Housing "Refugees" / Economic Migrants - looking for a BETTER Life

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, oowee said:

? Waterboarding is torture. Collusion and participation by British security services as recent as 2000 to 2010 though CIA so called black sites. It could not be done here because of ECHR. Removing these protections reduces citizens rights. 

And we are talking about the removal of the unentitled who arrive here by illegal means, not WATERBOARDING!

[Bigbob]

Why put them up in hotels etc send them to the fruit farms etc that are looking for labours 

[Penelope]

19 hours ago, oowee said:

assures our freedom of speech, assembly,

Does it, really?

19 hours ago, discobob said:

And a lot more

TBH - I don't think it really matters now - in or out of the EU or whatever, the establishments are all dancing to the same tune. Too many coincidences going on around the world.....

 

[discobob]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

Does it, really?

Nail - hammer - head

Doesn't he look like he thinks he is the supreme emperor wearing that outfit - I will also raise you his heir apparent

[oowee]

6 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And we are talking about the removal of the unentitled who arrive here by illegal means, not WATERBOARDING!

We are talking about the removal of rights under ECHR. Someone above said that we stopped torture in this country. I made the point that we export it instead as a consequence of ECHR. 

 

4 hours ago, Penelope said:

Does it, really?

Yes. It came as a direct result of ECHR.

[Penelope]

13 minutes ago, oowee said:

We are talking about the removal of rights under ECHR. Someone above said that we stopped torture in this country. I made the point that we export it instead as a consequence of ECHR. 

 

Yes. It came as a direct result of ECHR.

Mmmm, seem to remember one for a woman killed by a copper that wasn't, so not really true. BLM allowed to crack on regardless. Odd.

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, oowee said:

We are talking about the removal of rights under ECHR. Someone above said that we stopped torture in this country. I made the point that we export it instead as a consequence of ECHR. 

And heres me thinking we were talking about the removal of the ECHR,  a judicial body centralised in a foreign entity that seems to over rule us every time , when we try to protect our borders ?
Why does the removal of ECHR mean we are going to lose any rights ? We already have multiple levels of judicial appeals do we not ?

 

The fact that we worked with the US and other NATO countries to curb terrorism , using places like Gitmo, are rare occurrences  that really arent relevant , any cases that were revealed of torture or unfair detainment were largely dealt with by the UK courts any way.

 

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

And heres me thinking we were talking about the removal of the ECHR,  a judicial body centralised in a foreign entity that seems to over rule us every time , when we try to protect our borders ?
Why does the removal of ECHR mean we are going to lose any rights ? We already have multiple levels of judicial appeals do we not ?

 

The fact that we worked with the US and other NATO countries to curb terrorism , using places like Gitmo, are rare occurrences  that really arent relevant , any cases that were revealed of torture or unfair detainment were largely dealt with by the UK courts any way.

 

If the regime wanted the rights of citizens to remain we would stay in it. Cases under ECHR legislation are mostly dealt with by UK courts. 

Rare occurrences because we are in ECHR? 

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

If the regime wanted the rights of citizens to remain we would stay in it. Cases under ECHR legislation are mostly dealt with by UK courts. 

Rare occurrences because we are in ECHR? 

I don't believe your point has much relevance, the allegations are that the UK turned a blind eye to the cia torturing people who were not uk citizens, the alleged torture didn't happen in the uk, was not conducted by uk personal and if the allegations are true, the echr did nothing to stop any of it anyway. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

If the regime wanted the rights of citizens to remain we would stay in it. Cases under ECHR legislation are mostly dealt with by UK courts. 

Rare occurrences because we are in ECHR? 

Thats simply not true , have a read of this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/15/why-britain-usually-obeys-the-european-court-of-human-rights/ 

We invented the idea of human rights , since Magna Carta and the English bill of rights , we have pioneered the very idea of Parliament and the rights of the individual.
To say we NEEDED  the ECHR is both inaccurate and very misleading, and to imagine that we would abandon human rights legislation in this country by coming out of it , is , like I said, ridiculous.

France is allowing , I would say encouraging migrants to cling to lorries, and attempt the crossing of the Channel in unsuitable craft, if there was ever a case of this being of interest to the ECHR , then there it is.
But , nothing.

When we talk about processing migrants abroad, as a much needed further attempt to stem the tide of illegal entry , institutions like the ECHR rub their hands in anticipation of giving the British a good whupping through the courts , again.
If the EU are so concerned about the rights of these individuals, why dont they force them to register there, then when their asylum claim fails in the UK , we can send them straight back ?
Its because they dont WANT them there.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't believe your point has much relevance, the allegations are that the UK turned a blind eye to the cia torturing people who were not uk citizens, the alleged torture didn't happen in the uk, was not conducted by uk personal and if the allegations are true, the echr did nothing to stop any of it anyway. 

My point was in response to the comment we stopped torture way back. My response was that we exported it instead. The UK and US govt's have a long history of collusion in torture. Each time these are brought to the fore new rules are put in place. Your right that it is not seen on our shores with UK born citizens but the we have the ECHR rules in place. 

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Thats simply not true , have a read of this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/15/why-britain-usually-obeys-the-european-court-of-human-rights/ 

We invented the idea of human rights , since Magna Carta and the English bill of rights , we have pioneered the very idea of Parliament and the rights of the individual.
To say we NEEDED  the ECHR is both inaccurate and very misleading, and to imagine that we would abandon human rights legislation in this country by coming out of it , is , like I said, ridiculous.

France is allowing , I would say encouraging migrants to cling to lorries, and attempt the crossing of the Channel in unsuitable craft, if there was ever a case of this being of interest to the ECHR , then there it is.
But , nothing.

When we talk about processing migrants abroad, as a much needed further attempt to stem the tide of illegal entry , institutions like the ECHR rub their hands in anticipation of giving the British a good whupping through the courts , again.
If the EU are so concerned about the rights of these individuals, why dont they force them to register there, then when their asylum claim fails in the UK , we can send them straight back ?
Its because they dont WANT them there.

The UK led the charge to establish the ECHR.

It is inconceivable that we would abandon human rights but there is history of the Govt doing just that hence why we put the ECHR in place. The ECHR is a separate body from the EU. 

We left the EU. 

[Rewulf]

24 minutes ago, oowee said:

The ECHR is a separate body from the EU. 

To imagine that the two are not intrinsically linked , is again, ridiculous.

[12gauge82]

35 minutes ago, oowee said:

My point was in response to the comment we stopped torture way back. My response was that we exported it instead. The UK and US govt's have a long history of collusion in torture. Each time these are brought to the fore new rules are put in place. Your right that it is not seen on our shores with UK born citizens but the we have the ECHR rules in place. 

The UK led the charge to establish the ECHR.

It is inconceivable that we would abandon human rights but there is history of the Govt doing just that hence why we put the ECHR in place. The ECHR is a separate body from the EU. 

We left the EU. 

Again I think your adding 2+2 and coming up with 99.

We haven't had torture on uk citizens or on uk soil in years and the echr was not responsible for that, the UK had led the way long before that and it was actually much of Europe that needed the echr to catch up with the human rights standards set by the UK. Why wouldn't we again forge the way ahead if we get rid of elements of the outdated echr? 

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

To imagine that the two are not intrinsically linked , is again, ridiculous.

It's older than the EU and nineteen of the 46 members of the Council of Europe are not members of the EU.

leaving the ECHR would put everyone's rights at risk. It is a persons last resort for holding the state to account for abuse. This is particularly the case since we left the EU.

We have seen already reductions in the ability of ordinary citizens to seek redress with the reduction of legal aid. We can see the proposed legislation to restrict workers rights coming down the tracks. Then there is the rights removal bill which allows the Govt to decide who has what rights and will amongst other things remove the rights of soldiers serving abroad if they are mistreated by the MOD. It would make campaigns for justice like Hillsborough much much harder to prosecute. 

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Again I think your adding 2+2 and coming up with 99.

We haven't had torture on uk citizens or on uk soil in years and the echr was not responsible for that, the UK had led the way long before that and it was actually much of Europe that needed the echr to catch up with the human rights standards set by the UK. Why wouldn't we again forge the way ahead if we get rid of elements of the outdated echr? 

See comment above. 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

It's older than the EU and nineteen of the 46 members of the Council of Europe are not members of the EU.

And every single EU member is 'supposedly' bound by it, ask yourself who finances it.

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

leaving the ECHR would put everyone's rights at risk. It is a persons last resort for holding the state to account for abuse. This is particularly the case since we left the EU.

Thats your opinion.
Look at how many 'citizens' approach the ECHR every year to lodge an appeal, then look at how many cases they take on, its laughable.
The fact that the majority of these cases are illegal immigrants, is also very telling.

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

We have seen already reductions in the ability of ordinary citizens to seek redress with the reduction of legal aid. We can see the proposed legislation to restrict workers rights coming down the tracks. Then there is the rights removal bill which allows the Govt to decide who has what rights and will amongst other things remove the rights of soldiers serving abroad if they are mistreated by the MOD. It would make campaigns for justice like Hillsborough much much harder to prosecute. 

Legal aid reductions ? What has that got to do with it ?
Legal aid in this country is almost always granted, Why ? Because its the law !

The rest of it is pure speculation, as you well know.

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

It's older than the EU and nineteen of the 46 members of the Council of Europe are not members of the EU.

leaving the ECHR would put everyone's rights at risk. It is a persons last resort for holding the state to account for abuse. This is particularly the case since we left the EU.

We have seen already reductions in the ability of ordinary citizens to seek redress with the reduction of legal aid. We can see the proposed legislation to restrict workers rights coming down the tracks. Then there is the rights removal bill which allows the Govt to decide who has what rights and will amongst other things remove the rights of soldiers serving abroad if they are mistreated by the MOD. It would make campaigns for justice like Hillsborough much much harder to prosecute. 

See comment above. 

I get what you're saying, although I don't think your original analogy holds water. I suppose it depends on whether you trust the UK government to make laws and you obviously don't.

The acid test for me is what the echr actually achieves and I think it's fair to say, certainly in the UK's case, is the echr has been used to help terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants get what they want far more than protect decent ordinary people. If done properly a new human rights act could afford the same protections without the unintentional consequences of helping very bad people and putting decent uk citizens at risk. 

[Houseplant]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I get what you're saying, although I don't think your original analogy holds water. I suppose it depends on whether you trust the UK government to make laws...

I would agree, but would say the UK system of government, rather than a particular government. If there is a problem, fix it, rather than looking at foreign agencies to intervene. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Houseplant said:

I would agree, but would say the UK system of government, rather than a particular government. If there is a problem, fix it, rather than looking at foreign agencies to intervene. 

Yes absolutely agreed.

Just like the Brexit debate, I really don't understand this mindset that we need other countries to govern us, as if they somehow know better than our own. 

[Vince Green]

So despite being a member of the ECHR, France's refusal to offer these migrants any sort of help or the chance to claim asylum proves that the ECHR is a load of tosh.

My point all along is that we should treat the migrants The same way as the other ECHR members do. They get away with it, but we don't. 

[oowee]

4 hours ago, Houseplant said:

I would agree, but would say the UK system of government, rather than a particular government. If there is a problem, fix it, rather than looking at foreign agencies to intervene. 

I completely agree with what you and @12gauge82 are saying but without an external arbitrator their is no recourse in the event of the Govt being out of control. A fine example is Windrush. 

[oowee]

Rishi Sunak and his immigration minister have been scolded by the UK statistics watchdog for using inaccurate figures to back up spurious claims about asylum seekers.

In a statement to the House of Commons in December, the prime minister claimed that the asylum backlog – 132,000 cases at the time – was half the size of the backlog left by the departing Labour government in 2010. This implied the backlog in 2010 would have been about 260,000.

 

In the same month, the immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, and the safeguarding minister, Sarah Dines, told MPs that 450,000 and 500,000 legacy cases had been left by the Labour government.

 

However, the UK Statistics Authority found the statements “do not reflect the position shown by the Home Office’s statistics”.

Sir Robert Chote, the UKSA chairman, said the asylum backlog in 2010 was 19,000, meaning the number of outstanding claims had in fact risen almost ninefold to 166,000.

[Rewulf]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

A fine example is Windrush. 

A fine example of civil servants at the HO , left over from the last labour administration, leaving a mess of destroyed records, that would have proven the legitimacy of the Windrush victims.
They then used a bonus system to relentlessly pursue those who could not prove their origin, leading to the utter debacle that ensued, and the hapless ministers who tried to rectify it.
Even now the HO is still failing to pay out compensation to the deserving victims .

Its like the civil servants want to cause as much damage to the tories as humanly possible...

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

A fine example of civil servants at the HO , left over from the last labour administration, leaving a mess of destroyed records, that would have proven the legitimacy of the Windrush victims.
They then used a bonus system to relentlessly pursue those who could not prove their origin, leading to the utter debacle that ensued, and the hapless ministers who tried to rectify it.
Even now the HO is still failing to pay out compensation to the deserving victims .

Its like the civil servants want to cause as much damage to the tories as humanly possible...

🤣 You only have to see the numbers above to see the difference between labour and tories. 19000 asylum backlog from labour and 166000 from the tories. You could not make it up. Well the tories could they just lied about the numbers. 🤣

Can you believe that punters voted for this shower? Ooop's I forgot they didn't they voted for Donkey BJ and it went down hill. Who would trust this government to find its way out of a paper bag let alone out of the ECHR. It's only because they can rely on a pilot that they can find Rwanda. How many have got on that plane 🤣

Again it's more distraction politics to deflect from the mess everything is in. Not to worry we can blame , labour, the EU, the War the pandemic err anything else 🤣

[welsh1]

53 minutes ago, oowee said:

🤣 You only have to see the numbers above to see the difference between labour and tories. 19000 asylum backlog from labour and 166000 from the tories. You could not make it up. Well the tories could they just lied about the numbers. 🤣

Can you believe that punters voted for this shower? Ooop's I forgot they didn't they voted for Donkey BJ and it went down hill. Who would trust this government to find its way out of a paper bag let alone out of the ECHR. It's only because they can rely on a pilot that they can find Rwanda. How many have got on that plane 🤣

Again it's more distraction politics to deflect from the mess everything is in. Not to worry we can blame , labour, the EU, the War the pandemic err anything else 🤣

No one voted for him, how many times do people have to be told

 

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

No one voted for him, how many times do people have to be told

 

Now your clutching at donkey straws. At the very least they voted for one of the rest of this shower. 🤣 Still we all make mistakes eh?