Mrs Merkel

[antony1969]

John52 - 2017-11-23 1:50 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-11-22 5:49 PM

 

John52 - 2017-11-22 5:45 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-22 2:52 PM

 

John52 - 2017-11-22 11:11 AM

 

Well I don't have any refugees in my house because I am not perfect.

But I don't object to them seeking sanctuary in this country.

 

You mean your not allowed to sub let ;-) ...........

 

 

If you thought I was living in rented accomodation I couldn't sub let why did you say I could take refugees in?

 

Dint stop them sub-letting in Grenfell that you mentioned earlier did it ???

 

Grenfell has been in a Royal Tory Borough since before it even got on to the drawing board.

Despite that May was booed, and Corbyn welcomed there.

Which led to my comment that if the fire had happened the week before the election instead of the week after we would have been looking at a different Prime Minister.

But whats your comment got to do with me taking refugees in?

 

Who said anything about you taking refugees in ??? ... The Royal Tory Borough you mention has like most areas some desirable parts and some not so desirable ... Mrs May visited a not so desirable over run immigrant area of said borough which I would imagine isn't particularly typical Tory ground and given that rabble like Owen Jones had been whipping up hatred towards Mrs May prior to her visit and asking folk to demonstrate there against her when she visited then its hardly surprising she got booed is it ???

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-11-23 1:50 PM

 

Grenfell has been in a Royal Tory Borough since before it even got on to the drawing board.

Despite that May was booed, and Corbyn welcomed there.

Which led to my comment that if the fire had happened the week before the election instead of the week after we would have been looking at a different Prime Minister.

 

Your comment is typical of the misplaced self belief of LLLB *-).....

 

(London Loony Lefty Brigade :D )......

 

So a disaster in London will dictate how the rest of the UK votes? :-| .........

 

I've news for you John....it wont >:-) ......

 

Unless its Momentum's HQ burning down then I suspect that would be received as GOOD NEWS B-) .......

 

 

 

 

[antony1969]

Heres the lady that would now be our Foreign Secretary had Grenfell happened before the election ...

... She only gets names wrong and not figures like Miss Diane I suppose

[antony1969]

Talking of Johns Grenfell ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5111931/Woman-claimed-Grenfell-victim-kept-custody.html ... Nice Zimbabwean lady just got a little confused prolly

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2017-11-23 9:20 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-11-22 8:19 PM

 

Roger seems keen on the UNHCR figures so I wonder why he hasnt posted them then seeing as my claim that this is the worst refugee crisis ever is "crap"

 

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

 

Even if those just classed as "Dispersed" are just on a jolly (although a person dispersed is classed so by the UNHCR as being driven out of their homes as a result of conflict or persecution that still leaves 22.5 million genuine refugees.

 

 

So Barry's answer is ....LET THEM ALL IN :-| .........

 

Yes lets turn the UK into a war torn third world country so we can ALL become refugees ;-) .......

 

Wont that be fun? 8-) ........

 

 

Who said anything about letting them all in? The asylum seeker acceptance within Europe is now not as easy as you perhaps think it is. Most are rejected with the exception of mainly those from Syria at the moment. We seem to go around in circles with this so its a pointless debate. You and a few others would just have nobody allowed into the UK (I am guessing you dont care about the rest of Europe), I on the other hand have no problem with us doing our bit and taking in our share of genuine refugees. I have pointed out several times in this thread that I wouldnt object to some being placed here or in and around our local area but nobody seems to have taken that in.

 

As for turning the UK into a war torn third world country I think we have more chance of doing that to ourselves with Brexit than us letting a few Syrians settle here for a bit. You might be glad of them anyway when there is no one left here to do the work the EU Workers did.

[Barryd999]

RogerC - 2017-11-23 12:48 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-22 8:19 PMRoger seems keen on the UNHCR figures so I wonder why he hasnt posted them then seeing as my claim that this is the worst refugee crisis ever is "crap"http://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.htmlEven if those just classed as "Dispersed" are just on a jolly (although a person dispersed is classed so by the UNHCR as being driven out of their homes as a result of conflict or persecution that still leaves 22.5 million genuine refugees.

I am not denying there is a refugee crisis but in all fairness you said initially the greatest 'refugee' crisis then, when challenged, you included 'displaced persons', which is different matter entirely, to bolster your numbers.  Seemingly the worlds authority on refugees/displaced persons isn't sufficient to satisfy you that your claim is erroneous.

Persons displaced are 'still' in their own country and according to the UNHCR.

A report by the UNHCR High Commissioner, whom I suspect knows a little more than you or I in this matter quotes:

"The report found that, measured against the world’s population of 7.4 billion people, one in every 113 people globally is now either an asylum-seeker, internally displaced or a refugee ".

Please note 'internally displaced' which means:

'Internally displaced people (IDPs) have not crossed a border to find safety. Unlike refugees, they are on the run at home'.

'Although UNHCR’s original mandate does not specifically cover IDPs, we have been using our expertise to protect and assist them for years'. 

So I still maintain your initial sensationalist and totally unfounded claim is crap.  Dress it up how you will but adding displaced persons to your 'refugee' claim is utter balderdash.  :-)

 

Yeah ok Roger. Your right and Im wrong. If all you can do is pick up on semantics and interpretations of what is a refugee or a displaced person its pointless trying to have a debate with you.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-23 6:48 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-23 12:48 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-22 8:19 PMRoger seems keen on the UNHCR figures so I wonder why he hasnt posted them then seeing as my claim that this is the worst refugee crisis ever is "crap"http://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.htmlEven if those just classed as "Dispersed" are just on a jolly (although a person dispersed is classed so by the UNHCR as being driven out of their homes as a result of conflict or persecution that still leaves 22.5 million genuine refugees.

I am not denying there is a refugee crisis but in all fairness you said initially the greatest 'refugee' crisis then, when challenged, you included 'displaced persons', which is different matter entirely, to bolster your numbers.  Seemingly the worlds authority on refugees/displaced persons isn't sufficient to satisfy you that your claim is erroneous.

Persons displaced are 'still' in their own country and according to the UNHCR.

A report by the UNHCR High Commissioner, whom I suspect knows a little more than you or I in this matter quotes:

"The report found that, measured against the world’s population of 7.4 billion people, one in every 113 people globally is now either an asylum-seeker, internally displaced or a refugee ".

Please note 'internally displaced' which means:

'Internally displaced people (IDPs) have not crossed a border to find safety. Unlike refugees, they are on the run at home'.

'Although UNHCR’s original mandate does not specifically cover IDPs, we have been using our expertise to protect and assist them for years'. 

So I still maintain your initial sensationalist and totally unfounded claim is crap.  Dress it up how you will but adding displaced persons to your 'refugee' claim is utter balderdash.  :-)

 

Yeah ok Roger. Your right and Im wrong. If all you can do is pick up on semantics and interpretations of what is a refugee or a displaced person its pointless trying to have a debate with you.

Interesting reply Barry.  When a certain other 'respected' poster on here points out that other poster/s are not specific enough in their use of words, when he points out that English is 'an exacting' or precise language I don't recall anyone other than myself defending the 'perpetrator'.  Now here you are saying I am playing semantics and interpretations when what you said is patently wrong.

The world has certain 'legal' responsibilities, enshrined in law, to offer succour and assistance to 'refugees'.  It does not, other than normal human compassion, have any legal responsibility or indeed right under international law to interfere in any way with the 'internal' displacement of persons within their home nation. 

If the worlds foremost organisation for administering humanitarian aid has no mandate to get involved that surely should make it crystal clear that there is a definite difference between refugees and displaced persons. 

I agree, and I have said previously, that there is a refugee crisis but I maintain it is not the worst

So I am not playing semantics or anything else.  I am defending against your claim, made false by the inclusion of elements that have no bearing on that which you claimed.

UNHCR figures for refugees 2017 is (all figures they quote are 'in the region of'):

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC 450,000

EUROPE ARRIVALS 105,000

IRAQ 220,000

NIGERIA 205,000

ROHINGYA 622,000

SOUTH SUDAN 2,075,000

SYRIA 5,000,000 (SINCE 2011)

YEMEN 190,000

Now these are true (according to UNHCR) refugee figures reflecting 2017 except where shown differently and are obviously approximations.  The total is actually in the region of 23 million genuine refugees, 17 million under UNHCR mandate and 5.3million under UN Relief and Works Agency in Palestine.  Clearly a figure wide of your claimed/sensationalist 65 million because you added 'displaced persons' to your claim.  Now to calm the waters of 'you're wrong' you might like to note that taking your premise of refugees/internally displaced persons are 'all in it together' the true (UNHCR) figure is....wait for it.....for 2016 67.75 million.  So on that one figure we agree.  However of that 67.75 million there are approximately 37 million internally displaced persons, 3.5 million stateless, 3 million asylum seekers and 1 million 'others' who need help but the question is how, and under what mandate, does the world interfere with the internal workings of nation states?

So yes, in totality there is a crisis, but a great portion of that humanitarian crisis is something whereby 'outside' nations have no legal right to get embroiled in. 

[Barryd999]

If you can be bothered to look back Roger I did use the word 65 million displaced people including over 5 million Syrian refugees.

 

But hooray we are on the same page with around 22.5 million "REFUGEES" but you still claim its not the biggest refugee crisis so Im all ears? Which one can you remember that was worse?

[starvin marvin]

pelmetman - 2017-11-23 4:12 PM

 

John52 - 2017-11-23 1:50 PM

 

Grenfell has been in a Royal Tory Borough since before it even got on to the drawing board.

Despite that May was booed, and Corbyn welcomed there.

Which led to my comment that if the fire had happened the week before the election instead of the week after we would have been looking at a different Prime Minister.

 

Your comment is typical of the misplaced self belief of LLLB *-).....

 

(London Loony Lefty Brigade :D )......

 

So a disaster in London will dictate how the rest of the UK votes? :-| .........

 

I've news for you John....it wont >:-) ......

 

Unless its Momentum's HQ burning down then I suspect that would be received as GOOD NEWS B-) .......

 

 

 

 

You wish.

[Guest pelmetman]

starvin marvin - 2017-11-23 9:04 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-23 4:12 PM

 

John52 - 2017-11-23 1:50 PM

 

Grenfell has been in a Royal Tory Borough since before it even got on to the drawing board.

Despite that May was booed, and Corbyn welcomed there.

Which led to my comment that if the fire had happened the week before the election instead of the week after we would have been looking at a different Prime Minister.

 

Your comment is typical of the misplaced self belief of LLLB *-).....

 

(London Loony Lefty Brigade :D )......

 

So a disaster in London will dictate how the rest of the UK votes? :-| .........

 

I've news for you John....it wont >:-) ......

 

Unless its Momentum's HQ burning down then I suspect that would be received as GOOD NEWS B-) .......

 

 

 

 

You wish.

 

Talking of fanciful wishing ;-) .........

 

Given that the Tories are apparently doing so badly why is Jeremy not leading in the polls? 8-) .........

 

You'd think with all those Remoaners flocking to his flag he'd be miles ahead :-| ........

 

Oh I forgot he voted leave :D ......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-23 6:45 PM

I have pointed out several times in this thread that I wouldnt object to some being placed here or in and around our local area but nobody seems to have taken that in.

 

 

Here you go Barry and our other resident do gooders ;-) ........

 

http://www.refugeesathome.org/

 

You can all do your bit >:-) ......

 

 

[antony1969]

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 8:55 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-11-23 6:45 PM

I have pointed out several times in this thread that I wouldnt object to some being placed here or in and around our local area but nobody seems to have taken that in.

 

 

Here you go Barry and our other resident do gooders ;-) ........

 

http://www.refugeesathome.org/

 

You can all do your bit >:-) ......

 

 

Can't wait for the excuses ... Maybe it's too cold in North Yorkshire

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-23 8:47 PMIf you can be bothered to look back Roger I did use the word 65 million displaced people including over 5 million Syrian refugees. But hooray we are on the same page with around 22.5 million "REFUGEES" but you still claim its not the biggest refugee crisis so Im all ears? Which one can you remember that was worse?

Nice to see you admit to distorting the facts to meet your claim.

Anyway...the answer is WWII.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 8:49 AM

 

starvin marvin - 2017-11-23 9:04 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-23 4:12 PM

 

John52 - 2017-11-23 1:50 PM

 

Grenfell has been in a Royal Tory Borough since before it even got on to the drawing board.

Despite that May was booed, and Corbyn welcomed there.

Which led to my comment that if the fire had happened the week before the election instead of the week after we would have been looking at a different Prime Minister.

 

Your comment is typical of the misplaced self belief of LLLB *-).....

 

(London Loony Lefty Brigade :D )......

 

So a disaster in London will dictate how the rest of the UK votes? :-| .........

 

I've news for you John....it wont >:-) ......

 

Unless its Momentum's HQ burning down then I suspect that would be received as GOOD NEWS B-) .......

 

 

 

 

You wish.

 

Talking of fanciful wishing ;-) .........

 

Given that the Tories are apparently doing so badly why is Jeremy not leading in the polls? 8-) .........

 

You'd think with all those Remoaners flocking to his flag he'd be miles ahead :-| ........

 

Oh I forgot he voted leave :D ......

 

 

Jereyn Corbyn says he voted remain

Its a secret ballot so who knows different?

The Daily Mail *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-11-24 2:22 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 8:49 AM

 

starvin marvin - 2017-11-23 9:04 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-23 4:12 PM

 

John52 - 2017-11-23 1:50 PM

 

Grenfell has been in a Royal Tory Borough since before it even got on to the drawing board.

Despite that May was booed, and Corbyn welcomed there.

Which led to my comment that if the fire had happened the week before the election instead of the week after we would have been looking at a different Prime Minister.

 

Your comment is typical of the misplaced self belief of LLLB *-).....

 

(London Loony Lefty Brigade :D )......

 

So a disaster in London will dictate how the rest of the UK votes? :-| .........

 

I've news for you John....it wont >:-) ......

 

Unless its Momentum's HQ burning down then I suspect that would be received as GOOD NEWS B-) .......

 

 

 

 

You wish.

 

Talking of fanciful wishing ;-) .........

 

Given that the Tories are apparently doing so badly why is Jeremy not leading in the polls? 8-) .........

 

You'd think with all those Remoaners flocking to his flag he'd be miles ahead :-| ........

 

Oh I forgot he voted leave :D ......

 

 

Jereyn Corbyn says he voted remain

Its a secret ballot so who knows different?

The Daily Mail *-)

 

Well he does have a habit of saying what he thinks his audience at the time wants to hear ;-) ........

 

That must be why he gets on so well with terrorists >:-) .......

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 3:06 PM

That must be why he gets on so well with terrorists >:-) .......

Is that the Daily Mail way of saying he would rather talk to terrorists than send others to fight them?

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 3:06 PM

Well he does have a habit of saying what he thinks his audience at the time wants to hear ;-) ........

and when did he say he voted leave *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-11-24 3:42 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 3:06 PM

That must be why he gets on so well with terrorists >:-) .......

Is that the Daily Mail way of saying he would rather talk to terrorists than send others to fight them?

 

Nope that's just my way of saying he'd be a appeaser as a PM >:-) ........

 

ie...."Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict."

 

He cant even stand up to the antisemitic's in his own party *-) .......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-11-24 3:43 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 3:06 PM

Well he does have a habit of saying what he thinks his audience at the time wants to hear ;-) ........

and when did he say he voted leave *-)

 

Prolly in the voting booth :D ........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-11-22 8:02 PM......................Rest your cases as you might.  I consider UNHCR to be the 'oracle' as I said before and they do not class any section of society/nation etc as 'displaced persons'.  They are either 'refugees' or 'internally displaced persons'.  The term displaced persons is in reality meaningless because all it means is one is removed from ones normal domicile.  There is no 'status' in law under the term 'displaced persons'.  It is merely a couple of words used to demonstrate the situation of people/persons in relation to their current circumstances. As you have previously held up the English language to be so precise I am surprised you can offer an argument championing that these two clearly different descriptions of a persons status amount to the same thing. It really is quite simple....one is seeking 'refuge' whilst the other is displaced from ones normal domicile within the boundaries of said persons country of residence.

Ah well, if you're going to select you source, and equally de-select all other sources as irrelevant, you will end up confirming your own opinion. Stands to reason, dunnit? :-)

 

My source for the definition of a displaced person was the online OED, so I'm happy that it is a reasonable and normal use of English. But then, you're not referencing English (i.e. as commonly used/spoken), are you? You're referencing a specific legal definition that is presented in English, which is a rather different, technical, use of language, which emanates from a foreign source.

 

Since you seem to want to argue on the basis of legalities, all I would ask is who first objected to the use of the term "displaced persons" as being synonymous with "refugees", and who then found it was necessary to add "internally" to "displaced" to make his argument stand up according to his selected UNHCR definition? :-D

 

I don't recall m'leaned friend Barry talking originally of "internally displaced", or of UNHCR definitions, just of displaced. So M'Lud, I would say that whereas you may be correct in the narrow sense that the term might be used in the court of the UNHCR (but even then only if prefaced by "internally"), your case fails in the wider sense in which the term is used and understood in British courts, under British Common Law! (Ahem, resounding chorus of Rule Britannia!)

 

I think you're trying way too hard! Appeal for referral to the (foreign: more Rule Britannia!) UNHCR court dismissed! :-D You'll be appealing for a referral to the ECJ next! Blast these foreign mountebanks!

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 5:28 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-22 8:02 PM......................Rest your cases as you might.  I consider UNHCR to be the 'oracle' as I said before and they do not class any section of society/nation etc as 'displaced persons'.  They are either 'refugees' or 'internally displaced persons'.  The term displaced persons is in reality meaningless because all it means is one is removed from ones normal domicile.  There is no 'status' in law under the term 'displaced persons'.  It is merely a couple of words used to demonstrate the situation of people/persons in relation to their current circumstances. As you have previously held up the English language to be so precise I am surprised you can offer an argument championing that these two clearly different descriptions of a persons status amount to the same thing. It really is quite simple....one is seeking 'refuge' whilst the other is displaced from ones normal domicile within the boundaries of said persons country of residence.

Ah well, if you're going to select you source, and equally de-select all other sources as irrelevant, you will end up confirming your own opinion. Stands to reason, dunnit? :-)My source for the definition of a displaced person was the online OED, so I'm happy that it is a reasonable and normal use of English. But then, you're not referencing English (i.e. as commonly used/spoken), are you? You're referencing a specific legal definition that is presented in English, which is a rather different, technical, use of language, which emanates from a foreign source.Since you seem to want to argue on the basis of legalities, all I would ask is who first objected to the use of the term "displaced persons" as being synonymous with "refugees", and who then found it was necessary to add "internally" to "displaced" to make his argument stand up according to his selected UNHCR definition? :-DI don't recall m'leaned friend Barry talking originally of "internally displaced", or of UNHCR definitions, just of displaced. So M'Lud, I would say that whereas you may be correct in the narrow sense that the term might be used in the court of the UNHCR (but even then only if prefaced by "internally"), your case fails in the wider sense in which the term is used and understood in British courts, under British Common Law! (Ahem, resounding chorus of Rule Britannia!)I think you're trying way too hard! Appeal for referral to the (foreign: more Rule Britannia!) UNHCR court dismissed! :-D You'll be appealing for a referral to the ECJ next! Blast these foreign mountebanks!

ECJ?  Never.  From someone who delivered a judgement on the 'exactness' of the English language it now appears you are defending the incorrect application of definitions.

Refugee.....a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

.......'Refugees' are people fleeing conflict or persecution. They are 'defined' and protected in international law.

Please note 'defined' with regard to international law' which sort of gells nicely with your comments some while back regarding exactness/contracts wording/legal matters etc.   It does not say refugees and/or displaced persons.

Why do you think the UNHCR is having such massive problems trying to help 'displaced' persons?  It is because they do not hold refugee status, they still live in their own country and are therefore not protected under international law and because of that aid agencies such as UNHCR can not reach them.

A 'displaced' person is correctly defined as 'internally displaced' because they remain within their own country.  Once they leave the boundaries of their own country they are no longer 'displaced persons' they are 'refugees' and automatically come under the protection of legally binding international law. 

I honestly can not see why you guys are having such difficulty in understanding the clear difference between the two.

In a nutshell....Refugees 'can be helped' without recourse to their originating countries administration.

Displaced persons, (those remaining in their home country), can not be helped without the acceptance of said help by the governance of that country. 

Quite simple really.  Not nit picking or pedantic or playing semantics. One is simply not the other.  

End of lesson.  :-)

[Barryd999]

RogerC - 2017-11-24 1:11 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-23 8:47 PMIf you can be bothered to look back Roger I did use the word 65 million displaced people including over 5 million Syrian refugees. But hooray we are on the same page with around 22.5 million "REFUGEES" but you still claim its not the biggest refugee crisis so Im all ears? Which one can you remember that was worse?

Nice to see you admit to distorting the facts to meet your claim.

Anyway...the answer is WWII.

FFS! I never distorted the facts. Do you think I sat there and thought "I know ill make out its much worse than it is by saying there are 65 million displaced people rather than use the term refugees" to make it sound more dramatic? Displaced / refugee whats the fecking difference really? Not much.The figure of "Displaced" (which you seem to think is just someone who cant maybe be arsed to go home or something) in WWII Was actually estimated at about 60 million so the current crisis has now it seems surpassed that. http://graphics.wsj.com/migrant-crisis-a-history-of-displacement/Whatever the figure is (and I really dont care) your initial statement about it being "crap" is actually errr, crap. It is however undeniably huge and worse than anything in the living memory of anyone on here with perhaps the exception of Dave Pelmet who lies about his age and is really 102.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-11-24 5:57 PM.............................I honestly can not see why you guys are having such difficulty in understanding the clear difference between the two. In a nutshell....Refugees 'can be helped' without recourse to their originating countries administration. ......

I full well understand the legal differences Roger. The point I was trying, and clearly failing, to make, is that until you introduced international legality, the conversation was being conducted as in normal discourse, not in a court of international law. In other words, in English as commonly used, not English a legally defined. Are we then to conduct all forum discussions on the basis that only judges, barristers, and solicitors, (or barrack room lawyers :-)) can take part?

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-24 6:02 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-24 1:11 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-23 8:47 PMIf you can be bothered to look back Roger I did use the word 65 million displaced people including over 5 million Syrian refugees. But hooray we are on the same page with around 22.5 million "REFUGEES" but you still claim its not the biggest refugee crisis so Im all ears? Which one can you remember that was worse?

Nice to see you admit to distorting the facts to meet your claim.

Anyway...the answer is WWII.

FFS! I never distorted the facts. Do you think I sat there and thought "I know ill make out its much worse than it is by saying there are 65 million displaced people rather than use the term refugees" to make it sound more dramatic? Displaced / refugee whats the fecking difference really? Not much.The figure of "Displaced" (which you seem to think is just someone who cant maybe be arsed to go home or something) in WWII Was actually estimated at about 60 million so the current crisis has now it seems surpassed that. http://graphics.wsj.com/migrant-crisis-a-history-of-displacement/Whatever the figure is (and I really dont care) your initial statement about it being "crap" is actually errr, crap. It is however undeniably huge and worse than anything in the living memory of anyone on here with perhaps the exception of Dave Pelmet who lies about his age and is really 102.

To use your vernacular.....FFS.....the "feckin" difference is that international law permits refugees to be assisted without recourse to approval by the individual concerned native country administration. Because displaced persons are 'internal' approval must be sought.

It really is that 'feckin' simple.  

Some can easily and readily be helped without seeking the individuals home' nations' government.....others can't ...(unless of course you advocate illegal entry to do so).  Now what is so 'feckin' difficult to understand? 

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 7:10 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-24 5:57 PM.............................I honestly can not see why you guys are having such difficulty in understanding the clear difference between the two. In a nutshell....Refugees 'can be helped' without recourse to their originating countries administration. ......

I full well understand the legal differences Roger. The point I was trying, and clearly failing, to make, is that until you introduced international legality, the conversation was being conducted as in normal discourse, not in a court of international law. In other words, in English as commonly used, not English a legally defined. Are we then to conduct all forum discussions on the basis that only judges, barristers, and solicitors, (or barrack room lawyers :-)) can take part?

....so says the man who nitpicked over a comment regarding Muslims which if I recall correctly did not clearly (to your way of thinking) differentiate between all and some!

Make your mind up....English is an 'exact' (as I recall you put it) language or not?