Oh the Irony!

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/
So it's illegal for the UK to send migrants there, but Germany
(a member of the EU) intends to do it instead? Wow, maybe it wasn't such
a bad idea after all. Will we see the Government asking Germany for a
refund of the money spent there so far?

I'm not sure what you think the EU has to do with it. Surely Rwanda should
partially refund us if they are selling the facilities to someone else?

--
Roger Hayter

Andy Burns

2024-09-06 10:29:48 UTC

I'm not sure what you think the EU has to do with it.

But Germany does belong to ECHR, maybe the Bundestag doesn't gold-plate
every law it incorporates?

Roger Hayter

2024-09-06 13:00:41 UTC

Post by Andy Burns

I'm not sure what you think the EU has to do with it.

But Germany does belong to ECHR, maybe the Bundestag doesn't gold-plate
every law it incorporates?

It's a bit hard to say until the German proposal is fully worked up and
someone complains about it to a German court.

--
Roger Hayter

David

2024-09-06 10:14:07 UTC

Do a google search for "denmark rwanda migrants"

The Germans are a little behind the curve.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-06 11:01:13 UTC

Do a google search for "denmark rwanda migrants"

Ok I did that:

Denmark signed with Rwanda a memorandum of understanding on
Cooperation Regarding Asylum and Migration Issues. The MoU has been
described as non-binding and "does not provide for the transfer of
asylum seekers from Denmark to Rwanda" ... Following a change of
government at the end of 2022, news reports suggest that Denmark
has moved away from pursuing a bilateral deal with Rwanda in favour
of an agreement with the EU.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/

So what was your point exactly?

David

2024-09-06 12:34:21 UTC

Do a google search for "denmark rwanda migrants"

Denmark signed with Rwanda a memorandum of understanding on
Cooperation Regarding Asylum and Migration Issues. The MoU has been
described as non-binding and "does not provide for the transfer of
asylum seekers from Denmark to Rwanda" ... Following a change of
government at the end of 2022, news reports suggest that Denmark
has moved away from pursuing a bilateral deal with Rwanda in favour
of an agreement with the EU.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/
So what was your point exactly?

Just that a number of countries seem to be looking at Rwanda.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-06 12:35:35 UTC

Do a google search for "denmark rwanda migrants"

Just that a number of countries seem to be looking at Rwanda.

"Looked at and decided not to" would appear to be more accurate.

Fredxx

2024-09-06 10:58:36 UTC

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-
rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/
So it's illegal for the UK to send migrants there, but Germany
(a member of the EU) intends to do it instead? Wow, maybe it wasn't such
a bad idea after all. Will we see the Government asking Germany for a
refund of the money spent there so far?

Do a google search for "denmark rwanda migrants"

And you get a hit:
https://fullfact.org/news/sir-jake-berry-asylum-seekers-rwanda/

"Although in 2021 Denmark passed a law that would enable it to send
asylum seekers to a third country for processing, no deportations have
ever taken place"

Post by David
The Germans are a little behind the curve.

In what way?

Brian

2024-09-06 17:57:40 UTC

Do a google search for "denmark rwanda migrants"
The Germans are a little behind the curve.

Indeed, it was never a UK idea.

In fact, had the UK sent any - at least in significant numbers- they were
to be ‘greeted’ and shown around etc by migrants who had been there awhile
- having been sent from other EU countries.

Jethro_uk

2024-09-06 10:17:38 UTC

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-

rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/

Post by Davey
So it's illegal for the UK to send migrants there, but Germany (a member
of the EU) intends to do it instead? Wow, maybe it wasn't such a bad
idea after all. Will we see the Government asking Germany for a refund
of the money spent there so far?

Given the prism of the story, I would be wary of too much helpful
interpretation.

AFAIAA the contract the Tory government - the party of fiscal competence
- didn't allow for refunds. And while no parliament can bind it
successor, the UK still has to do business around the world.

Anything the Germans want to do will - as with the UK - have to comply
with international law. Certainly the ECHR. A plain *fact* which
instantly leads me to question what exactly the Telegraph is blathering
on about. Remember this is a paper that sees lefties behind every bush.
Even where there are no bushes.

Occasionally, because I can, I read French or Italian news sites. Quite
amazing what their take on things sometimes is.

Pancho

2024-09-06 10:46:21 UTC

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-

rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/

I don't understand, are we obliged to make payments to Rwanda in the
future? Otherwise, what could Labour do to get a refund?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with not allowing refunds. It is
essentially an option to cancel. Fiscally that option will have a value.
If the value to Rwanda of not having the option was greater than the
value to the UK of having it, the financially efficient choice was not
to have refunds.

Post by Davey
Anything the Germans want to do will - as with the UK - have to comply
with international law. Certainly the ECHR. A plain *fact* which
instantly leads me to question what exactly the Telegraph is blathering
on about. Remember this is a paper that sees lefties behind every bush.
Even where there are no bushes.
Occasionally, because I can, I read French or Italian news sites. Quite
amazing what their take on things sometimes is.

The amazing thing is how restricted our media is (are?), and getting
more restricted all the time. I see the US is cracking down on RT, and
journalists associated with RT. They are also cracking down of social
media such as Telegram, using France as a proxy.

Jethro_uk

2024-09-06 14:47:17 UTC

Post by Pancho

[quoted text muted]

I don't understand, are we obliged to make payments to Rwanda in the
future? Otherwise, what could Labour do to get a refund?

I have no idea of the T&Cs of the contract. I suspect no one does. It's
clear the last government were actively dishonest in so many ways that a
complete audit is needed before we know the extent of most decisions.

It was announced as "shelved" from 5th July. How I don't know. I would
imagine any outstanding payments due were made and whatever clauses (if
any) existed for early termination were activated. If they involved money
being paid to Rwanda then so be it.

The incoming government could of course have refused to honour the
contract and invited Rwanda to sue. However that would entail bad
publicity and a possible requirement to then ignore the ruling should it
find against the UK. And we have enough of those already.

This isn't really UK law now, it's international law.

Davey

2024-09-06 11:33:12 UTC

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:17:38 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-

rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/

Post by Davey
So it's illegal for the UK to send migrants there, but Germany (a
member of the EU) intends to do it instead? Wow, maybe it wasn't
such a bad idea after all. Will we see the Government asking
Germany for a refund of the money spent there so far?

Given the prism of the story, I would be wary of too much helpful
interpretation.
AFAIAA the contract the Tory government - the party of fiscal
competence
- didn't allow for refunds. And while no parliament can bind it
successor, the UK still has to do business around the world.
Anything the Germans want to do will - as with the UK - have to
comply with international law. Certainly the ECHR. A plain *fact*
which instantly leads me to question what exactly the Telegraph is
blathering on about. Remember this is a paper that sees lefties
behind every bush. Even where there are no bushes.
Occasionally, because I can, I read French or Italian news sites.
Quite amazing what their take on things sometimes is.

It's not only the Telegraph:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/germany-rwanda-migrants/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1944813/only-winners-from-labours-migrant
https://news.sky.com/story/germany-considers-sending-migrants-to-rwanda-after-uk-ditches-same-idea-13210359
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-u-k/
et alia....

If the UK (or Germany) left the EHCR, then surely it would not have to
follow its conventions?

--
Davey.

Owen Rees

2024-09-06 11:51:01 UTC

Post by Davey
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:17:38 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-

rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/

Post by Davey
So it's illegal for the UK to send migrants there, but Germany (a
member of the EU) intends to do it instead? Wow, maybe it wasn't
such a bad idea after all. Will we see the Government asking
Germany for a refund of the money spent there so far?

Given the prism of the story, I would be wary of too much helpful
interpretation.
AFAIAA the contract the Tory government - the party of fiscal
competence
- didn't allow for refunds. And while no parliament can bind it
successor, the UK still has to do business around the world.
Anything the Germans want to do will - as with the UK - have to
comply with international law. Certainly the ECHR. A plain *fact*
which instantly leads me to question what exactly the Telegraph is
blathering on about. Remember this is a paper that sees lefties
behind every bush. Even where there are no bushes.
Occasionally, because I can, I read French or Italian news sites.
Quite amazing what their take on things sometimes is.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/germany-rwanda-migrants/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1944813/only-winners-from-labours-migrant
https://news.sky.com/story/germany-considers-sending-migrants-to-rwanda-after-uk-ditches-same-idea-13210359
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-u-k/
et alia....
If the UK (or Germany) left the EHCR, then surely it would not have to
follow its conventions?
--
Davey.

“Unlike the UK's scheme, asylum seekers would only be sent for processing,
rather than being deported to the African nation.”

So the claim that Germany is adopting the UK scheme is at best misleading.
The mainstream media are in danger of being assessed as having the same
accuracy as an AI LLM.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-06 13:11:03 UTC

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Davey
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:17:38 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-

rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/

Post by Davey
So it's illegal for the UK to send migrants there, but Germany (a
member of the EU) intends to do it instead? Wow, maybe it wasn't
such a bad idea after all. Will we see the Government asking
Germany for a refund of the money spent there so far?

Given the prism of the story, I would be wary of too much helpful
interpretation.
AFAIAA the contract the Tory government - the party of fiscal competence
- didn't allow for refunds. And while no parliament can bind it
successor, the UK still has to do business around the world.
Anything the Germans want to do will - as with the UK - have to
comply with international law. Certainly the ECHR. A plain *fact*
which instantly leads me to question what exactly the Telegraph is
blathering on about. Remember this is a paper that sees lefties
behind every bush. Even where there are no bushes.
Occasionally, because I can, I read French or Italian news sites.
Quite amazing what their take on things sometimes is.

“Unlike the UK's scheme, asylum seekers would only be sent for processing,
rather than being deported to the African nation.”
So the claim that Germany is adopting the UK scheme is at best misleading.
The mainstream media are in danger of being assessed as having the same
accuracy as an AI LLM.

It is a shame the media are such dishonest incompetents. I would want to know
if they could be deported *from* Rwanda after "processing".

--
Roger Hayter

Jethro_uk

2024-09-06 14:42:17 UTC

Post by Owen Rees
The mainstream media are in danger of being assessed as having the same
accuracy as an AI LLM.

I thought these days the mainstream media *was* "AI" ? (Which isn't a
thing, incidentally).

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-06 11:55:27 UTC

Post by Davey
If the UK (or Germany) left the EHCR, then surely it would not have to
follow its conventions?

If the UK left the ECHR then yes of course it would not have to follow
it. It has a zero percent probability of happening though.

Germany leaving the ECHR is even less likely. The consequences would
be hard to predict and would depend on the details of course, but it
might destroy the EU if that happened.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-06 13:05:56 UTC

Post by Davey
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:17:38 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Davey
"Germany could adopt Rwanda plan paid for by UK".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/05/germany-could-adopt-

rwanda-plan-paid-for-by-uk/

Post by Davey
So it's illegal for the UK to send migrants there, but Germany (a
member of the EU) intends to do it instead? Wow, maybe it wasn't
such a bad idea after all. Will we see the Government asking
Germany for a refund of the money spent there so far?

Given the prism of the story, I would be wary of too much helpful
interpretation.
AFAIAA the contract the Tory government - the party of fiscal
competence
- didn't allow for refunds. And while no parliament can bind it
successor, the UK still has to do business around the world.
Anything the Germans want to do will - as with the UK - have to
comply with international law. Certainly the ECHR. A plain *fact*
which instantly leads me to question what exactly the Telegraph is
blathering on about. Remember this is a paper that sees lefties
behind every bush. Even where there are no bushes.
Occasionally, because I can, I read French or Italian news sites.
Quite amazing what their take on things sometimes is.

They might well still follow most of them because they are obviously right.
And others because of UN conventions. The ECHR is not an annoying bunch of
Zurich gnomes inventing abitrary rules, it follows a convention in which
Churchill and other British politicicans put forward ideas that they felt
would help prevent the events of the preceding decades recurring.

--
Roger Hayter

Tim Jackson

2024-09-07 23:42:20 UTC

On 6 Sep 2024 13:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

Post by Roger Hayter
The ECHR is not an annoying bunch of
Zurich gnomes inventing abitrary rules, it follows a convention in which
Churchill and other British politicicans put forward ideas that they felt
would help prevent the events of the preceding decades recurring.

The ECHR was drafted in London by British lawyers, based on an original
proposal by Churchill as you say.

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).

So does the Good Friday Agreement (peace in Northern Ireland).

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

Norman Wells

2024-09-08 07:26:47 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On 6 Sep 2024 13:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

The ECHR was drafted in London by British lawyers, based on an original
proposal by Churchill as you say.
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).
So does the Good Friday Agreement (peace in Northern Ireland).

Nothing is written in tablets of stone, except for memorials to the dead
and two other things.

The first was of course the Ten Commandments, of which the majority of
us here in the UK couldn't identify more than 5, are quite happy to
accept no more than 3 embodied in our laws, and personally keep to no
more than 2.

The other was the the 'Edstone' from the 2015 election, about which the
less said the better.

Times change. Circumstances change. It is possible to move on, even
from Saint Winston.

JNugent

2024-09-08 12:14:48 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On 6 Sep 2024 13:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

The ECHR is not an annoying bunch of
Zurich gnomes inventing abitrary rules, it follows a convention in which
Churchill and other British politicicans put forward ideas that they
felt would help prevent the events of the preceding decades recurring.

The ECHR was drafted in London by British lawyers, based on an original
proposal by Churchill as you say.
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).
So does the Good Friday Agreement (peace in Northern Ireland).

Nothing is written in tablets of stone, except for memorials to the dead
and two other things.
The first was of course the Ten Commandments, of which the majority of
us here in the UK couldn't identify more than 5, are quite happy to
accept no more than 3 embodied in our laws, and personally keep to no
more than 2.
The other was the the 'Edstone' from the 2015 election, about which the
less said the better.
Times change. Circumstances change. It is possible to move on, even
from Saint Winston.

On balance, it is surprising that so many of those who cite Churchill as
evidence that the ECHR is so benign and of benefit to the British people
have such a low opinion of him on certain other topics.

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

In fact, if the UK withdrew from the ECHR, it would make no *practical*
difference to the British except to remove the jurisdiction of foreign
courts and any need to behave as though absolutely everyone in the world
has the same rights (in the UK) as does a British citizen (which was
always a nonsensical proposition).

Even at the time, no-one claimed that human rights were in any danger
within the United Kingdom.

I would be perfectly happy to have "only" the same human rights within
the UK as my parents and grandparents were born with.

Tim Jackson

2024-09-08 14:53:59 UTC

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:14:48 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by JNugent
In fact, if the UK withdrew from the ECHR, it would make no *practical*
difference to the British except to remove the jurisdiction of foreign
courts and any need to behave as though absolutely everyone in the world
has the same rights (in the UK) as does a British citizen (which was
always a nonsensical proposition).

And there is an illustration of the problem. Some people think giving
rights to non-British people is a nonsensical proposition.

They would, of course, complain bitterly if other countries behaved just
as badly to British citizens.

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

JNugent

2024-09-08 15:49:09 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:14:48 +0100, JNugent wrote...

And there is an illustration of the problem. Some people think giving
rights to non-British people is a nonsensical proposition.

"Rights" is one thing.

The same rights as a local citizen is something quite different.

What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

Post by Tim Jackson
They would, of course, complain bitterly if other countries behaved just
as badly to British citizens.

Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-08 19:47:25 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:14:48 +0100, JNugent wrote...

And there is an illustration of the problem. Some people think giving
rights to non-British people is a nonsensical proposition.

"Rights" is one thing.
The same rights as a local citizen is something quite different.
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by Tim Jackson
They would, of course, complain bitterly if other countries behaved just
as badly to British citizens.

Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2024-09-09 00:01:36 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:14:48 +0100, JNugent wrote...

And there is an illustration of the problem. Some people think giving
rights to non-British people is a nonsensical proposition.

"Rights" is one thing.
The same rights as a local citizen is something quite different.
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?

"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."

From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says, particularly
the parts I emphasised):

"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.

"This means that individuals should not be treated less favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR

1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by Tim Jackson
They would, of course, complain bitterly if other countries behaved just
as badly to British citizens.

Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Davey

2024-09-09 08:11:32 UTC

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 01:01:36 +0100

Post by JNugent
*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a
citizen when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

No problem there. We lived in the USA for thirty years, as Immigrant
Aliens, ie Green Card holders, as we could never vote in any single
election.
Wasn't there some problem in Boston a while ago about that subject?

--
Davey.

JNugent

2024-09-09 13:54:34 UTC

Post by JNugent
*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a
citizen when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

I was referring to a wider range of issues there.

For instance, the right to appeal against non-admission.

On a visa waiver, that doesn't exist. Neither should it. That's the deal.

Green card holders with a work visa (I have relatives in the USA) are in
a sort of half-way house between visitor and citizen. But the extra
rights they have are entirely within the control of the USA.

BTW: would you be so bullish as to assert that no votes are cast in
British elections by people with no right to vote?

Davey

2024-09-09 19:01:55 UTC

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:54:34 +0100

Post by JNugent
Green card holders with a work visa (I have relatives in the USA) are
in a sort of half-way house between visitor and citizen. But the
extra rights they have are entirely within the control of the USA.
BTW: would you be so bullish as to assert that no votes are cast in
British elections by people with no right to vote?

The UK system is surely designed to prevent that, although there may
well be people who get around it. But I doubt it's a big problem.
But why do you ask? I was not allowed to vote in the USA, and so I
didn't, so there is no comparison with your final question.
Donald Trump may disagree, of course, as regards the last US
Presidential Election..

--
Davey.

JNugent

2024-09-10 13:07:48 UTC

The UK system is surely designed to prevent that, although there may
well be people who get around it.

How does "the system" prevent it? Does the local authority laboriously
inspect each name entered onto the register, checking against some
secret database that every one of them is a British citizen or citizen
of a territory whose citizens are entitled to vote while here?

If not, how?

Post by Davey
But I doubt it's a big problem.

So it is often said. One case, however, is one too many.

Post by Davey
But why do you ask?

For the most obvious of reasons.

Post by Davey
I was not allowed to vote in the USA, and so I
didn't,

You mean you couldn't.

Post by Davey
so there is no comparison with your final question.
Donald Trump may disagree, of course, as regards the last US
Presidential Election..

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Roger Hayter

2024-09-09 08:44:41 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:14:48 +0100, JNugent wrote...

And there is an illustration of the problem. Some people think giving
rights to non-British people is a nonsensical proposition.

"Rights" is one thing.
The same rights as a local citizen is something quite different.
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says, particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by Tim Jackson
They would, of course, complain bitterly if other countries behaved just
as badly to British citizens.

Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

--
Roger Hayter

Tim Jackson

2024-09-09 12:07:13 UTC

On 9 Sep 2024 08:44:41 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

Post by JNugent
Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says, particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR

[snip]

Post by Roger Hayter
Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

Indeed.

He has read "individuals should not be treated less favourably based on
their nationality..."

His error is that he missed the next bit of Co-Pilot's sentence:

"... when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms protected
by the ECHR."

The ECHR protects a limited set of basic human rights and freedoms.
Those should be given to anyone, irrespective of nationality. But that
doesn't mean immigrants have to be given all the *other* rights that a
British national would have.

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

JNugent

2024-09-09 13:57:26 UTC

[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Roger Hayter

2024-09-09 19:00:54 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

--
Roger Hayter

kat

2024-09-10 10:03:26 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

How many boat people have been deported immediately?

--
kat

Post by Roger Hayter
^..^<

JNugent

2024-09-10 13:03:55 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".

I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Roger Hayter

2024-09-10 18:03:09 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.

If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

--
Roger Hayter

Spike

2024-09-10 18:34:06 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

A significant issue is that the so-called refugees have come here from
France, sometimes with the assistance of the French authorities. So what
are they refugeeing from? What war is going on in France? In reality these
refugees are country shopping, and are no more than economic migrants
chancing their luck. Refugees, they ain’t.

--
Spike

The Todal

2024-09-10 19:18:10 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

Norman Wells

2024-09-10 21:09:37 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less
favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not
believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without
considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

The Todal

2024-09-10 23:58:15 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not
the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without
considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

It has been answered many, many times. So he and you know the answer. I
think you've allowed your attention to lapse, and you've been seduced by
that glamorous Mr Farage with his ample supply of single malt whisky.

Spike

2024-09-11 08:11:12 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which
treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not
the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other
countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without
considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

Once upon a time in France down-and-outs were fed on pork soup. For some
strange reason that tradition was ended, but it seems that brioche wasn’t
substituted.

Post by Norman Wells
I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

I’m sorry to say that that does not make the grade as a suitable response
to the questions that were posed.

--
Spike

The Todal

2024-09-11 10:27:50 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which
treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not
the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits
discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other
countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

Once upon a time in France down-and-outs were fed on pork soup. For some
strange reason that tradition was ended, but it seems that brioche wasn’t
substituted.

In the words of Donald Trump, speaking about the migrants coming into
the USA, look at what's happening to the towns. A lot of towns don't
want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. They're
eating the dogs, people that came in! They're eating the cats! They're
eating the pets of the people that live there!

Post by Norman Wells
I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

I’m sorry to say that that does not make the grade as a suitable response
to the questions that were posed.

Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

Spike

2024-09-11 11:49:38 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which
treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not
the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits
discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,
color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less
favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other
countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a
citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa
rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

Once upon a time in France down-and-outs were fed on pork soup. For some
strange reason that tradition was ended, but it seems that brioche wasn’t
substituted.

Post by Norman Wells
I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

I’m sorry to say that that does not make the grade as a suitable response
to the questions that were posed.

Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

You seem to be saying that refugees’ rights are infinitely transportable,
in the sense that having fled from e.g. a war zone, they can continue to
claim refugee status in any further country on their itinerary that
provides the maximum in social security, health, education, and housing
benefits.

Why don’t we cut out the smuggling gangs, the trafficking gangs and the
rest, commandeer lots of cruise liners, and ship all the people of MENA and
other troubled areas here now?

That would end the gangs overnight.

Long term, we could build a bridge across the Mediterranean, along with
hotels (no less than three-star) for the refugees while making their way
here.

If it saves one life…

[This is, of course, a reductio ad absurdum, just to show how silly the
current system is]

--
Spike

RJH

2024-09-11 13:02:26 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which
treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not
the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits
discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of
the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,
color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or
social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less
favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the
rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other
countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a
citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa
rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply
arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not
believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

Once upon a time in France down-and-outs were fed on pork soup. For some
strange reason that tradition was ended, but it seems that brioche wasn’t
substituted.

Post by Norman Wells
I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

I’m sorry to say that that does not make the grade as a suitable response
to the questions that were posed.

Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

Post by Spike
Why don’t we cut out the smuggling gangs, the trafficking gangs and the
rest, commandeer lots of cruise liners, and ship all the people of MENA and
other troubled areas here now?
That would end the gangs overnight.
Long term, we could build a bridge across the Mediterranean, along with
hotels (no less than three-star) for the refugees while making their way
here.
If it saves one life…
[This is, of course, a reductio ad absurdum, just to show how silly the
current system is]

Agreed.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

Spike

2024-09-11 13:18:52 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which
treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not
the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits
discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of
the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,
color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or
social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property,
birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less
favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the
rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other
countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a
citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa
rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right
on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does
not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply
arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is
in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not
believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get
here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without
considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular
to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

Once upon a time in France down-and-outs were fed on pork soup. For some
strange reason that tradition was ended, but it seems that brioche wasn’t
substituted.

Post by Norman Wells
I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

I’m sorry to say that that does not make the grade as a suitable response
to the questions that were posed.

Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

The desperate measures you mention that these people undertake, stopped
being desperate long before they reached our shores. By the time they get
here, or to France or Germany, surely they are just benefit migrants.

Post by RJH
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

Agreed.

--
Spike

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-11 13:59:51 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

Spike

2024-09-11 14:37:25 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

--
Spike

The Todal

2024-09-11 15:47:21 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Migrants who live in tents in Calais have an utterly miserable existence.

Frequent raids on makeshift camps and squats push migrants into
precarious and unsanitary conditions. Strict new migration laws and more
aggressive policing have forced those looking to cross to take bigger risks.

In a scrubby patch of vacant land between Calais’ main hospital and a
major highway interchange, Muhamed Omar was reattaching his blue tent to
the ground. The area around him was dotted with other tents, scattered
trash and plastic bags.Roughly every two days, police swoop into public
lots in Calais to order anyone camping there to gather their belongings
and go.

Spike

2024-09-11 17:17:52 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Migrants who live in tents in Calais have an utterly miserable existence.

As we have been told, social security benefits in the EU are much better
than those of the UK. Therefore, the migrants are choosing to live like
that, for whatever reason.

Why don’t they claim the better social security in France?

Post by The Todal
In a scrubby patch of vacant land between Calais’ main hospital and a
major highway interchange, Muhamed Omar was reattaching his blue tent to
the ground. The area around him was dotted with other tents, scattered
trash and plastic bags.Roughly every two days, police swoop into public
lots in Calais to order anyone camping there to gather their belongings
and go.

And? Would the police swoop if the migrants were supported by the superior
French social security system?

--
Spike

JNugent

2024-09-11 21:21:14 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Migrants who live in tents in Calais have an utterly miserable existence.

It's voluntary.

No-one confines them to those tents in those camps.

Post by The Todal
Frequent raids on makeshift camps and squats push migrants into
precarious and unsanitary conditions. Strict new migration laws and more
aggressive policing have forced those looking to cross to take bigger risks.
In a scrubby patch of vacant land between Calais’ main hospital and a
major highway interchange, Muhamed Omar was reattaching his blue tent to
the ground. The area around him was dotted with other tents, scattered
trash and plastic bags.Roughly every two days, police swoop into public
lots in Calais to order anyone camping there to gather their belongings
and go.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-11 15:54:52 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Please, do tell me more about your theory about applying from abroad
for asylum in the UK.

Jethro_uk

2024-09-11 16:43:44 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

The desperate measures you mention that these people undertake,
stopped being desperate long before they reached our shores. By the
time they get here, or to France or Germany, surely they are just
benefit migrants.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in
the EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK
- and apply to come to the UK from there.

Please, do tell me more about your theory about applying from abroad for
asylum in the UK.

I believe you need a carrier pigeon, and the right sort of attachment for
the leg.

Spike

2024-09-11 17:17:54 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Please, do tell me more about your theory about applying from abroad
for asylum in the UK.

I rather think you missed the somewhat germane point that once in the EU,
these people have already got away from the situations that required they
seek asylum. They are now merely migrants.

--
Spike

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-11 21:13:29 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Please, do tell me more about your theory about applying from abroad
for asylum in the UK.

I rather think you missed the somewhat germane point that once in the EU,
these people have already got away from the situations that required they
seek asylum. They are now merely migrants.

Whereas you have missed the point that that is not the law.

Norman Wells

2024-09-12 07:12:40 UTC

Post by Spike
I rather think you missed the somewhat germane point that once in the EU,
these people have already got away from the situations that required they
seek asylum. They are now merely migrants.

Whereas you have missed the point that that is not the law.

It's arguable that it is not in fact the law. It depends on how you
interpret '*coming directly* from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened' in Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention,
which should decide the matter.

The UNHCR, which does not have authority to tell contracting countries
what they signed up to other than in the words of the Convention, says
that it doesn't mean what it says and doesn't mean directly at all.

We appear to have tacitly gone along with that but, as a sovereign
nation, it is for us to interpret as we wish.

In my view, as it appears to be in many others', to interpret 'coming
directly' to cover traversing several very safe countries en route, is a
linguistic contortion too far.

Why was that expression used in the Convention if in fact it meant
nothing at all?

Norman Wells

2024-09-12 15:38:01 UTC

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:12:40 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...

Whereas you have missed the point that that is not the law.

It's arguable that it is not in fact the law. It depends on how you
interpret '*coming directly* from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened' in Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention,
which should decide the matter.
The UNHCR, which does not have authority to tell contracting countries
what they signed up to other than in the words of the Convention, says
that it doesn't mean what it says and doesn't mean directly at all.
We appear to have tacitly gone along with that but, as a sovereign
nation, it is for us to interpret as we wish.
In my view, as it appears to be in many others', to interpret 'coming
directly' to cover traversing several very safe countries en route, is a
linguistic contortion too far.
Why was that expression used in the Convention if in fact it meant
nothing at all?

I'm glad that you realise that the term is "coming directly" rather than
"first safe country". I made this point to you a couple of months ago.

I think not, though it is a very valid and perhaps only true interpretation.

It's what anyone would understand the natural meaning of 'coming
directly' to mean. The alternative is coming indirectly, which passing
through other safe countries is.

However, at the time I also quoted UNHCR's reasoning for their
interpretation of it. Since you are criticising that, it is only fair
to repeat what they say. As I recall, this has been their
interpretation for quite a long time, and comes originally from an
international committee of experts including the UK.
UNHCR advises that "coming directly" means that States
can treat refugees differently "if they have already
settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for
reasons unrelated to their need for international
protection." It emphasises that Article 31 does not
support the notion that asylum must be claimed in
the first safe country reached.
"Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time
when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland
travel was by far the most common mode of transport,
such a principle would have relieved the very States
that drafted and signed the Convention of any
significant obligations under it."
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9281/CBP-
9281.pdf

It may well be that the UNHCR wishes that the Convention hadn't
specifically said 'coming directly' but, to its misfortune, it does. It
has no authority either to change the clear meaning of the words all the
contracting parties agreed, or decree that they should be 'interpreted'
in any specific way, let alone one that is directly contrary to their
expressed clear meaning.

As regards the 'first safe country' point, refugees are under an
obligation, under the provisions of Article 31, in any safe country they
illegally enter, to 'present themselves without delay to the authorities
and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence', or any such
country may declare them illegal and impose penalties on them. It's
abundantly clear that the intention was that they should do so in the
first safe country they reach.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has
clarified matters and says the true interpretation is what I've
maintained throughout.

JNugent

2024-09-12 17:50:06 UTC

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:12:40 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...

Whereas you have missed the point that that is not the law.

It's arguable that it is not in fact the law. It depends on how you
interpret '*coming directly* from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened' in Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention,
which should decide the matter.
The UNHCR, which does not have authority to tell contracting countries
what they signed up to other than in the words of the Convention, says
that it doesn't mean what it says and doesn't mean directly at all.
We appear to have tacitly gone along with that but, as a sovereign
nation, it is for us to interpret as we wish.
In my view, as it appears to be in many others', to interpret 'coming
directly' to cover traversing several very safe countries en route, is a
linguistic contortion too far.
Why was that expression used in the Convention if in fact it meant
nothing at all?

I'm glad that you realise that the term is "coming directly" rather than
"first safe country". I made this point to you a couple of months ago.
However, at the time I also quoted UNHCR's reasoning for their
interpretation of it. Since you are criticising that, it is only fair
to repeat what they say. As I recall, this has been their
interpretation for quite a long time, and comes originally from an
international committee of experts including the UK.
UNHCR advises that "coming directly" means that States
can treat refugees differently "if they have already
settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for
reasons unrelated to their need for international
protection." It emphasises that Article 31 does not
support the notion that asylum must be claimed in
the first safe country reached.
"Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time
when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland
travel was by far the most common mode of transport,
such a principle would have relieved the very States
that drafted and signed the Convention of any
significant obligations under it."
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9281/CBP-
9281.pdf

I wonder what grounds they think they had for that?

After all, had the Convention been in force during the 1930s, with
Germany's neighbours interpreting it correctly, the eventual Holocaust
might have been less of a tragedy. The Frank family of Amsterdam might
have escaped, for instance. And perhaps more Spanish Republicans might
have been able to escape.

So the idea that western European countries could never have had
obligations to meet is nonsense.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-12 18:23:09 UTC

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:12:40 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...

Whereas you have missed the point that that is not the law.

It's arguable that it is not in fact the law. It depends on how you
interpret '*coming directly* from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened' in Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention,
which should decide the matter.
The UNHCR, which does not have authority to tell contracting countries
what they signed up to other than in the words of the Convention, says
that it doesn't mean what it says and doesn't mean directly at all.
We appear to have tacitly gone along with that but, as a sovereign
nation, it is for us to interpret as we wish.
In my view, as it appears to be in many others', to interpret 'coming
directly' to cover traversing several very safe countries en route, is a
linguistic contortion too far.
Why was that expression used in the Convention if in fact it meant
nothing at all?

I wonder what grounds they think they had for that?
After all, had the Convention been in force during the 1930s, with
Germany's neighbours interpreting it correctly, the eventual Holocaust
might have been less of a tragedy. The Frank family of Amsterdam might
have escaped, for instance. And perhaps more Spanish Republicans might
have been able to escape.
So the idea that western European countries could never have had
obligations to meet is nonsense.

You seem to have proved the point in your own slightly unusual way. Refugees
from Germany escaping to neighbouring 'safe' country in 1933 would have had a
severe problem in 1940!

Secondly, UK and America signally failed to provide refuge for thousands of
refugees who would have willingly travelled there by ship if they were allowed
to by the destination country.

You seem to have amply proved the point you are disagreeing with.

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-09-12 07:58:24 UTC

Whereas you have missed the point that that is not the law.

It's arguable that it is not in fact the law.Â It depends on how you
interpret '*coming directly* from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened' in Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention,
which should decide the matter.
The UNHCR, which does not have authority to tell contracting countries
what they signed up to other than in the words of the Convention, says
that it doesn't mean what it says and doesn't mean directly at all.
We appear to have tacitly gone along with that but, as a sovereign
nation, it is for us to interpret as we wish.
In my view, as it appears to be in many others', to interpret 'coming
directly' to cover traversing several very safe countries en route, is
a linguistic contortion too far.
Why was that expression used in the Convention if in fact it meant
nothing at all?

I need to add that Section 37(1) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022
has now consolidated my and others' sensible view into the law, saying
specifically:

"A refugee is not to be taken to have come to the United Kingdom
directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened if,
in coming from that country, they stopped in another country outside the
United Kingdom, unless they can show that they could not reasonably be
expected to have sought protection under the Refugee Convention in that
country."

JNugent

2024-09-11 21:21:49 UTC

Post by RJH
This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Please, do tell me more about your theory about applying from abroad
for asylum in the UK.

Following the law and not breaking it?

That sort of thing?

Tim Jackson

2024-09-12 00:36:21 UTC

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 15:54:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens
They put their lives at great risk to get across the Channel.
Clearly, *by definition*, they are still desperate.

I’d say they were foolish. They could stay warm and fed and housed in the
EU - which, we’re told, has much better social security than the UK - and
apply to come to the UK from there.

Please, do tell me more about your theory about applying from abroad
for asylum in the UK.

I believe the French government offered a few years ago to let people
apply for asylum in the UK while still in a refugee camp in France. The
UK government (possibly Johnson?) said no.

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

RJH

2024-09-11 14:38:46 UTC

Post by The Todal
Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

So. You think people who migrate to the UK do it to claim benefits? That's not
my understanding - the link I gave you provides a sketch outline.

Do you have any evidence to support your 'surely' idea?

Or is it just the most likely motive that you can think of without reading up
on the subject?

Post by RJH
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

Spike

2024-09-11 14:43:37 UTC

Post by The Todal
Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

So. You think people who migrate to the UK do it to claim benefits? That's not
my understanding - the link I gave you provides a sketch outline.
Do you have any evidence to support your 'surely' idea?
Or is it just the most likely motive that you can think of without reading up
on the subject?

Post by RJH
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

We are constantly being told about these desperate people fleeing war and
persecution, but that stopped long before they got here.

--
Spike

JNugent

2024-09-11 21:19:27 UTC

Post by The Todal
Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

This isn't a form of tourism. It's desperate people taking desperate measures.

So. You think people who migrate to the UK do it to claim benefits? That's not
my understanding - the link I gave you provides a sketch outline.

The word "benefit" has more than one meaning.

Post by RJH
Do you have any evidence to support your 'surely' idea?
Or is it just the most likely motive that you can think of without reading up
on the subject?

Post by RJH
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

Roger Hayter

2024-09-11 13:38:36 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which
treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not
the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits
discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of
the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,
color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or
social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less
favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the
rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other
countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a
citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa
rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply
arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not
believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

Once upon a time in France down-and-outs were fed on pork soup. For some
strange reason that tradition was ended, but it seems that brioche wasn’t
substituted.

Post by Norman Wells
I wonder if you'd like to answer Spike's questions now?

I’m sorry to say that that does not make the grade as a suitable response
to the questions that were posed.

Do you really want an elementary lesson in refugee rights? Are you
incapable of finding the information online?

Well that certainly wouldn't be the UK then! People come here for social,
family or language reasons. If they wanted good benefits they'd go to almost
any other EU state.

--
Roger Hayter

Jethro_uk

2024-09-11 13:51:21 UTC

Post by Spike
That would end the gangs overnight.

It's an inescapable fact that at some level, somewhere, someone in power
is benefiting from the gangs. To the extent that there is little appetite
to change things. Logic tells us this.

Same way we have been duped into a 50+ year "war" on drugs which has done
nothing except make a lot of criminals rich enough to ensure successive
politicians keep the status quo.

A drug dealers worst fear is not imprisonment. Or other drug dealers.
It's that a rather inattentive government makes their business model
obsolete overnight. Luckily enough people have enough vested interests to
make sure that will never happen.

JNugent

2024-09-11 13:34:04 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Have you ever read the Convention and its articles?
"No discrimination on the basis of nationality."
From CoPilot (of course you might dispute what is says,
particularly
"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination
on various grounds, *including* *nationality*. Article 14 of the ECHR
ensures that all the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention are
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color,
language, religion, political or other opinion, *national* or social
*origin*, association with a national minority, property, birth, or
other status.
"This means that individuals should not be treated less
favorably based
on their nationality when it comes to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms protected by the ECHR
1 equalityhumanrights.com
2 coe.int
3 eur-lex.europa.eu
4 laweuro.com"

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the
Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the
border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not
believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without
considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Yeah, dump them all in France. Let them eat brioche.

If it troubled France (and it may well do that), that country should
tackle the problem in the correct way, which would be to re-institute
its own border controls at crossings from Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg,
Germany, Switzerland (if necessary) and Italy.

It isn't a problem which should simply be foisted onto the UK.

JNugent

2024-09-10 23:06:42 UTC

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by JNugent
What IS the advantage of being a citizen of a country which treats the
entire global population as having the same rights (if not the same with
gold plated knobs on)?

That has never been suggested, let alone happened.

Post by JNugent
Treating citizens of other countries as citizens of other countries is
hardly treating them badly.

*And* I do not expect to be treated as having equal rights as a citizen
when I visit other countries, particularly the USA and Canada.

Applying legitimate citizenship, residence, employment and visa rules to
people is *not* treating them less favourably under the Convention. You have
failed to understand what you are reading.

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

That continues to be the case for people who come from safe countries.

You are now talking of "asylum law".
I was discussing the rights of more people than that.

No!! I am talking precisely about situations where asylum law does not apply!

Post by JNugent
Whatever happened to the more than reasonable "persona non-grata"
grounds for refusal to admit or to deport?

Remains completely intact, and indeed used regularly.

Than why is it not used against those who breach the law by simply arriving?

Because to be persona non grata the government has to know something about
you, and by definition this cannot include people whose identity is in doubt.
People are not infrequently sent home without admission at the border because
their papers are not in order, or their reason for entry not believed, but the
airlines try very hard to make it difficult for such people to get here as it
costs them money and reputation.
If you are looking for a way to send refugees back without considering their
case then that is against international law. Nothing in particular to do with
the European Convention, by the way.

Precisely.

Tim Jackson

2024-09-10 02:22:54 UTC

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they can't be
deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee Convention, rather
than the ECHR.

The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed to
see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to their home
country? If so, they can't be sent back.

The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

Leaving the ECHR wouldn't change that. (Though it might remove an
/additional/ legal reason why you can't send someone back to face
torture or death.)

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

Jethro_uk

2024-09-10 10:19:14 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

[quoted text muted]

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they can't be
deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee Convention, rather
than the ECHR.
The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed to
see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to their home
country? If so, they can't be sent back.
The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-up-
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2

14,000 deportations planned by December

Davey

2024-09-10 10:43:43 UTC

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:19:14 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

[quoted text muted]

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they
can't be deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee
Convention, rather than the ECHR.
The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed
to see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to
their home country? If so, they can't be sent back.
The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-up-
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2
14,000 deportations planned by December

Behind a Paywall.

--
Davey.

Jethro_uk

2024-09-10 11:05:37 UTC

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:19:14 -0000 (UTC) Jethro_uk

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

[quoted text muted]

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they can't
be deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee Convention,
rather than the ECHR.
The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed
to see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to their
home country? If so, they can't be sent back.
The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-

up-

Post by Jethro_uk
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2
14,000 deportations planned by December

Behind a Paywall.

Article highlights:

More than 200 failed asylum seekers were flown to Brazil this month in
the largest single British deportation on record. The flight was one of
nine that have taken off in the past seven weeks.

Small boat crossings have also fallen to their lowest number since 2021,
with the new Labour government ordering a 50% increase in National Crime
Agency staff working at Europol to help identify and disrupt people
smuggling gangs.

Mark Goodge

2024-09-10 20:34:35 UTC

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:05:37 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:19:14 -0000 (UTC) Jethro_uk

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

[quoted text muted]

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they can't
be deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee Convention,
rather than the ECHR.
The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed
to see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to their
home country? If so, they can't be sent back.
The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-

up-

Post by Jethro_uk
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2
14,000 deportations planned by December

Behind a Paywall.

More than 200 failed asylum seekers were flown to Brazil this month in
the largest single British deportation on record. The flight was one of
nine that have taken off in the past seven weeks.

There's a certain amount of low-hanging fruit picking there, I suspect.
Brazil may not be the greatest place in the world to live, particularly if
you're poor, but it is a functioning democracy that doesn't routinely
persecute people for being in a minority religion, sexuality or political
position. So the prospect of a Brazilian being granted asylum is low to
begin with, and there are equally unlikely to be significant human rights
barriers to returning them if they are refused asylum.

Post by Jethro_uk
Small boat crossings have also fallen to their lowest number since 2021,
with the new Labour government ordering a 50% increase in National Crime
Agency staff working at Europol to help identify and disrupt people
smuggling gangs.

As has already been pointed out, the drop in small boat crossings is simply
a reversion to the mean, having been inflated in 2022 by a strong, but
short-lived, surge in crossings by Albanians. Who, like Brazlians, are also
among the easiest to process and least likely to be granted asylum.

Mark

JNugent

2024-09-11 13:35:52 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:05:37 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:19:14 -0000 (UTC) Jethro_uk

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

[quoted text muted]

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they can't
be deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee Convention,
rather than the ECHR.
The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed
to see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to their
home country? If so, they can't be sent back.
The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-

up-

Post by Jethro_uk
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2
14,000 deportations planned by December

Behind a Paywall.

More than 200 failed asylum seekers were flown to Brazil this month in
the largest single British deportation on record. The flight was one of
nine that have taken off in the past seven weeks.

You are making a point there which is too often forgotten (or more
likely, ignored) when discussing this issue.

The asylum scheme (some might say "scam") is not and never was about
people seeking "a better life".

Post by Mark Goodge

Tim Jackson

2024-09-10 11:38:59 UTC

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:19:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

[quoted text muted]

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they can't be
deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee Convention, rather
than the ECHR.
The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed to
see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to their home
country? If so, they can't be sent back.
The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-up-
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2
14,000 deportations planned by December

Paywalled, but referred to here:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/labour-to-turbocharge-
deportations-by-making-14500-returns-by-the-end-of-the-year-381659/

This seems to be about returning asylum seekers whose claims have been
assessed and failed. The government still needs to assess the claims
first.

Presumably they're not saying how many claims were found to be justified
when assessed. I've not got the figures in front of me, but
historically I recall about 70% were justified, maybe 80% after appeals.

More recently this has been subject to some well-publicised variations,
such as a sudden influx from Albania. Perhaps the 14,000 headline is
about picking that kind of low-hanging fruit.

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

Tim Jackson

2024-09-10 13:50:36 UTC

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:38:59 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:19:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Jethro_uk
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-up-
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2
14,000 deportations planned by December

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/labour-to-turbocharge-
deportations-by-making-14500-returns-by-the-end-of-the-year-381659/
This seems to be about returning asylum seekers whose claims have been
assessed and failed. The government still needs to assess the claims
first.
Presumably they're not saying how many claims were found to be justified
when assessed. I've not got the figures in front of me, but
historically I recall about 70% were justified, maybe 80% after appeals.

Interesting article here, from a barrister in the field:
https://freemovement.org.uk/briefing-the-sorry-state-of-the-uk-asylum-
system/

Quote: "Eventually around three quarters of them will be recognised as
refugees and become permanent members of our society."

Post by Tim Jackson
More recently this has been subject to some well-publicised variations,
such as a sudden influx from Albania. Perhaps the 14,000 headline is
about picking that kind of low-hanging fruit.

Quote: "The drop in 2023 compared to 2022 is almost entirely due to the
rapid increase and then equally rapid decrease in arrivals by Albanians
during 2022. In effect, this inflated the 2022 figures quite
considerably.

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

Jethro_uk

2024-09-10 13:52:31 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:19:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

[quoted text muted]

You're thinking about people who claim asylum. The reason they can't
be deported immediately is the United Nations Refugee Convention,
rather than the ECHR.
The Refugee Convention says their claim has to be properly assessed
to see if it is valid. Would they be in danger if sent back to their
home country? If so, they can't be sent back.
The UK government has often been very slow to deal with such claims,
which is why a large backlog has built up.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labours-migrant-policy-is-

up-

Post by Tim Jackson

Post by Jethro_uk
in-the-air-drf9bxqw2
14,000 deportations planned by December

The TL;DR is that action *is* possible when the political will exists to
apply it.

The very first rule of life is to learn that "can't" is very often
mistakenly used instead of "won't". Rewriting or relistening to a lot of
verbiage with that in mind can be very revealing. Remember, as a species
we have put a man on the moon. So "can't" really doesn't cover as much as
people think it does.

JNugent

2024-09-10 13:10:03 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

You're thinking about people who claim asylum.

No, I am not.

I am thinking about every alien arrival, analogous to what I am when
arriving in any country other than the UK or Ireland.

[snipped material based upon the above misapprehension.]

Tim Jackson

2024-09-12 00:22:23 UTC

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:10:03 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

You're thinking about people who claim asylum.

No, I am not.
I am thinking about every alien arrival, analogous to what I am when
arriving in any country other than the UK or Ireland.

Then you'll have to supply more detail about these "every alien
arrivals" who don't claim asylum, but still can't be immediately
deported. How are they analogous to you arriving in any country other
than the UK or Ireland? Why do you think they can't be deported?

Have they arrived with a valid visa saying they can visit? Or on a
temporary holiday or business trip? These are regularly permitted for
citizens of a number of countries, just as they permit UK citizens such
as you or I. All these alien arrivals are perfectly reasonable, which
is why we don't immediately deport them.

Some of these might overstay their welcome, but you're not talking about
those. And some may arrive illegally, but what proportion of those
don't apply for asylum?

Hint: almost all illegal small boat arrivals *do* apply for asylum.
Under the Refugee Convention, their cases then have to be examined.

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

JNugent

2024-09-12 12:38:58 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:10:03 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

You're thinking about people who claim asylum.

No, I am not.
I am thinking about every alien arrival, analogous to what I am when
arriving in any country other than the UK or Ireland.

Would that make a difference? If it would, why does it? Even with a
visa, the USA strongly makes the point that this is no guarantee of
admission or right to remain.

Post by Tim Jackson
Or on a
temporary holiday or business trip? These are regularly permitted for
citizens of a number of countries, just as they permit UK citizens such
as you or I. All these alien arrivals are perfectly reasonable, which
is why we don't immediately deport them.

Why are you going along that line?

No-one has said that foreign citizens should not / never be admitted to
the UK.

Post by Tim Jackson
Some of these might overstay their welcome, but you're not talking about
those.

Aren't I? Did you read what you quoted above?

Apparently not.

Post by Tim Jackson
And some may arrive illegally, but what proportion of those
don't apply for asylum?
Hint: almost all illegal small boat arrivals *do* apply for asylum.
Under the Refugee Convention, their cases then have to be examined.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-12 17:26:28 UTC

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:38:58 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:10:03 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

You're thinking about people who claim asylum.

No, I am not.
I am thinking about every alien arrival, analogous to what I am when
arriving in any country other than the UK or Ireland.

Would that make a difference?

Yes. You said "immediately deport". People with a valid visa are not
usually deported immediately.

Post by JNugent
If it would, why does it? Even with a
visa, the USA strongly makes the point that this is no guarantee of
admission or right to remain.

But they usually do admit people with valid visas, even though they warn
there's no guarantee. It's rare to be immediately deported.

It is not that rare with people coming from some countries. If the immigration
officer (or whatever they are called these days) does not believe they are
coming here for the purpose mentioned on their visa they can be sent back on
the next flight. I suspect it happens at least once each day, probably more.

snip

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2024-09-12 17:51:19 UTC

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:38:58 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:10:03 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

You're thinking about people who claim asylum.

No, I am not.
I am thinking about every alien arrival, analogous to what I am when
arriving in any country other than the UK or Ireland.

Would that make a difference?

Yes. You said "immediately deport". People with a valid visa are not
usually deported immediately.

Post by JNugent
If it would, why does it? Even with a
visa, the USA strongly makes the point that this is no guarantee of
admission or right to remain.

But they usually do admit people with valid visas, even though they warn
there's no guarantee. It's rare to be immediately deported.

Ah... another watcher of the TV programmes about the border forces of
the USA and Australia...

Interesting, aren't they?

JNugent

2024-09-12 17:23:23 UTC

Post by JNugent
Would that make a difference? If it would, why does it? Even with a
visa, the USA strongly makes the point that this is no guarantee of
admission or right to remain.

While living in the US, I changed my visa a few times. I finally got
my Green Card, and I was sent a piece of paper, that stated in large
letters across the top: "THIS IS A VISA". I was informed that only
Consulates could stamp a new visa into a passport. Before I could
arrange this, (which was its own story), I travelled to the UK for a
short visit. On return to Detroit, I was asked to show my visa, and
when I produced the piece of paper, I was told that visas were only
valid if they were stamped into a passport, and they would not admit
me. But they did put me into the 'Unclean' office, along with all the
chancers who were just trying to get in without any visa, and the BA
Concorde Engineer who was supposed to have landed in Washington, stayed
planeside, and flown back on Concorde, but the plane was diverted
from Washington to Detroit as its first stop, landing him in Detroit
without a visa. When it came to my turn, the Immigration Officer asked
if I had any supporting paperwork, and luckily I had some
correspondence from my American employer. I was admitted, but told to
report first thing the next morning to the Detroit Immigration Office,
in downtown Detroit, surrounded by barbed wire for safety reasons.
Once there, I pulled my deli number tag from the red plastic dispenser,
and when my turn came, the officer listened to my story, and said that
the airport officers kept on making the same mistake, and admitted me
properly with no problem. But that passport had the notation "Admitted
on Probation" until it ran out and was replaced.

Thank you.

If only the UK took these powers as seriously, and operated them as
robustly, as does the USA.

JNugent

2024-09-12 17:27:10 UTC

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:38:58 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:10:03 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:57:26 +0100, JNugent wrote...

What about admission and the effective non-existence of a right on the
part of the state to immediately deport?

You're thinking about people who claim asylum.

No, I am not.
I am thinking about every alien arrival, analogous to what I am when
arriving in any country other than the UK or Ireland.

Would that make a difference?

Yes. You said "immediately deport". People with a valid visa are not
usually deported immediately.

Even people with visas can be - and should be - deported if they, for
instance, commit a crime.

Post by JNugent
If it would, why does it? Even with a
visa, the USA strongly makes the point that this is no guarantee of
admission or right to remain.

But they usually do admit people with valid visas, even though they warn
there's no guarantee. It's rare to be immediately deported.

See above.

Why are you going along that line?

Because it's another example of aliens who are not usually immediately
deported.

"usually"

What of people who commit crimes? Driving without a licence, for
instance? Theft? Assault?

Post by JNugent
No-one has said that foreign citizens should not / never be admitted to
the UK.

You implied they ought to be liable to immediate deportation.

Yes. Criminals should be so susceptible.

Is that controversial?

Post by Tim Jackson
Some of these might overstay their welcome, but you're not talking about
those.

Aren't I? Did you read what you quoted above?
Apparently not.

You're talking about immediate deportation. Aliens who are admitted but
overstay are not liable to deportation immediately they arrive, only
after they overstay.

Ah... you are making up what I said... see if you can find the string
"immediately on arrival".

Illegal arrivals are of course the nub of the issue, but you've not
addressed that bit. What proportion don't apply for asylum?

Why does it even matter?

A state should have absolute control of its borders.

Tim Jackson

2024-09-09 00:07:13 UTC

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 16:49:09 +0100, JNugent wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:14:48 +0100, JNugent wrote...

And there is an illustration of the problem. Some people think giving
rights to non-British people is a nonsensical proposition.

"Rights" is one thing.
The same rights as a local citizen is something quite different.

The ECHR doesn't give foreigners the *same* rights as local citizens.
Have you read it? It just lists certain basic human rights which,
frankly, I would be astounded if you disagreed with them.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Simplified_Conv_ENG

So which of them /do/ you disagree with?

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

Roger Hayter

2024-09-08 15:24:17 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On 6 Sep 2024 13:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

Post by Roger Hayter
The ECHR is not an annoying bunch of
Zurich gnomes inventing abitrary rules, it follows a convention in which
Churchill and other British politicicans put forward ideas that they
felt would help prevent the events of the preceding decades recurring.

The ECHR was drafted in London by British lawyers, based on an original
proposal by Churchill as you say.
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).
So does the Good Friday Agreement (peace in Northern Ireland).

Nothing is written in tablets of stone, except for memorials to the dead
and two other things.
The first was of course the Ten Commandments, of which the majority of
us here in the UK couldn't identify more than 5, are quite happy to
accept no more than 3 embodied in our laws, and personally keep to no
more than 2.
The other was the the 'Edstone' from the 2015 election, about which the
less said the better.
Times change. Circumstances change. It is possible to move on, even
from Saint Winston.

I must admit I have never judged the European Convention on the basis of its
benefit to the British people. It seems a somewat insular argument.

snip

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2024-09-08 15:52:02 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On 6 Sep 2024 13:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

Post by Roger Hayter
The ECHR is not an annoying bunch of
Zurich gnomes inventing abitrary rules, it follows a convention in which
Churchill and other British politicicans put forward ideas that they
felt would help prevent the events of the preceding decades recurring.

The ECHR was drafted in London by British lawyers, based on an original
proposal by Churchill as you say.
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).
So does the Good Friday Agreement (peace in Northern Ireland).

Nothing is written in tablets of stone, except for memorials to the dead
and two other things.
The first was of course the Ten Commandments, of which the majority of
us here in the UK couldn't identify more than 5, are quite happy to
accept no more than 3 embodied in our laws, and personally keep to no
more than 2.
The other was the the 'Edstone' from the 2015 election, about which the
less said the better.
Times change. Circumstances change. It is possible to move on, even
from Saint Winston.

I must admit I have never judged the European Convention on the basis of its
benefit to the British people. It seems a somewat insular argument.

What about British membership of it, then?

Who is helped by that?

What rights would British people "lose" if the UK withdrew?

IOW, what rights were only conferred on British citizens by UK
membership of the ECHR?

It wasn't the UK which ran extermination camps or did other unspeakable
things.

Post by Roger Hayter
snip

Roger Hayter

2024-09-08 15:27:44 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On 6 Sep 2024 13:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

Post by Roger Hayter
The ECHR is not an annoying bunch of
Zurich gnomes inventing abitrary rules, it follows a convention in which
Churchill and other British politicicans put forward ideas that they
felt would help prevent the events of the preceding decades recurring.

The ECHR was drafted in London by British lawyers, based on an original
proposal by Churchill as you say.
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).
So does the Good Friday Agreement (peace in Northern Ireland).

Nothing is written in tablets of stone, except for memorials to the dead
and two other things.
The first was of course the Ten Commandments, of which the majority of
us here in the UK couldn't identify more than 5, are quite happy to
accept no more than 3 embodied in our laws, and personally keep to no
more than 2.
The other was the the 'Edstone' from the 2015 election, about which the
less said the better.
Times change. Circumstances change. It is possible to move on, even
from Saint Winston.

On balance, it is surprising that so many of those who cite Churchill as
evidence that the ECHR is so benign and of benefit to the British people
have such a low opinion of him on certain other topics.
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"
In fact, if the UK withdrew from the ECHR, it would make no *practical*
difference to the British except to remove the jurisdiction of foreign
courts and any need to behave as though absolutely everyone in the world
has the same rights (in the UK) as does a British citizen (which was
always a nonsensical proposition).

And not a proposition that anyone, including the ECHR, has ever put forward -
unfortunately you've been lumbered with yet another straw person.

Post by JNugent
Even at the time, no-one claimed that human rights were in any danger
within the United Kingdom.
I would be perfectly happy to have "only" the same human rights within
the UK as my parents and grandparents were born with.

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2024-09-08 15:53:33 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On 6 Sep 2024 13:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

Post by Roger Hayter
The ECHR is not an annoying bunch of
Zurich gnomes inventing abitrary rules, it follows a convention in which
Churchill and other British politicicans put forward ideas that they
felt would help prevent the events of the preceding decades recurring.

The ECHR was drafted in London by British lawyers, based on an original
proposal by Churchill as you say.
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).
So does the Good Friday Agreement (peace in Northern Ireland).

Nothing is written in tablets of stone, except for memorials to the dead
and two other things.
The first was of course the Ten Commandments, of which the majority of
us here in the UK couldn't identify more than 5, are quite happy to
accept no more than 3 embodied in our laws, and personally keep to no
more than 2.
The other was the the 'Edstone' from the 2015 election, about which the
less said the better.
Times change. Circumstances change. It is possible to move on, even
from Saint Winston.

On balance, it is surprising that so many of those who cite Churchill as
evidence that the ECHR is so benign and of benefit to the British people
have such a low opinion of him on certain other topics.
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"
In fact, if the UK withdrew from the ECHR, it would make no *practical*
difference to the British except to remove the jurisdiction of foreign
courts and any need to behave as though absolutely everyone in the world
has the same rights (in the UK) as does a British citizen (which was
always a nonsensical proposition).

And not a proposition that anyone, including the ECHR, has ever put forward -
unfortunately you've been lumbered with yet another straw person.

"...behave as though..."

Did you not see that bit?

And interestingly, no-one has claimed that only having the same rights
my grandparents were born with would be a disadvantage.

The Todal

2024-09-08 22:37:58 UTC

Post by JNugent
I would be perfectly happy to have "only" the same human rights within
the UK as my parents and grandparents were born with.

And interestingly, no-one has claimed that only having the same rights
my grandparents were born with would be a disadvantage.

You haven't studied the case law on how the Human Rights Act has enabled
our judges to safeguard the rights and civil liberties of British subjects.

Did you want someone to do that for you?

This might be a good start, but I know how reluctant you are to follow
hyperlinks.

https://eachother.org.uk/50-human-rights-cases-that-transformed-britain/

JNugent

2024-09-09 00:03:04 UTC

Post by JNugent
I would be perfectly happy to have "only" the same human rights within
the UK as my parents and grandparents were born with.

And interestingly, no-one has claimed that only having the same rights
my grandparents were born with would be a disadvantage.

You haven't studied the case law on how the Human Rights Act has enabled
our judges to safeguard the rights and civil liberties of British subjects.
Did you want someone to do that for you?
This might be a good start, but I know how reluctant you are to follow
hyperlinks.
https://eachother.org.uk/50-human-rights-cases-that-transformed-britain/

I do not require or need any "rights" in excess of what my grandparents
had at birth.

The Todal

2024-09-09 10:07:23 UTC

Post by JNugent
I would be perfectly happy to have "only" the same human rights within
the UK as my parents and grandparents were born with.

And interestingly, no-one has claimed that only having the same
rights my grandparents were born with would be a disadvantage.

You haven't studied the case law on how the Human Rights Act has
enabled our judges to safeguard the rights and civil liberties of
British subjects.
Did you want someone to do that for you?
This might be a good start, but I know how reluctant you are to follow
hyperlinks.
https://eachother.org.uk/50-human-rights-cases-that-transformed-britain/

I do not require or need any "rights" in excess of what my grandparents
had at birth.

Well, that's lucky for you. Keep your nose clean, keep your head down,
don't break any UK laws, don't put your head above the parapet, don't
give the police the excuse to search your home, don't get into arguments
with your local council but just accept whatever decisions they make
about your life and that of your family.

Then you might reach your deathbed content to know that at no time did
you need to invoke your human rights. And you will hear the imaginary
voice of your grandparents saying, he's a good boy and always behaved
himself.

Max Demian

2024-09-09 11:34:59 UTC

Post by JNugent
I would be perfectly happy to have "only" the same human rights within
the UK as my parents and grandparents were born with.

And interestingly, no-one has claimed that only having the same
rights my grandparents were born with would be a disadvantage.

You haven't studied the case law on how the Human Rights Act has
enabled our judges to safeguard the rights and civil liberties of
British subjects.
Did you want someone to do that for you?
This might be a good start, but I know how reluctant you are to
follow hyperlinks.
https://eachother.org.uk/50-human-rights-cases-that-transformed-britain/

I do not require or need any "rights" in excess of what my
grandparents had at birth.

Well, that's lucky for you. Keep your nose clean, keep your head down,
don't break any UK laws, don't put your head above the parapet, don't
give the police the excuse to search your home, don't get into arguments
with your local council but just accept whatever decisions they make
about your life and that of your family.
Then you might reach your deathbed content to know that at no time did
you need to invoke your human rights. And you will hear the imaginary
voice of your grandparents saying, he's a good boy and always behaved
himself.

"Invoke your human rights"? You make it sound as if all we have to do is
wave a magic wand.

In practice you would need to start an expensive and lengthy legal
procedure and persuade a bench of stuffy judges that your grievance
applies. What is "family life"? What are we allowed to do, and what
aren't we?

I haven't found a simple, concise list.

And they are bound to be culturally dependent.

--
Max Demian

JNugent

2024-09-09 14:02:45 UTC

Post by JNugent
I would be perfectly happy to have "only" the same human rights within
the UK as my parents and grandparents were born with.

And interestingly, no-one has claimed that only having the same
rights my grandparents were born with would be a disadvantage.

You haven't studied the case law on how the Human Rights Act has
enabled our judges to safeguard the rights and civil liberties of
British subjects.
Did you want someone to do that for you?
This might be a good start, but I know how reluctant you are to
follow hyperlinks.
https://eachother.org.uk/50-human-rights-cases-that-transformed-britain/

I do not require or need any "rights" in excess of what my
grandparents had at birth.

Well, that's lucky for you. Keep your nose clean, keep your head down,
don't break any UK laws,

Isn't that sound advice for *everybody*?

Post by The Todal
don't put your head above the parapet, don't
give the police the excuse to search your home, don't get into arguments
with your local council but just accept whatever decisions they make
about your life and that of your family.

How does the EHRC stop the police searching your home if they have
grounds for the search?

Your description of a law-abiding life sounds like tens of millions of
people. If I break a law and it's detected, I expect to face
consequences. I don't *want* to (eg, for stopping on a yellow line), but
it might well happen.

Does the HMRC / HRA mean that I actually don't have any consequences to
face?

If not, what is your point?

Post by The Todal
Then you might reach your deathbed content to know that at no time did
you need to invoke your human rights. And you will hear the imaginary
voice of your grandparents saying, he's a good boy and always behaved
himself.

Not a bad epitaph, wouldn't you say?

Jethro_uk

2024-09-08 09:17:11 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).

Not according to the loonybins when they wanted to pull the UK out of it.
At the time they pompously were saying "what have yuman rights got to do
with trade" revealing their disconnection from reality was a chronic and
long term affliction.

Tim Jackson

2024-09-08 14:15:02 UTC

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:17:11 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Tim Jackson
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).

When you show them the actual text of the ECHR, there isn't anything
they could disagree with. Their problem is that the ECHR governs the
rights of all humans, not just British humans.

I've not posted this for a while:

Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?

--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

Jethro_uk

2024-09-08 15:12:51 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:17:11 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

[quoted text muted]

When you show them the actual text of the ECHR, there isn't anything
they could disagree with. Their problem is that the ECHR governs the
rights of all humans, not just British humans.

Oh I know. The giveaway is I have never once heard any proponent of
leaving the ECHR enumerate which rights they have a problem with and are
willing to give up *for themselves*.

It's a reverse prism of seeing laws enacted by one government then being
used by a successive government to howls of outrage as to "We didn't mean
them".

Spike

2024-09-08 15:30:35 UTC

Post by Tim Jackson
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement depends on it (our future trading
relationship with the EU).

A ‘chronic and long term’ affliction could be said to apply to those who
want to return to the all-encompassing nurture provided by the world’s
latest incarnation of the Soviet Union.

Doesn’t ‘chronic’ actually mean ’long-term’?

--
Spike

kat

2024-09-07 10:26:17 UTC

Post by Davey
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:17:38 -0000 (UTC)