[novo58]

On 06/10/2017 at 7:19 PM, seajae said:

 

 

On 06/10/2017 at 7:11 PM, Thechook said:

More than welcome in Australia.

Australia already has enough of its own corrupt politicians ( like most other countries).... we dont need other countries discards thank you very much .

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No it isn't, it is first country to have registered them, generally who has fingerprinted them, if they refuse to be registered they can continue, there are camps full of them in Calais trying to get into the UK, when they do reach the UK and register there they do not get sent back to France or wherever they entered because they started their application in the UK.  A lot of people seem to think this agreement was aimed at the asylum seekers when it was actually aimed at the countries, some of which were pushing refugees into neighboring countries to avoid processing them, the refugees remain free to travel unhindered according to the Convention on Refugees.

See Articles 5 and 6

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A41997A0819(01)

 

Article 12

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:en:PDF

Edited October 8, 2017 by rockingrobin

[robblok]

On 6-10-2017 at 3:37 PM, AGareth2 said:

thought you couldn't make multiple EU applications

which country did she enter first?

She is rich and does not care too much about the law as we have seen. So different set of rules for her.

[Kieran00001]

24 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

See Articles 5 and 6

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A41997A0819(01)

 

Article 12

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:en:PDF

 

I am aware of the aggrement, but this is in regard to the country not the applicant, they must process them, they cannot simply pass the buck.  But the Convention on Refugees cannot be superceded, and it gives the refugee the right to choose where to apply.

 

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. 

 

 

[rockingrobin]

31 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I am aware of the aggrement, but this is in regard to the country not the applicant, they must process them, they cannot simply pass the buck.  But the Convention on Refugees cannot be superceded, and it gives the refugee the right to choose where to apply.

 

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. 

 

 

Article 31, (which you part quote), is applying to refugees , not asylum seekers

[Kieran00001]

40 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Article 31, (which you part quote), is applying to refugees , not asylum seekers

 

Asylum seekers are refugees, check the conventions definition.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Article 31, (which you part quote), is applying to refugees , not asylum seekers

 

17 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Asylum seekers are refugees, check the conventions definition.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/asylum-seeker/

 

Art 31 of the convention only concerns the non penalty of unlawful residence, but comes with 2 caveats , the refugee has to have come directly , and show good reason for their presence.

 Paragraph 2 of  Art 31 concerns places no restictions regarding movement for the refugee , but does not allow the country to facillitate the unlawfull migration of the refugee. It states that they should allow the refugee sufficient time and assistance to obtain admittance in another country if necessary.

 

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

 

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/asylum-seeker/

 

Art 31 of the convention only concerns the non penalty of unlawful residence, but comes with 2 caveats , the refugee has to have come directly , and show good reason for their presence.

 Paragraph 2 of  Art 31 concerns places no restictions regarding movement for the refugee , but does not allow the country to facillitate the unlawfull migration of the refugee. It states that they should allow the refugee sufficient time and assistance to obtain admittance in another country if necessary.

 

https://emergency.unhcr.org/entry/95331/refugee-definition

The refugee definition is declaratory, i.e. a person is a refugee as soon as s/he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to a formal determination of her/his refugee status. Until such determination is made it must be assumed that those who have crossed an international border to escape a risk of serious harm in their country of origin are refugees and should be treated as such.

[Jonmarleesco]

Apparently has options. 

 

Or has she yet to ask any of them? 

[Jonmarleesco]

'... her government was toppled by a coup and had to flee the country,” the source said.'

 

Actually, her government was toppled by gross incompetence, a common trait of governments in LoS. The military sat on the sidelines for months before it moved - granted, some of its members work like that.

 

And the implication of her source's statement is that her government was toppled and she fled...