Finland to expel 20,000 "refugees"
Scroll to see replies
Original post by queen clunge
why would other europeans need asylum?
They don't need asylum. Can you not understand what I have posted?
Original post by KimKallstrom
There are no British judges who judge of human rights cases?
these same judges deal with all sorts of cases
there are no british judges that specifically deal with HR cases (therefore no such thing as a British "HR judge" ) .
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by EccentricDiamond
They don't need asylum. Can you not understand what I have posted?
You said "Asylum should only be given to other Europeans", but if "they [other Europeans] don't need asylum" that surely renders your point moot.
This is all surreal to the point of despair, realizing that there is nobody at the helm on this ship can only be a downer. We've lost count of how many summits and conferences have been held by the supposed powers-to-be on 'how to deal with the refugee crisis' and nothing at all has changed as a consequence, the wind is blowing and instead of trying to shut the window we are just trying to wrap up.
For Gawd's sake, is it really impossible for the alleged EU to impose a naval blockade of the countless crossings of the Med we have seen and keep seeing? This is supposed to be the low-season and we still have a graphic description in the media of people drowning in these criminally organized enterprises, hundreds of thousands still roaming Europe as if they were Jews in the desert with nobody willing to take them in, the very basic principles of freedom of movement within the Union under threat, the social repercussions of this exodus and intake are impossible to pan out and quantify into the future, it's anybody's guess how many more people will attempt to illegally enter Europe come the summer or the next decade. Great, good to see something really useful has come out of these summits beyond the good food they get there.
There are no two ways about it, if the trafficking gangs are to be put out of business they have to be intercepted at sea and returned to the point of origin. Had that been implemented six months ago and the business that exploits so many people already down on their luck would by now be much less of a growing industry. The EU board must have had too much to drink by the stage where they thought it a good idea to give Turkey a few million to close off the departure points, they will take the dosh and grab half a dozen gangmasters to pretend they are very busy whilst it all goes unabated elsewhere. A bit like the French and Calais, really.
For Gawd's sake, is it really impossible for the alleged EU to impose a naval blockade of the countless crossings of the Med we have seen and keep seeing? This is supposed to be the low-season and we still have a graphic description in the media of people drowning in these criminally organized enterprises, hundreds of thousands still roaming Europe as if they were Jews in the desert with nobody willing to take them in, the very basic principles of freedom of movement within the Union under threat, the social repercussions of this exodus and intake are impossible to pan out and quantify into the future, it's anybody's guess how many more people will attempt to illegally enter Europe come the summer or the next decade. Great, good to see something really useful has come out of these summits beyond the good food they get there.
There are no two ways about it, if the trafficking gangs are to be put out of business they have to be intercepted at sea and returned to the point of origin. Had that been implemented six months ago and the business that exploits so many people already down on their luck would by now be much less of a growing industry. The EU board must have had too much to drink by the stage where they thought it a good idea to give Turkey a few million to close off the departure points, they will take the dosh and grab half a dozen gangmasters to pretend they are very busy whilst it all goes unabated elsewhere. A bit like the French and Calais, really.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Hydeman
Oh, for f--k's sake. I thought nobody else would think of saying that. 
#don'tgiveashit
Original post by queen clunge
You said "Asylum should only be given to other Europeans", but if "they [other Europeans] don't need asylum" that surely renders your point moot.
Are you thick?
Original post by EccentricDiamond
Are you thick?
@Hydeman Am I being thick? I trust your judgement.
Original post by Foxman
This post seems rather hilarious to me.
Glad you find this story of human misery and suffering "hilarious." Not sure many others do.
Finland is going to expel 20,000 failed asylum seekers. That was the story. What is funny about that?
Original post by Foxman
Furthermore, with refugees it's not a question of "wanting" to let more in. Seeking asylum is a fundamental human right according to the universal declaration of human rights, which is legally binding to all UN member nations. Whether we have a moral responsibility as humans to aid persecuted people fleeing from war zones and oppresive regimes is of course an issue that can be endlessly debated, but as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in.
Furthermore, with refugees it's not a question of "wanting" to let more in. Seeking asylum is a fundamental human right according to the universal declaration of human rights, which is legally binding to all UN member nations. Whether we have a moral responsibility as humans to aid persecuted people fleeing from war zones and oppresive regimes is of course an issue that can be endlessly debated, but as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in.
Are you for real?
We are an island and every single refugee who might claim asylum here is crossing a number of safe countries to get to the UK.
#noclueaboutasylumlawstalksaloadofboll0cks
Original post by Chamelion
Finland resists White genocide. Multiculturalism and diversity are tactics of WHITE GENOCIDE used against White European ethnic groups. It's origins are Ashkenazi Jewish. The timing of mass immigration and the creation of a Jewish state is not a coincidence people.Go look on Jewish congress website. They are the biggest pushers of all these refugees in Europe, while Israel doesn't tolerate them at all! Israel in fact has even sterilized migrants.It's not that we hate these people it's more we want to survive.
Listen to me; the Jews have most to lose from Muslim immigration than we do. If Europe falls to Islam, then very little stops Israel's neighbours from wiping it from the map, and I'm sure that they know this.
So why do you promote this nonsense? Many Jews in France are starting to vote for the Front National; in Israeli newspapers, I read mostly support for the 'far' right in Europe, and derision of the left.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-french-jews-vote-for-le-pen-a-case-of-the-enemy-of-my-enemy/
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by queen clunge
@Hydeman Am I being thick? I trust your judgement.
No, I think that was a perfectly reasonable point to make.
Original post by queen clunge
You said "Asylum should only be given to other Europeans", but if "they [other Europeans] don't need asylum" that surely renders your point moot.
Original post by Hydeman
No, I think that was a perfectly reasonable point to make.
Glad you agree.
Now it seems that the onus is on @EccentricDiamond to explain how I was being "thick"...
Original post by JezWeCan!
Glad you find this story of human misery and suffering "hilarious." Not sure many others do.
Finland is going to expel 20,000 failed asylum seekers. That was the story. What is funny about that?
Finland is going to expel 20,000 failed asylum seekers. That was the story. What is funny about that?
Way to twist my words. I didn't find the substance of the article funny in the slightest. What was funny, was the fact that you invented a bunch of nonsense and then plastered a link to this news story underneath it to give credibility to your absurd claims.
Are you for real?
We are an island and every single refugee who might claim asylum here is crossing a number of safe countries to get to the UK.
We are an island and every single refugee who might claim asylum here is crossing a number of safe countries to get to the UK.
The Dublin system signed into law in 2013 by EU member states and the non-EU ratifiers of the Schengen-agreement established rules concerning asylum seekers entering Europe. One of the provisions of the Dublin regulations was that asylum seekers would be required to apply for asylum in the first member state they arrived in. However, the system was designed for vastly lower volumes of incoming immigrants and during last summer the enforcement of the rules was effectively suspended due to unreasonable burden being placed on the infrastructure of a select few countries on the external border of the Schengen area. This caused a legally confusing situation but relieved load from the horribly overpopulated reception centers in countries like Hungary and Greece.
So in short, while those countries might have been stable and safe, they simply lacked the capacity to properly house, process and legally account for the evergrowing flow of asylum seekers. This mandated response from the rest of the participant states.
Original post by Foxman
Way to twist my words. I didn't find the substance of the article funny in the slightest. What was funny, was the fact that you invented a bunch of nonsense and then plastered a link to this news story underneath it to give credibility to your absurd claims.
The Dublin system signed into law in 2013 by EU member states and the non-EU ratifiers of the Schengen-agreement established rules concerning asylum seekers entering Europe. One of the provisions of the Dublin regulations was that asylum seekers would be required to apply for asylum in the first member state they arrived in. However, the system was designed for vastly lower volumes of incoming immigrants and during last summer the enforcement of the rules was effectively suspended due to unreasonable burden being placed on the infrastructure of a select few countries on the external border of the Schengen area. This caused a legally confusing situation but relieved load from the horribly overpopulated reception centers in countries like Hungary and Greece.
So in short, while those countries might have been stable and safe, they simply lacked the capacity to properly house, process and legally account for the evergrowing flow of asylum seekers. This mandated response from the rest of the participant states.
The Dublin system signed into law in 2013 by EU member states and the non-EU ratifiers of the Schengen-agreement established rules concerning asylum seekers entering Europe. One of the provisions of the Dublin regulations was that asylum seekers would be required to apply for asylum in the first member state they arrived in. However, the system was designed for vastly lower volumes of incoming immigrants and during last summer the enforcement of the rules was effectively suspended due to unreasonable burden being placed on the infrastructure of a select few countries on the external border of the Schengen area. This caused a legally confusing situation but relieved load from the horribly overpopulated reception centers in countries like Hungary and Greece.
So in short, while those countries might have been stable and safe, they simply lacked the capacity to properly house, process and legally account for the evergrowing flow of asylum seekers. This mandated response from the rest of the participant states.
So you now agree, that we have no legal requirement as a UN member to take in all seekers of asylum and admit your first statement was total ********?
Good! We are making progress!
Having established that, we come to the moral question. How many "refugees" should we take in?
100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000? 2,000,000?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by JezWeCan!
So you now agree, that we have no legal requirement as a UN member to take in all seekers of asylum and admit your first statement was total bullock$?
Good! We are making progress!
Having established that, we come to the moral question. How many "refugees" should we take in?
100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000? 2,000,000?
Good! We are making progress!
Having established that, we come to the moral question. How many "refugees" should we take in?
100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000? 2,000,000?
You really seem to have a problem with reading comprehesion, it seems. No, I don't agree with that at all. If you are in doubt that there is indeed a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you can find it right here: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Article 14 of the document states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
I merely pointed out that due to issues with the European protocols for dealing with asylum seekers, they can't necessarily stay in the first country of entry like the Dublin system mandates. However, the enforcement or lackthereof of the Dublin regulation in no way undermines fundamental human rights or any international commitments of the UK.
The moral question isn't an easy one but it begs a more comprehensive answer than your terms of the problem imply. The refugee crisis isn't an isolated problem. The solution to solving the crisis is in the final analysis to prevent the Middle East getting so unstable that tens of millions of people attempt to seek asylum from the EU and that requires comprehensive, coordinated action on many fronts. We need to keep the UNHCR well funded to help them in their efforts to establish more refugee camps around the war zones. We need to financially assist the countries around Syria, Irak and Afganistan which have taken the heaviest hit from the incoming refugees. We need to organise an easy, legal way for controlled entry to Europe for both economic migrants and asylum seekers and after that build up an improved external border security for the Schengen area. And most of all, we need to seek a long-term solution -- either diplomatically or through military force -- to defeat ISIS, bring Al-Assad to justice for his heinous war crimes and stabilize the area. This would allow people to continue living in their own homes in stead of being forced to flee en masse -- an outcome which isn't certainly preferrable or beneficial to anyone.
Original post by JezWeCan!
Finland has had enough of economic migrants too. Taking decisive action.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/finland.joins.sweden.in.expelling.large.number.of.refugees.as.tensions.continue.to.grip.europe/78236.htm
Yet still the liberals in Britain want to let more in???
#loonyleftieshaven'tgotaclue
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/finland.joins.sweden.in.expelling.large.number.of.refugees.as.tensions.continue.to.grip.europe/78236.htm
Yet still the liberals in Britain want to let more in???
#loonyleftieshaven'tgotaclue
Hi. I repped you. I'm German and a long time lurker on this forum.
Political correctness was what got many, many people on this forum banned for merely questioning the policy decisions linked to immigration/migration such as the one made by my Chancellor to allow all these migrants into my country
•
without checking if they are holding genuine passports
•
without checking if they have links to terrorist groups
•
without checking if they have criminal records in their home countries
•
without checking if they have HIV/AIDS
The problem in UK is that if your great-grandfather was a Tory, chances are your grandfather and your father was a Tory too. That was fine because politicians of the past truly cared for the citizens. After Thatcher was betrayed by her own party members, the next batch of politicians onwards till today have always been about lining up their own pockets and filling up their boots.
First of all, you have a weak British government led by a Prime Minister who is clueless. He claims that he will get a good deal for UK insofar as her membership of the EU goes but at the same time, he knows that the best deal is to be able to control your own borders and decide who can come and live in the UK, subject to
1) checking if they are holding genuine passports
2) checking if they have links to terrorist groups
3) checking if they have criminal records in their home countries
4) checking if they have the necessary educational qualifications or skill set
5) checking if they have HIV/AIDS
Someone recently asked me why should people wanting to enter into another country, be checked for HIV/AIDS? This is because the government owes a duty to its citizens to protect them from people who may want to infect others with their communicable diseases. This is an extension of a 'social contract theory'. Read up on it if you have time.
You then have a Cabinet that is staffed with people who are equally clueless. How Theresa May, a geography graduate became the Home Secretary is beyond ridiculous. She has committed so many blunders over the years but the notable ones have to be
1) her threats to the judiciary on the issue of judicial review applications
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21489072
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...judiciary.html
2) and her poor handling of the case of Abu Qatada which cost your fellow taxpayers about £1.8 million.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22909465
and some here have said that she aspires to be the next PM of UK? I am sorry. She is no Margaret Thatcher. Dream on.
You then have many ministers who have been embroiled in the expenses scandal and continue to have their family members as their staff, on huge salary scales.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news.../mps-expenses/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/mps-expenses
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26911952
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-revealed.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-employed.html
You also then have Prime Minister's Question Time where it is a constant ruckus. The rationale behind the televised coverage is to update the citizens on whats been happening or for them to see their MPs actually stand up and voice out the constituents problems. But it's turned into a very bad weekly comedy show.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-party-leaders
If that is not enough, you have a police commissioner who seems to only come out with a standard response every time something goes wrong. After awhile, all is forgotten and everything is back to square one. Btw, have you checked out his new ride?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-cuts-row.html
You then have multiple police forces all over UK which are led by Police and Crime Commissioners who are party partisan. Their elections have proved that it was a waste of your taxpayers money to finance it and that the voting turnout was horrendously low.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22624096
http://www.theguardian.com/public-le...nds-byelection
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20374139
Also, some of these Police and Crime Commissioners have paid and are continuing to pay huge salaries to their family members and friends on their staff and paying for other unnecessary things.
On the topic of Police and Crime Commissioners, my favourite has to be Ann Barnes, the PCC of Kent. Words cannot describe her incompetence. You'll just have to watch this for yourself.
I've found a working link of the entire comedy. You can watch it here.
http://vodlocker.com/zi3x8owg9n7j.html
And all this wastage of money while reducing the number of police officers and cutting their salaries!?!?
This, coupled with open borders make UK a very unsafe place. Why, you may ask? How are you able to detect the bad guys when you allow practically anyone to enter into your country and at the same time, expect the police to do their job when front-line staff are being stretched due to cuts in their numbers?
Shouldn't the logical thing to do be to take control of your borders, stop giving away billions yearly to EU and millions in foreign aid to India (who btw have a very solid space shuttle and nuclear programme) and instead channel that money to paying higher wages to your doctors, nurses, police etc and employing more of them?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...dia-279million
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34398449
Also, why are you allowing tens of thousands of unskilled, uneducated people from Pakistan, Bangladesh and a few other countries to relocate to UK, live off benefits, create enclaves, do not want to integrate with other communities and then top it all off by giving them citizenships soon after?
Why do this when your immigration policy, at the very same time, inadvertently dictates that you discriminate against a doctor from New Zealand, a lawyer from Canada etc?I could go on but I think I've made my point and that is this. To borrow a famous Chinese saying, If the upper beam is not straight, the lower beam will be crooked.
In order for UK to return to its former status, you must
•
have an intelligent PM (someone like Margaret Thatcher) and assisted by capable Cabinet Ministers.
•
leave the EU, reclaim control of your borders and decide independently who can work and live in the UK
•
channel money into your front line forces such as the police, doctors, nurses and teachers
•
with tightened and controlled borders, the police should comb each city, check people if they have valid papers or deport them immediately if they don't. Suspicious people with link to terror groups must be detained, investigated, charged and then imprisoned indefinitely
•
be brave to launch police investigations into terror groups, regardless if they operate in the churches, temples, mosques or at the playgrounds. Hiding behind political correctness is a cowardly thing to do.
•
repair the reputation of the police force so that men in blue will regain the trust of the citizens
Original post by Foxman
You really seem to have a problem with reading comprehesion, it seems. No, I don't agree with that at all. If you are in doubt that there is indeed a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you can find it right here: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Article 14 of the document states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Article 14 of the document states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Now my reading comprehension may not be the best, as you point out. But when I parse what you said, and I quote:
"as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in."
I read that to mean that as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in.
But in fact there does seem to be doesn't there? We just refuse to let them cross our borders. Do you see?
Sort of like you yourself suggest below, in the passage bolded?
Original post by Foxman
The moral question isn't an easy one but it begs a more comprehensive answer than your terms of the problem imply. The refugee crisis isn't an isolated problem. The solution to solving the crisis is in the final analysis to prevent the Middle East getting so unstable that tens of millions of people attempt to seek asylum from the EU and that requires comprehensive, coordinated action on many fronts. We need to keep the UNHCR well funded to help them in their efforts to establish more refugee camps around the war zones. We need to financially assist the countries around Syria, Irak and Afganistan which have taken the heaviest hit from the incoming refugees. We need to organise an easy, legal way for controlled entry to Europe for both economic migrants and asylum seekers and after that build up an improved external border security for the Schengen area. And most of all, we need to seek a long-term solution -- either diplomatically or through military force -- to defeat ISIS, bring Al-Assad to justice for his heinous war crimes and stabilize the area. This would allow people to continue living in their own homes in stead of being forced to flee en masse -- an outcome which isn't certainly preferrable or beneficial to anyone.
The moral question isn't an easy one but it begs a more comprehensive answer than your terms of the problem imply. The refugee crisis isn't an isolated problem. The solution to solving the crisis is in the final analysis to prevent the Middle East getting so unstable that tens of millions of people attempt to seek asylum from the EU and that requires comprehensive, coordinated action on many fronts. We need to keep the UNHCR well funded to help them in their efforts to establish more refugee camps around the war zones. We need to financially assist the countries around Syria, Irak and Afganistan which have taken the heaviest hit from the incoming refugees. We need to organise an easy, legal way for controlled entry to Europe for both economic migrants and asylum seekers and after that build up an improved external border security for the Schengen area. And most of all, we need to seek a long-term solution -- either diplomatically or through military force -- to defeat ISIS, bring Al-Assad to justice for his heinous war crimes and stabilize the area. This would allow people to continue living in their own homes in stead of being forced to flee en masse -- an outcome which isn't certainly preferrable or beneficial to anyone.
Original post by Audrey18
Hi. I repped you. I'm German and a long time lurker on this forum.
Political correctness was what got many, many people on this forum banned for merely questioning the policy decisions linked to immigration/migration such as the one made by my Chancellor to allow all these migrants into my countryyou may have read or heard, many of these migrants have turned my country upside down. I hope all of you reading my post, bears this in mind. A country's sovereignty, security and safety of its citizens is so so important. With Merkel's blunder, we have become a carbon copy of UK & the rest of EU and their set of problems.
The problem in UK is that if your great-grandfather was a Tory, chances are your grandfather and your father was a Tory too. That was fine because politicians of the past truly cared for the citizens. After Thatcher was betrayed by her own party members, the next batch of politicians onwards till today have always been about lining up their own pockets and filling up their boots.
First of all, you have a weak British government led by a Prime Minister who is clueless. He claims that he will get a good deal for UK insofar as her membership of the EU goes but at the same time, he knows that the best deal is to be able to control your own borders and decide who can come and live in the UK, subject to
1) checking if they are holding genuine passports
2) checking if they have links to terrorist groups
3) checking if they have criminal records in their home countries
4) checking if they have the necessary educational qualifications or skill set
5) checking if they have HIV/AIDS
Someone recently asked me why should people wanting to enter into another country, be checked for HIV/AIDS? This is because the government owes a duty to its citizens to protect them from people who may want to infect others with their communicable diseases. This is an extension of a 'social contract theory'. Read up on it if you have time.
You then have a Cabinet that is staffed with people who are equally clueless. How Theresa May, a geography graduate became the Home Secretary is beyond ridiculous. She has committed so many blunders over the years but the notable ones have to be
1) her threats to the judiciary on the issue of judicial review applications
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21489072
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...judiciary.html
2) and her poor handling of the case of Abu Qatada which cost your fellow taxpayers about £1.8 million.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22909465
and some here have said that she aspires to be the next PM of UK? I am sorry. She is no Margaret Thatcher. Dream on.
You then have many ministers who have been embroiled in the expenses scandal and continue to have their family members as their staff, on huge salary scales.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news.../mps-expenses/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/mps-expenses
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26911952
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-revealed.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-employed.html
You also then have Prime Minister's Question Time where it is a constant ruckus. The rationale behind the televised coverage is to update the citizens on whats been happening or for them to see their MPs actually stand up and voice out the constituents problems. But it's turned into a very bad weekly comedy show.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-party-leaders
If that is not enough, you have a police commissioner who seems to only come out with a standard response every time something goes wrong. After awhile, all is forgotten and everything is back to square one. Btw, have you checked out his new ride?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-cuts-row.html
You then have multiple police forces all over UK which are led by Police and Crime Commissioners who are party partisan. Their elections have proved that it was a waste of your taxpayers money to finance it and that the voting turnout was horrendously low.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22624096
http://www.theguardian.com/public-le...nds-byelection
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20374139
Also, some of these Police and Crime Commissioners have paid and are continuing to pay huge salaries to their family members and friends on their staff and paying for other unnecessary things.
On the topic of Police and Crime Commissioners, my favourite has to be Ann Barnes, the PCC of Kent. Words cannot describe her incompetence. You'll just have to watch this for yourself.
I've found a working link of the entire comedy. You can watch it here.
http://vodlocker.com/zi3x8owg9n7j.html
And all this wastage of money while reducing the number of police officers and cutting their salaries!?!?
This, coupled with open borders make UK a very unsafe place. Why, you may ask? How are you able to detect the bad guys when you allow practically anyone to enter into your country and at the same time, expect the police to do their job when front-line staff are being stretched due to cuts in their numbers?
Shouldn't the logical thing to do be to take control of your borders, stop giving away billions yearly to EU and millions in foreign aid to India (who btw have a very solid space shuttle and nuclear programme) and instead channel that money to paying higher wages to your doctors, nurses, police etc and employing more of them?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...dia-279million
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34398449
Also, why are you allowing tens of thousands of unskilled, uneducated people from Pakistan, Bangladesh and a few other countries to relocate to UK, live off benefits, create enclaves, do not want to integrate with other communities and then top it all off by giving them citizenships soon after?
Why do this when your immigration policy, at the very same time, inadvertently dictates that you discriminate against a doctor from New Zealand, a lawyer from Canada etc?I could go on but I think I've made my point and that is this. To borrow a famous Chinese saying, If the upper beam is not straight, the lower beam will be crooked.
In order for UK to return to its former status, you mustIf these steps are followed, UK will not only a safe country but also a great country once again.
Political correctness was what got many, many people on this forum banned for merely questioning the policy decisions linked to immigration/migration such as the one made by my Chancellor to allow all these migrants into my country
•
without checking if they are holding genuine passports
•
without checking if they have links to terrorist groups
•
without checking if they have criminal records in their home countries
•
without checking if they have HIV/AIDS
The problem in UK is that if your great-grandfather was a Tory, chances are your grandfather and your father was a Tory too. That was fine because politicians of the past truly cared for the citizens. After Thatcher was betrayed by her own party members, the next batch of politicians onwards till today have always been about lining up their own pockets and filling up their boots.
First of all, you have a weak British government led by a Prime Minister who is clueless. He claims that he will get a good deal for UK insofar as her membership of the EU goes but at the same time, he knows that the best deal is to be able to control your own borders and decide who can come and live in the UK, subject to
1) checking if they are holding genuine passports
2) checking if they have links to terrorist groups
3) checking if they have criminal records in their home countries
4) checking if they have the necessary educational qualifications or skill set
5) checking if they have HIV/AIDS
Someone recently asked me why should people wanting to enter into another country, be checked for HIV/AIDS? This is because the government owes a duty to its citizens to protect them from people who may want to infect others with their communicable diseases. This is an extension of a 'social contract theory'. Read up on it if you have time.
You then have a Cabinet that is staffed with people who are equally clueless. How Theresa May, a geography graduate became the Home Secretary is beyond ridiculous. She has committed so many blunders over the years but the notable ones have to be
1) her threats to the judiciary on the issue of judicial review applications
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21489072
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...judiciary.html
2) and her poor handling of the case of Abu Qatada which cost your fellow taxpayers about £1.8 million.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22909465
and some here have said that she aspires to be the next PM of UK? I am sorry. She is no Margaret Thatcher. Dream on.
You then have many ministers who have been embroiled in the expenses scandal and continue to have their family members as their staff, on huge salary scales.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news.../mps-expenses/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/mps-expenses
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26911952
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-revealed.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-employed.html
You also then have Prime Minister's Question Time where it is a constant ruckus. The rationale behind the televised coverage is to update the citizens on whats been happening or for them to see their MPs actually stand up and voice out the constituents problems. But it's turned into a very bad weekly comedy show.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-party-leaders
If that is not enough, you have a police commissioner who seems to only come out with a standard response every time something goes wrong. After awhile, all is forgotten and everything is back to square one. Btw, have you checked out his new ride?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-cuts-row.html
You then have multiple police forces all over UK which are led by Police and Crime Commissioners who are party partisan. Their elections have proved that it was a waste of your taxpayers money to finance it and that the voting turnout was horrendously low.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22624096
http://www.theguardian.com/public-le...nds-byelection
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20374139
Also, some of these Police and Crime Commissioners have paid and are continuing to pay huge salaries to their family members and friends on their staff and paying for other unnecessary things.
On the topic of Police and Crime Commissioners, my favourite has to be Ann Barnes, the PCC of Kent. Words cannot describe her incompetence. You'll just have to watch this for yourself.
I've found a working link of the entire comedy. You can watch it here.
http://vodlocker.com/zi3x8owg9n7j.html
And all this wastage of money while reducing the number of police officers and cutting their salaries!?!?
This, coupled with open borders make UK a very unsafe place. Why, you may ask? How are you able to detect the bad guys when you allow practically anyone to enter into your country and at the same time, expect the police to do their job when front-line staff are being stretched due to cuts in their numbers?
Shouldn't the logical thing to do be to take control of your borders, stop giving away billions yearly to EU and millions in foreign aid to India (who btw have a very solid space shuttle and nuclear programme) and instead channel that money to paying higher wages to your doctors, nurses, police etc and employing more of them?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...dia-279million
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34398449
Also, why are you allowing tens of thousands of unskilled, uneducated people from Pakistan, Bangladesh and a few other countries to relocate to UK, live off benefits, create enclaves, do not want to integrate with other communities and then top it all off by giving them citizenships soon after?
Why do this when your immigration policy, at the very same time, inadvertently dictates that you discriminate against a doctor from New Zealand, a lawyer from Canada etc?I could go on but I think I've made my point and that is this. To borrow a famous Chinese saying, If the upper beam is not straight, the lower beam will be crooked.
In order for UK to return to its former status, you must
•
have an intelligent PM (someone like Margaret Thatcher) and assisted by capable Cabinet Ministers.
•
leave the EU, reclaim control of your borders and decide independently who can work and live in the UK
•
channel money into your front line forces such as the police, doctors, nurses and teachers
•
with tightened and controlled borders, the police should comb each city, check people if they have valid papers or deport them immediately if they don't. Suspicious people with link to terror groups must be detained, investigated, charged and then imprisoned indefinitely
•
be brave to launch police investigations into terror groups, regardless if they operate in the churches, temples, mosques or at the playgrounds. Hiding behind political correctness is a cowardly thing to do.
•
repair the reputation of the police force so that men in blue will regain the trust of the citizens
Very interesting.
Do you think Merkel will survive this? I am no expert on German politics but I would have thought a bad result in the March elections (inevitable surely?) and there would have to be moves within the governing coalition to oust her?
She has lost her leadership in Europe a well as Germany. It has to be the stupidest policy I have seen a front rank leader of a major European power make for many years.
A catastrophe.
Original post by JezWeCan!
Very interesting.
Do you think Merkel will survive this? I am no expert on German politics but I would have thought a bad result in the March elections (inevitable surely?) and there would have to be moves within the governing coalition to oust her?
She has lost her leadership in Europe a well as Germany. It has to be the stupidest policy I have seen a front rank leader of a major European power make for many years.
A catastrophe.
Do you think Merkel will survive this? I am no expert on German politics but I would have thought a bad result in the March elections (inevitable surely?) and there would have to be moves within the governing coalition to oust her?
She has lost her leadership in Europe a well as Germany. It has to be the stupidest policy I have seen a front rank leader of a major European power make for many years.
A catastrophe.
Merkel has been in hiding for many days now. She's pushing 62 years of age. She won't throw in the towel just yet. If UK decides to remain in the EU, I am certain they will make EU into a united states of Europe and she would be the major contender for the post of PM of the USE. Tony Blair has quietened down way too much to be able to stake a claim for that coveted position.
She studied physics and then chemistry. She has no knowledge and understanding about politics, law, finance and sociology. She tells the German public one thing and tells the EU another thing and then tells the world another thing. Yesterday she said that refugees must now return back to their countries of origin after the wars back home have ended.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-refugees-idUSKCN0V80IH
Your beloved BBC will never report such things and many other similar things because it is part of 'The State'.
Original post by Audrey18
Merkel has been in hiding for many days now. She's pushing 62 years of age. She won't throw in the towel just yet. If UK decides to remain in the EU, I am certain they will make EU into a united states of Europe and she would be the major contender for the post of PM of the USE. Tony Blair has quietened down way too much to be able to stake a claim for that coveted position.
She studied physics and then chemistry. She has no knowledge and understanding about politics, law, finance and sociology. She tells the German public one thing and tells the EU another thing and then tells the world another thing. Yesterday she said that refugees must now return back to their countries of origin after the wars back home have ended.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-refugees-idUSKCN0V80IH
Your beloved BBC will never report such things and many other similar things because it is part of 'The State'.
She studied physics and then chemistry. She has no knowledge and understanding about politics, law, finance and sociology. She tells the German public one thing and tells the EU another thing and then tells the world another thing. Yesterday she said that refugees must now return back to their countries of origin after the wars back home have ended.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-refugees-idUSKCN0V80IH
Your beloved BBC will never report such things and many other similar things because it is part of 'The State'.
The BBC is not beloved by me, it is a national disgrace.
Original post by JezWeCan!
Now my reading comprehension may not be the best, as you point out. But when I parse what you said, and I quote:
"as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in."
I read that to mean that as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in.
But in fact there does seem to be doesn't there? We just refuse to let them cross our borders. Do you see?
Sort of like you yourself suggest below, in the passage bolded?
"as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in."
I read that to mean that as long as the UK remains a member of the United Nations there's no way to just stop letting asylum seekers in.
But in fact there does seem to be doesn't there? We just refuse to let them cross our borders. Do you see?
Sort of like you yourself suggest below, in the passage bolded?
Of course it is technically possible for a border to be ordered closed. I can perfectly well see that happening. All European countries that I know of have their border patrol organised as either a military organisation (such as Finland) or an internal security organisation comparable to a police force (the majority of countries, including the UK), and if ordered to close a border they won't stop carrying out their orders to ponder about formalities. But pursuing this route of ending the flow of people is vulnerable to future legal ramifications. A measure like this would go strongly against the principle of the right of asylum guaranteed in article 14 of the UDHR and for any participant country of the border-free area it would constitute an explicit violation of the Schengen agreement. Furthermore, all available ships, including coast guard vessels enforcing border security, are required by maritime law to respond to distress calls and aid people who've lost their seagoing vessel.
So the problem is, there's no telling how a judge would eventually rule if the UK entered a total lockdown and refused to take asylum applications into consideration. It might well be that deporting asylum seekers without taking their applications into consideration would be ruled legal (as long as the destination country is overall safe, the legislation concerning sending a refugee to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened is much more explicit). As far as I know, there's no case law on this subject. Most low-level courts would likely refrain from even attempting to consider the ramifications of article 14 in the first place so if there ever was a court case, it would likely go all the way to the ECHR.
Regardless, I won't hesitate to admit that this system currently in place is open for abuse (like any system is, to some extent). Arguably, the Schengen argeement doesn't have enough provisions to control refugee flow, the structures developed by the Dublin system obviously couldn't handle the load of so many people coming in, and certainly it goes against the idea of international maritime law to purposefully sink your boat in hopes of getting rescued to another country.
What I suggested in the section you highlighted doesn't try to directly fix these issues, or enforce border security by force. It rather intends to address these unconventional and poorly controlled ways of influx by creating a new, better system that would discourage illegal entry instead of preventing it by force and a Trumpian "great, great wall". So in explicit terms, I suggest that we have the UNHCR, ICRC or some other organisation running the refugee camps pick a certain, preset number of confirmed refugees (i.e. people with a confirmed need for an asylum) for entry to Europe. This way, we don't ignore the human rights or suffering of people in need, while also creating an incentive for people to stay near their homes. Furthermore, this mechanism would discourage people from seeking the services of human smugglers and cut down the costs of deporting people whose asylum applications have failed.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How can I live life authentically?
- i got 51% similarity in turnitin will i get expelled
- Application received however not given contextual flag despite postcode matching
- Work being considered for Academic Integrity case?
- Oxford MSc Refugee And Forced Migration
- rosarian v a-levels. ~r's gyg 2024⭐
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- Eurovision 2023 Discussion thread!
- College
- GCSE english speech?
- Urgent help needed on eduqas anthology
- Academic conduct investigation
- GCSE English Literature Study Group 2023-2024
- year 11 expelsion
- Will my university or HEDD tell my employer I was expelled?
- Quoting a post that has a spurious [/quote] tag does not work correctly
- English Lit GCSE
- Continuing Highers after being expelled from school
- Unit 7 Applied Science
- English Literature
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
