International News Immigration

Sheik djibouti said:
I don't remember this attack being given much airtime on here when it was reported in the press
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-beckton-snarebrook-crown-court-a8080161.html

Was this one talked about? I can't remember
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...don-corrosive-delivery-takeaway-a8148216.html

What about this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-mccann-boyfriend-london-towie-a8566456.html

Why weren't these individuals all detected and picked up earlier to prevent them from committing these heinous crimes?

The "system" has failed the victims and wider society in each and every one of these cases too. It's just they all happen to be UK citizens and didn't arrive here concealed in a lorry, so they're not as bad or "newsworthy" or as deserving of our disgust and contempt, presumably 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Then there is this:

www.theguardian.com

Acid attack on two Muslim cousins in London being treated as hate crime

Metropolitan police say new evidence has come to light about attack in which Jameel Muhktar and Resham Khan suffered severe burns
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Marked Ox said:
Then there is this:

www.theguardian.com

Acid attack on two Muslim cousins in London being treated as hate crime

Metropolitan police say new evidence has come to light about attack in which Jameel Muhktar and Resham Khan suffered severe burns
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
That was the first link I posted, I think

Then there's this..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68135818. Absolutely appalling and particularly sadistic murder.

But not deemed suitable material for a spleen-vent from the usual suspects I guess. I can't think why :unsure:
 
Last edited:
What are you guys thinking posting stories of people that aren’t brown or Eastern European…… you are ruining the narrative that all bad in this country is done by dark skinned or Eastern European men.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
If you think Nigel Farage is a fascist, it shows you do not understand was fascism is.
Click to expand...
A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.
 
Marston Road yellow said:
A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.
Click to expand...
I know. Farage isn't a fascist.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
I know. Farage isn't a fascist.
Click to expand...
He probably is you know.

As well as being a frog-mouthed gobshite prick with an over-inflated sense of his own importance.

What Nige loves more than anything else....is that other people love him and continually stroke his fragile ego. It's no wonder he and Trump are best buds - cut from the same oh-so-fragile cloth you see.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
He probably is you know.

As well as being a frog-mouthed gobshite prick with an over-inflated sense of his own importance.

What Nige loves more than anything else....is that other people love him and continually stroke his fragile ego. It's no wonder he and Trump are best buds - cut from the same oh-so-fragile cloth you see.
Click to expand...
You can dislike Nigel but he is not a fascist. Too many people in our country think someone who is right wing and they dislike = fascist.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
You can dislike Nigel but he is not a fascist. Too many people in our country think someone who is right wing and they dislike = fascist.
Click to expand...

It’s worth understanding that he can’t put a military uniform on until he has power otherwise he looks like an even bigger prick.

Every party he has led has been nationalistic, anti immigration and isolationist.

To say he’s not a fascist is a bit like saying Boris didn’t lie to parliament.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
You can dislike Nigel but he is not a fascist. Too many people in our country think someone who is right wing and they dislike = fascist.
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter what you think. Both evidence and history show that he's just not that popular. . . .for a populist :ROFLMAO:

Mainly because the majority of the population seem to think he's a nasty little bellend . . . and quite a lot of those seem to think he's a bit of a fascist too.

There's only one reason his Reform party may do relatively well at the next election a.. .and that's because the Tories are an utter train wreck. But I can almost guarantee that he either won't stand in the GE, or if he does, won't get anywhere close to being elected.

I mean he might actually have to do a days work if he were elected....and I'm not sure he's all that comfortable with serving anyone but himself either. Fair play to the man though, many might've decided to slither off by now, but he kind of seems to like the perpetual humiliation that he brought on himself to date - maybe he's also a sadomasochist :unsure:
 
Last edited:
Anyway, back to the point that Essex was venting over a few short hours ago . . .

Turns out our beleaguered immigration services have screwed up as they've not followed the guidance

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68181899

So I think we can all agree that he should not have been granted asylum, yes?
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Anyway, back to the point that Essex was venting over a few short hours ago . . .

Turns out our beleaguered immigration services have screwed up as they've not followed the guidance

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68181899

So I think we can all agree that he should not have been granted asylum, yes?
Click to expand...
Haven't you had enough of him bemoaning the government's appalling administration of the asylum process? Don't give him more ammo!
 
GFR6CRhWEAAsKdg
 
tonyw said:
Are we even disagreeing any more?

If someone turns up at a UK port of entry requesting asylum because they are being persecuted in their home country, then you have to investigate that claim. That's both moral decency and international law.

If they have no documentation, then you can't just let them in on trust - that is lunacy, and simply asking for the system to be abused.

What you instead have to do is verify those claims - which means getting all their personal details, getting them to provide references, and then having someone either in the UK remotely or at the embassy of their country of origin in person doing some legwork to track down their records and conduct some interviews.
(I'm an immigrant myself - albeit to the US, not the UK - by the time I got my green card and then my citizenship, the US government had a binder on me so large that you could use it to beat whales to death......)

If you confirm their identity, and uncover some evidence that there is indeed a reasonable chance that they have been subject to persecution, then you grant them asylum.
If you discover that they are lying about their identity, or you cannot confirm anything about their story, then you don't.


But - that is a system that requires competent, well-trained people to be working in it; and therefore requires significant investment. All signs suggest that the UK government has completely failed to run it properly, and has instead decided it's a better use of resources to set up a barmy, astonishingly expensive scheme to just put a bunch of people on a plane to Rwanda. Because this government seems to be inept and incapable of actually running anything.
Click to expand...
How do you define a 'reasonable chance'? They either are being persecuted or they aren't - anything below absolute proof that they are should be rejected.
 
MustardYellow said:
How do you define a 'reasonable chance'? They either are being persecuted or they aren't - anything below absolute proof that they are should be rejected.
Click to expand...
Life doesn't work in absolutes.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
MustardYellow said:
How do you define a 'reasonable chance'? They either are being persecuted or they aren't - anything below absolute proof that they are should be rejected.
Click to expand...

I mean it in the reasonable person sense.
i.e. that if a reasonable, average person would review all the evidence, they would conclude that the individual was being persecuted.

EDIT: To add, having thought about it - in criminal law, you convict someone on the basis of evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I believe there's no reason why you shouldn't apply the same standard of proof to aslyum cases as you would to criminal ones.

How do you define 'absolute'?
 
Last edited:
SteMerritt said:
Life doesn't work in absolutes.
Click to expand...
Situations like this have to, otherwise it isn't consistent.

We can all agree an asylum system should be consistent in the sense of what it accepts as evidence and what is approves. If its left up to 'reasonable'... well what's reasonable is different to everyone, dependant on mood etc.

Anything other than unequivocal proof should be rejected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom