Syria....

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Why is it so hard for any elected government to understand that this primary responsibility is to their own electorate?

Because people keep voting for the same shower of ****, despite this never being their priority.......

[Rewulf]

39 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Why do we want to get involved at all?

Because somewhere along the line, someone sees a big wad of cash in it, and our governments will facilitate the earning of said crust.

 

35 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I don’t know Tousi, just really don’t appreciate his “style”, this guys style is much better in my opinion and let’s face it the whole sherbang is so fubar it’s probably better to be slightly satirical about it all.

[oowee]

Role of UK. Pushing for Assad and his British wife being brought to justice. Tracking down the billions stolen from the country. Start looking at a program for the repatriation of the thousands of Syrian refugees in the UK. Sanctions rethink.

Not holding my breath. 

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Not holding my breath

I wouldn't either.

[Mungler]

But we are still a welcoming melting pot of all cultures, races and religions, providing safe haven, ‘free’ housing, education and NHS healthcare for the whole world. 

In the West we like the simple notion of good and bad. But here, who knows? You have the Assad regime brutalising the region to keep on top of ISIS Jihadi lunatics, and you have the ISIS Jihadi lunatics who, as we will all remember, were not that long ago beheading, burning and drowning western charity workers in swimming pools.

Either way, it’s a ‘no thanks’ from me. 

Were you part of the Assad regime and need to get your skates on or are you a  Jihadi looking for a fresh start and new challenges? ID papers over the side and into the sea, claim you’re a traumatised Christian fleeing Iraq / Afghanistan and before you can say ‘four star hotel’ you’ll be in Blighty. 

The liberal elite hand wringers in their nice white post codes will dismiss these concerns out of hand and in favour of projecting a cultured higher status opinion in continued support of multiculturalism and the global traveller.

We’re already in trouble and now we’re in even more trouble. Mass import the stone age all at once and with no system or integration and what do we think will happen? Any Western high trust liberal democratic society just isn’t going to cope. 

With what we know and understand is happening in Syria we need hard people to make hard decisions (and quicky) as well as a hard border and that’s just not going to happen is it?

[Raja Clavata]

12 minutes ago, Mungler said:

But we are still a welcoming melting pot of all cultures, races and religions, providing safe haven, ‘free’ housing, education and NHS healthcare for the whole world. 

In the West we like the simple notion of good and bad. But here, who knows? You have the Assad regime brutalising the region to keep on top of ISIS Jihadi lunatics, and you have the ISIS Jihadi lunatics who, as we will all remember, were not that long ago beheading, burning and drowning western charity workers in swimming pools.

Either way, it’s a ‘no thanks’ from me. 

Were you part of the Assad regime and need to get your skates on or are you a  Jihadi looking for a fresh start and new challenges? ID papers over the side and into the sea, claim you’re a traumatised Christian fleeing Iraq / Afghanistan and before you can say ‘four star hotel’ you’ll be in Blighty. 

The liberal elite hand wringers in their nice white post codes will dismiss these concerns out of hand and in favour of projecting a cultured higher status opinion in continued support of multiculturalism and the global traveller.

We’re already in trouble and now we’re in even more trouble. Mass import the stone age all at once and with no system or integration and what do we think will happen? Any Western high trust liberal democratic society just isn’t going to cope. 

With what we know and understand is happening in Syria we need hard people to make hard decisions (and quicky) as well as a hard border and that’s just not going to happen is it?

Pretty much spot on. Whilst Russia and Iran were not in a position to meaningfully assist Assad, I can’t help but think - even if not by design - Putin will be rubbing his hands together at the prospect of this distracting Western governments attention away from Ukraine. 

That said, do you really think even those you class as liberal elite hand wringers are not just a little bit concerned by all this?

[Mungler]

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

That said, do you really think even those you class as liberal elite hand wringers are not just a little bit concerned by all this?

This has to be the wake up call.

But, and I go back to my Queers for Palestine example, don’t underestimate how thick, naive and illogical people can be once they have signed up for a cause and bought the T shirt.

Indeed, it will mean a whole load of people now having to agree with the likes of Farage or agreeing that we need a Rwanda style fire break and they just won’t do it, even if evidence and common sense says that they now have to change their minds and admit and face a problem that can no longer be ignored.

If the likes of Oowee can agree with the sentiment expressed above, then we have a chance. But no, the sentiments will be dismissed and waved away as unrealistic or fear mongering and onwards we’ll go with open borders. 

Indeed, and this isn’t a dig, the remainer mindset is anchored in Schengen and open borders; any suggestion of hard enforced borders is another nail in the EU coffin and a whole load of people just won’t swallow those bitter pills.

.

Edited Tuesday at 07:01 by Mungler

[oowee]

Looks like UK is suspending asylum claims from Syria. 

I can agree with much of what is said but the association of extremist rhetoric (stoneage imports and the rest)does nothing but inflame a difficult situation. 

We all want the same thing its the process by which we achieve it. Nothing is achieved by bandying around slogans of hate and fear. If we want or adopt mass deportation processes then we are no better than the likes of Putin. 

 

[Mungler]

46 minutes ago, oowee said:

Looks like UK is suspending asylum claims from Syria. 

I can agree with much of what is said but the association of extremist rhetoric (stoneage imports and the rest)does nothing but inflame a difficult situation. 

We all want the same thing its the process by which we achieve it. Nothing is achieved by bandying around slogans of hate and fear. If we want or adopt mass deportation processes then we are no better than the likes of Putin. 

 

Well, that reads like a no then.

And whilst I disagree that mass deportation does not make us Putin (what was that about slogans 😆) after all, who wouldn’t wave a wand and get rid of all foreign murderers and rapists, what about avoiding deportation by avoiding importation in the first instance? 

What about off shore processing, given that once onshore the ECHR is a problem. 

If no off shore processing, what about leaving or suspending provisions of the ECHR?

Ah you see, you just can’t get there to do what now absolutely needs fo be done.

And as for suspending asylum claims from Syria - you do know how people smuggling gangs operate and what undocumented means? They’re not going to be jumping on an Easy Jet direct flight from Damascus to Luton.

.

Edited Tuesday at 08:03 by Mungler

[Raja Clavata]

22 minutes ago, Mungler said:

This has to be the wake up call.

But, and I go back to my Queers for Palestine example, don’t underestimate how thick, naive and illogical people can be once they have signed up for a cause and bought the T shirt.

Indeed, it will mean a whole load of people now having to agree with the likes of Farage or agreeing that we need a Rwanda style fire break and they just won’t do it, even if evidence and common sense says that they now have to change their minds and admit and face a problem that can no longer be ignored.

If the likes of Oowee can agree with the sentiment expressed above, then we have a chance. But no, the sentiments will be dismissed and waved away as unrealistic or fear mongering and onwards we’ll go with open borders. 

Indeed, and this isn’t a dig, the remainer mindset is anchored in Schengen and open borders; any suggestion of hard enforced borders is another nail in the EU coffin and a whole load of people just won’t swallow those bitter pills.

.

Totally with you on the cognitive bias associated with the bought t shirt.

I don’t like Farage but have no issue agreeing with someone I dislike if their point is valid. My main issue with Farage as a person is his style, mannerisms and rhetoric which I find unnecessary and repugnant.

My main issue with Farage and leave is that it has done nothing to help us with illegal immigration, it’s created the need to legally import people who are culturally more diverse than most of our EU neighbours and it’s hindered movement of Brits in Europe legally going about / doing their business.

I was totally happy with us not being part of Schengen and by virtue of being an island we already had a hard border that just wasn’t / still isn’t policed to prevent criminals entering illegally. So I disagree that the remainer mindset is anchored in Schengen and open borders.

[Mungler]

25 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Totally with you on the cognitive bias associated with the bought t shirt.

I don’t like Farage but have no issue agreeing with someone I dislike if their point is valid. My main issue with Farage as a person is his style, mannerisms and rhetoric which I find unnecessary and repugnant.

My main issue with Farage and leave is that it has done nothing to help us with illegal immigration, it’s created the need to legally import people who are culturally more diverse than most of our EU neighbours and it’s hindered movement of Brits in Europe legally going about / doing their business.

I was totally happy with us not being part of Schengen and by virtue of being an island we already had a hard border that just wasn’t / still isn’t policed to prevent criminals entering illegally. So I disagree that the remainer mindset is anchored in Schengen and open borders.

I can see that.

Where are you on off shore processing (eg Rwanda) and failing that leaving the ECHR (assuming partial exclusion and ‘grey’ will just create more work for the human rights brigade)?

Indeed, having Rwanda ready to go right now would have been quite handy. Pity Starmer needlessly abandoned it out of vanity, ideology and spite.

[old man]

12 hours ago, Mungler said:

Labour has just sent over £11m for aid.

And to whom, precisely, you may well wonder?

We’ll have tax paying pensioners freezing this winter but we have spare money to spaff round the world. 

Why is it so hard for any elected government to understand that this primary responsibility is to their own electorate?

Why do we want to get involved at all? Has history not shown us what a fools errand it is and how aid invariably never reaches the intended recipient. Let’s let the wealthy Arab oil states sort it all out. 

Just maybe an illustration of contempt?

Whose back pocket was that sent to?

[oowee]

39 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

And as for suspending asylum claims from Syria - you do know how people smuggling gangs operate and what undocumented means? They’re not going to be jumping on an Easy Jet direct flight from Damascus to Luton.

.

What do you think it means? What do you think happens when someone turns up without docs? 

 

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Looks like UK is suspending asylum claims from Syria. 

Absolutely pointless and ineffective.

Back to processing and the ECHR?

You just can’t go there 😆

Another step away from your beloved EU 😆 

 

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

What do you think it means? What do you think happens when someone turns up without docs? 

 

 

It’s not just being undocumented. It’s turning up on a boat under the radar or turning up deliberately with no paperwork and an acceptable cover story.

Once on shore, and in the system one way or another, what then? ECHR? “I can’t go home because all the families of the people I butchered will want to butcher me and my life is at risk”.

And here we are… we need a Rwanda scheme and we need out of the ECHR - do you agree and if not, what do you suggest? 

.

Edited Tuesday at 08:29 by Mungler

[oowee]

23 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Absolutely pointless and ineffective.

Back to processing and the ECHR?

You just can’t go there 😆

Another step away from your beloved EU 😆 

 

 

It’s not just being undocumented. It’s turning up on a boat under the radar or turning up deliberately with no paperwork and an acceptable cover story.

Once on shore, and in the system one way or another, what then? ECHR? “I can’t go home because all the families of the people I butchered will want to butcher me and my life is at risk”.

And here we are… we need a Rwanda scheme and we need out of the ECHR - do you agree and if not, what do you suggest? 

.

ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. 

Safe and legal routes. Integrated processing and settlement. Settlement budgets. 

If the issue is volume and numbers then it's more an issue of millions of key workers and families from third world countries (post Brexit immigration) rather than boat arrivals. 

 

 

[Mungler]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. 

Safe and legal routes. Integrated processing and settlement. Settlement budgets. 

If the issue is volume and numbers then it's more an issue of millions of key workers and families from third world countries (post Brexit immigration) rather than boat arrivals. 

ECHR is a plank in the harmonised EU structure.

But you’re still ducking the question.

As it stands, ‘on soil’ triggers ECHR and makes deportation impossible. 

What does your integrated processing look like and where is that carried out?

How are undesirables (whom we should assume are able to lie) whittled out and deported or not admitted / imported in the first place. 

What does undesirable look like to you? To me it’s anyone with any form of criminal past (which we should assume is not easily discoverable) and anyone who doesn’t present as a net contributor (we already have enough non net contributors to go around).

 

[Penelope]

14 hours ago, Rewulf said:

If you dont like Tousi, you definitely wont like this guys take on it 

Fast forward through the 5 minute ad in the middle of the video (if you get that far !)

 

Watched that last night.

[oowee]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

ECHR is a plank in the harmonised EU structure.

But you’re still ducking the question.

As it stands, ‘on soil’ triggers ECHR and makes deportation impossible. 

What does your integrated processing look like and where is that carried out?

How are undesirables (whom we should assume are able to lie) whittled out and deported or not admitted / imported in the first place. 

What does undesirable look like to you? To me it’s anyone with any form of criminal past (which we should assume is not easily discoverable) and anyone who doesn’t present as a net contributor (we already have enough non net contributors to go around).

 

 

I assume we are talking now about those immigration seekers currently arriving by small boat rather than the millions of immigrants arriving under the work visa scheme required following Brexit.

ECHR is a plank of the UK legal framework. Nothing to do with the EU other than they have adopted it.

Deportation is not impossible under ECHR. It's a lot harder in the UK as there are very limited resources to deal with cases. It takes forever because the UK cut legal services to less than effective. The EU removed over a 110,000 in 2023. 

What question?

Safe and legal routes would depend on risk. A country that reflected the demand for asylum close to the origin would be a starter for ten. Maybe Turkey? 

Undesirables. Anyone without good reason for asylum.

 

[Mungler]

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

 

1. I assume we are talking now about those immigration seekers currently arriving by small boat rather than the millions of immigrants arriving under the work visa scheme required following Brexit.

2. ECHR is a plank of the UK legal framework. Nothing to do with the EU other than they have adopted it.

3. Deportation is not impossible under ECHR. It's a lot harder in the UK as there are very limited resources to deal with cases. It takes forever because the UK cut legal services to less than effective. The EU removed over a 110,000 in 2023. 

4. What question?

5. Safe and legal routes would depend on risk. A country that reflected the demand for asylum close to the origin would be a starter for ten. Maybe Turkey? 

6. Undesirables. Anyone without good reason for asylum.

 

 

Using the numbering:

1. Both. Assume a Syrian despot or Jihadi who either decides to make a formal application and follow a process (unlikely but possible given the example of Assad's wife who holds a UK passport and may work the system to import wider family) or those who sneak in under the wire by boat or back of a lorry.

2. Let's agree it's a coincidental common plank throughout the EU.

3. Don't get distracted by resource. Resource is irrelevant if it just can't be done.

4. Once again, the question is (in two parts)

(a) should there be processing off shore in a place such as Rwanda to avoid importing bodies whom we may rationally and legitimately wish to refuse entry / deport later and having particular regard to the provisions of the ECHR which effectively prohibit such action once bodies are on shore; or,

(b) should we abandon the ECHR in whole or in part to provide us with the means of excluding and deporting undesirables once on shore.

Presently, any undesirable that just physically arrives here (by legitimate or illegitimate means) is effectively impossible to shift. That cannot be right and that has to change - the options apparently being as above.

5. Agreed, asylum should be first / most immediate safe destination and no further (see below)

6. Alas everyone has the opportunity to game the system, lie and present with no papers and a good reason for asylum sic. lose your papers and claim to be a Christian fleeing Iraq. I personally do not consider that anyone presenting here outside of an authorised legal route (which provides for remote processing off shore by paper) should have any right to remain and that we should always retain the ability to refuse entry / deport in the face of illegal entry to the UK. Moreover, per 5 above, passage beyond immediate neighbouring state moves the subject from "asylum seeker" to "economic migrant".

 

Question 4 is the big one.

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:28 by Mungler

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, I see there after Assads Henchmen who were involved with the Torture and Murder of Prisoners ??

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I see that Shamima Begum's hopes of returning to the UK have risen following the fall of Assad.

 

Her lawyer Tasnime Akunjee, the lawyer who represents the Begum family, told The Telegraph that if the detention camp Begum is staying in closed, she would have a strong case to plead her return to the country.

[oowee]

47 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Using the numbering:

1. Both. Assume a Syrian despot or Jihadi who either decides to make a formal application and follow a process (unlikely but possible given the example of Assad's wife who holds a UK passport and may work the system to import wider family) or those who sneak in under the wire by boat or back of a lorry.

2. Let's agree it's a coincidental common plank throughout the EU.

3. Don't get distracted by resource. Resource is irrelevant if it just can't be done.

4. Once again, the question is (in two parts)

(a) should there be processing off shore in a place such as Rwanda to avoid importing bodies whom we may rationally and legitimately wish to refuse entry / deport later and having particular regard to the provisions of the ECHR which effectively prohibit such action once bodies are on shore; or,

(b) should we abandon the ECHR in whole or in part to provide us with the means of excluding and deporting undesirables once on shore.

Presently, any undesirable that just physically arrives here (by legitimate or illegitimate means) is effectively impossible to shift. That cannot be right and that has to change - the options apparently being as above.

5. Agreed, asylum should be first / most immediate safe destination and no further (see below)

6. Alas everyone has the opportunity to game the system, lie and present with no papers and a good reason for asylum sic. lose your papers and claim to be a Christian fleeing Iraq. I personally do not consider that anyone presenting here outside of an authorised legal route (which provides for remote processing off shore by paper) should have any right to remain and that we should always retain the ability to refuse entry / deport in the face of illegal entry to the UK. Moreover, per 5 above, passage beyond immediate neighbouring state moves the subject from "asylum seeker" to "economic migrant".

 

Question 4 is the big one.

 

Both? What you think we should have no immigration? You want to reverse Brexit? 

What about a Syrian despot? Assad, Putin and the like would be welcome here on the way to the Hague.

Rawanda? No. No need for it. Processing close to source such as Turkey yes in a legal and safe route process.  

ECHR does not prohibit the return of asylum seekers. It's not a coincidence that both the UK and the EU believe in the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. In particular the ECHR protects the individual from persecution. German hunters would be a classic example. 

It is a matter of resource when we are talking about delay. If you cannot get an appeal heard because there is no judge to hear it then the process will take forever. Lets have a dedicated court for the purpose. Specialist team driving process. More case handlers with investigative resource to evidence or otherwise claims. Focus its whats needed. 

There is no legal requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country. Having no papers claiming to be a christian will not cut it for asylum. 

 

 

 

[Rewulf]

58 minutes ago, oowee said:

There is no legal requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country.

There should be.
Selecting what country you want to go to, holiday brochure style, is inherently wrong.

58 minutes ago, oowee said:

Having no papers claiming to be a christian will not cut it for asylum. 

Thats clearly incorrect, its been used widely, as has been pretending to be gay.
And if its an accepted asylum reason, its going to be abused, as there is literally no way of checking.
And this is where the ECHR comes into play, it enables abuse of the system.

[Rewulf]

There is another aspect of asylum/migration that has recently come to light, the admission that its all been planned that way, I was going to post this in 'Channel Migrants' but Ill leave it here.
Contains some swearing*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4gBMcVS0gY&t=965s

Note the disclaimer at the top of the video, kindly provided by Youtube.

The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory,^[1][2][3] is a white nationalist^[4] far-right conspiracy theory^[3][5][6][7] espoused by French author Renaud Camus. The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites,^[a][5][8] the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced by non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans.^[5][9][10] Since then, similar claims have been advanced in other national contexts, notably in the United States.^[11] Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims of a conspiracy of "replacist" elites as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview.^[12][13][14] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Great Replacement "has been widely ridiculed for its blatant absurdity."^[3]

[Penelope]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

There is another aspect of asylum/migration that has recently come to light, the admission that its all been planned that way, I was going to post this in 'Channel Migrants' but Ill leave it here.
Contains some swearing*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4gBMcVS0gY&t=965s

Note the disclaimer at the top of the video, kindly provided by Youtube.

The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory,^[1][2][3] is a white nationalist^[4] far-right conspiracy theory^[3][5][6][7] espoused by French author Renaud Camus. The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites,^[a][5][8] the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced by non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans.^[5][9][10] Since then, similar claims have been advanced in other national contexts, notably in the United States.^[11] Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims of a conspiracy of "replacist" elites as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview.^[12][13][14] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Great Replacement "has been widely ridiculed for its blatant absurdity."^[3]

The theory has been around for some time now.