pauld
Aaron Aardvark
 Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
 |
« Reply #240 on: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 22:51:06 » |
|
On local radio this morning,they did a feature,on how Swindon was lagging behind taking in Syrian refugees considering its one of Four dispersal centres in the South west(news to me)
Anyway,to make a short story long,one chap ,who settled in Swindon a couple of years ago (that entered the country illegally) was asked if he fled because of persecution?
He openly admitted that he was half way through his studies and was due for conscription so he had no option but to flee his home country.
So rather than being conscripted into an army that's being used to murder his fellow citizens, not to mention risk being killed himself in a pretty brutal civil war defending the murderous regime of a blood-soaked dictator, he fled the country? That sounds pretty sensible to me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
janaage
People's Front of Alba
Offline
Posts: 14825
|
|
« Reply #241 on: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 23:04:09 » |
|
Agree with Paul. Seems a valid reason to leave to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Not that Nice If I'm Honest
Offline
Posts: 1368
|
|
« Reply #242 on: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 23:15:20 » |
|
It's a good job my Dad didn't fuck off when the Germans were banging on the door
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #243 on: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 23:21:48 » |
|
It's a good job my Dad didn't fuck off when the Germans were banging on the door
Yeah because fighting for the British Army in World War II is exactly the same as being conscripted into Assad's gang of murderers |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Talk Talk
|
|
« Reply #244 on: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 23:27:01 » |
|
Yeah because fighting for the British Army in World War II is exactly the same as being conscripted into Assad's gang of murderers
<shrug> All conflicts initiated by fucking sociopathic nutters |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ghanimah
Offline
Posts: 3639
|
|
« Reply #245 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 11:57:09 » |
|
On local radio this morning,they did a feature,on how Swindon was lagging behind taking in Syrian refugees considering its one of Four dispersal centres in the South west(news to me)
Anyway,to make a short story long,one chap ,who settled in Swindon a couple of years ago (that entered the country illegally) was asked if he fled because of persecution?
He openly admitted that he was half way through his studies and was due for conscription so he had no option but to flee his home country.
If he was seeking asylum, which it appears he was by avoiding being conscripted, then he didn't enter the country illegally. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen ..."
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #246 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 12:05:09 » |
|
If he was seeking asylum, which it appears he was by avoiding being conscripted, then he didn't enter the country illegally.
Other from the fact that if seeking asylum, you're supposed to seek it in the first safe country you reach, ready to return when circumstances allow. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ghanimah
Offline
Posts: 3639
|
|
« Reply #247 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 12:22:41 » |
|
Other from the fact that if seeking asylum, you're supposed to seek it in the first safe country you reach, ready to return when circumstances allow.
Not under the UN 1951 Refugee Convention they don't. The convention was signed in the aftermath of WW2 where there had obviously been a great displacement of people. The reason for not including a clause for applying in first "safe country" was to ensure the refugee burden was distributed and shared rather than being placed solely on one country. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen ..."
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #248 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 12:41:14 » |
|
Not under the UN 1951 Refugee Convention they don't. The convention was signed in the aftermath of WW2 where there had obviously been a great displacement of people. The reason for not including a clause for applying in first "safe country" was to ensure the refugee burden was distributed and shared rather than being placed solely on one country.
Neverthelass there has been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. Further, there is nothing to stop the UK, arranging for an asylum seeker to seek refuge in a safe 3rd country. Hence why UK is under no obligation to take anyone from Calais, unless it chooses. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 12:44:44 by Reg Smeeton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ironside
Wir müssen die Liberalen ausrotten
Offline
Posts: 1475
|
|
« Reply #249 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 14:25:11 » |
|
Can anyone remind me why we never ban Ironside? Is it some sort of hand-wringing lefty need for 'balance?'
It would be an echo chamber in here otherwise. You'd just have a bunch of wazzock's indulging in confirmation bias and occasional outbreaks of public self flagellation. And for the record, I was banned once years ago and didn't bother posting for about a year and then I just tried to log in one day and I've been back ever since. Hooray! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Genius, Gentleman Explorer, French Cabaret Chantoose and Small Bets Placed and someone who knows who they are changed my signature but its only know that I can be arsed to change it....and I mean all the spelling mistakes.
Was it me? It can't have been an interesting enough event for me to remember - fB.
|
|
|
ghanimah
Offline
Posts: 3639
|
|
« Reply #250 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 14:26:20 » |
|
Neverthelass there has been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state.
Further, there is nothing to stop the UK, arranging for an asylum seeker to seek refuge in a safe 3rd country. Hence why UK is under no obligation to take anyone from Calais, unless it chooses.
The "principle" has no basis in international law and goes against the spirit of the original convention. The United Nations itself has released many papers expressing significant reservations against that principle - an example here. Under the 1951 convention there is an obligation for the UK to accept and process asylum seekers as soon as "they have a foot on UK territory". It's precisely for this reason we have the Treaty of Le Touquete with France to allow us to process UK bound migrants on French territory. Should they claim asylum on French territory it would then be France's problem. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen ..."
|
|
|
Ells
Offline
Posts: 3451
I am 32 now
|
|
« Reply #251 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 14:34:14 » |
|
Have I just been called a wazzock by someone who doesn't understand apostrophes?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If Don Rogers were alive today, he'd be turning in his grave
|
|
|
Ironside
Wir müssen die Liberalen ausrotten
Offline
Posts: 1475
|
|
« Reply #252 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 14:36:24 » |
|
Have I just been called a wazzock by someone who doesn't understand apostrophes?
Damn you auto correct... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Genius, Gentleman Explorer, French Cabaret Chantoose and Small Bets Placed and someone who knows who they are changed my signature but its only know that I can be arsed to change it....and I mean all the spelling mistakes.
Was it me? It can't have been an interesting enough event for me to remember - fB.
|
|
|
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER
Offline
Posts: 12832
|
|
« Reply #253 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 16:09:00 » |
|
Your auto correct incorrectly adds apostrophes? Of course.
It's ok to admit when you are wrong BTW
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #254 on: Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 16:11:52 » |
|
The "principle" has no basis in international law and goes against the spirit of the original convention. The United Nations itself has released many papers expressing significant reservations against that principle - an example here. Under the 1951 convention there is an obligation for the UK to accept and process asylum seekers as soon as "they have a foot on UK territory". It's precisely for this reason we have the Treaty of Le Touquete with France to allow us to process UK bound migrants on French territory. Should they claim asylum on French territory it would then be France's problem. What about the Dublin Regulation (which has been ignored by certain countries in the current crisis)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
