Guest pelmetman Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Let em land.........then take them staight to Gatwick..........I'm sure the airlines would appreciate the work ;-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact: One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications." It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it. That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker? The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees. It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it. Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country. An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country. In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation. There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo. This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application. It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.? Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law. That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country. In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim. There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU. Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet. Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring? We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ??? So would you care to explain how that might be achieved? Where, exactly, is the UK border? How, exactly, does who, prevent people crossing it? You do realise that the UK border does not run down the French coast, don't you? I assume you also realise that if we want to keep certain people out it is for us to keep them out and not for other countries to prevent them leaving in case they want to come here. Read the above Fullfact analysis of the rules. UK territorial waters extend 12 miles offshore. In locations where the Channel is less than 24 miles wide the English - French border is mid channel. In areas where the Channel is more than 24 miles wide, the space between UK territorial waters and French territorial waters is international waters. At its narrowest point, in the Dover Strait, between Dover and Cap Gris-Nez, the Channel is just 22 miles wide. So where/how does anyone intercept an overloaded inflatable in mid channel, in the middle of the "world's busiest shipping lane" without endangering its occupants in contravention of Article 98 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and/or Regulation V-33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to both of which the UK is signatory? Once they cross the French/UK border in mid Channel they have, legally or illegally, entered the UK, and are subject to our legal jurisdiction, and until they reach that point they remain under French legal jurisdiction. So what, exactly, do you expect "our military" to do? Strafe them, sink their boat and drown them, or safeguard their passage in the best manner under prevailing sea conditions, and arrest them once safely on land? And how would that differ from what is now being done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 9:31 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact: One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications." It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it. That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker? The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees. It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it. Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country. An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country. In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation. There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo. This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application. It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.? Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law. That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country. In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim. There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU. Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet. Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring? We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ??? So would you care to explain how that might be achieved? Where, exactly, is the UK border? How, exactly, does who, prevent people crossing it? You do realise that the UK border does not run down the French coast, don't you? I assume you also realise that if we want to keep certain people out it is for us to keep them out and not for other countries to prevent them leaving in case they want to come here. Read the above Fullfact analysis of the rules. UK territorial waters extend 12 miles offshore. In locations where the Channel is less than 24 miles wide the English - French border is mid channel. In areas where the Channel is more than 24 miles wide, the space between UK territorial waters and French territorial waters is international waters. At its narrowest point, in the Dover Strait, between Dover and Cap Gris-Nez, the Channel is just 22 miles wide. So where/how does anyone intercept an overloaded inflatable in mid channel, in the middle of the "world's busiest shipping lane" without endangering its occupants in contravention of Article 98 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and/or Regulation V-33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to both of which the UK is signatory? Once they cross the French/UK border in mid Channel they have, legally or illegally, entered the UK, and are subject to our legal jurisdiction, and until they reach that point they remain under French legal jurisdiction. So what, exactly, do you expect "our military" to do? Strafe them, sink their boat and drown them, or safeguard their passage in the best manner under prevailing sea conditions, and arrest them once safely on land? And how would that differ from what is now being done? No no Brian! you forget. When team Brexit drew up the territorial waters plan they declared a 200 mile exclusion zone! Which means we can send patrol boats all the way up the Seine to Paris! Brexit will sort it all out you will see! Farage will be there at the helm with his Khaki shorts on and rifle in hand, hoping to get back on the telly. That'll show em! They will probably convert the Royal Yacht Britannia into a Migrant and French bashing patrol boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 8:37 AM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 8:11 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:31 AM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 7:22 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 6:58 AM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:10 PM Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact: One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications." It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it. That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker? The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees. It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it. Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country. An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country. In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation. There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo. This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application. It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.? Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law. That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country. In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim. There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU. Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet. Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring? We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ??? LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac. I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway. Chuckle ... Strange how some who break the law in your eyes are "funny' yet those who just want a day out in the sun breaking the law are "morons" because they dare to do it near you ... Hypocrite ... As for your precious Dublin Agreement you keep banging on about ... https://migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/528/dublin-agreement-on-returning-asylum-seekers-is-almost-completely-useless ... Doesnt work and never did, if you leave your whites only village and ask those who live with what you want if the Dublin Agreement has worked I reckon they'd say no Hmm. A link from a right wing lobby pressure group. *-) Those who just wanted a day out in the sun? I would have no problem with that but thats not what it was though was it? They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic. They would be morons no matter where they did it and it wasnt just here as the news has reported from other popular beauty spots around the country. Whichever way you dress it up, what is apparent here is Brexit and sticking two fingers up at the French and Europe has opened up the flood gates for migrant crossings in the channel. Good luck with sorting that one out as we cut the ties even further on 31st December. No amount of posturing, stamping your feet and sending in Navy warships will change that. Its a prime example of how working together and getting on with your neighbours is the only way to improve things. Send the Navy in if you like but the world will be watching and all they will likely see is the Navy picking them up and bringing them to Dover. I doubt you will see them getting blown out of the water. But you like "low life criminals" who break the law "stealing and vandalising the place" ... You find it "funny" remember , unless of course in your hypocrite way its near you ... You were happy to have the military take to the streets of North Yorkshire with the eyes of the world watching and your happy that thugs rip apart British history yet you aren't happy with the military escorting illegal immigrants away from our shores ... Hypocrite I never said I wouldnt be happy with our military escorting migrants from our shores I just dont think it will happen because it wont work. The Navy are more about saving lives and protecting people these days. I can just imagine the scene now with the worlds cameras rolling. A load of desperate people in a dangerously over loaded dinghy. Women and Children crying and along comes a fecking war ship. What are they going to do? Run them down, gun them down? Nudge them a bit in the other direction? Are they fcuk. They will just be forced to rescue them. They cant then just pop them on the beach at Calais, the French will just tell them to fcuk off! Flexing your muscles and acting all powerful and hard is pointless. Cooperation is the key and we just dumped all that. "war ships" ... You truly believe they'll send out "war ships" ... Lordy ... "Women and children crying and along comes a fecking war ship" Chuckle, they'd be pretty lucky to find a boat out of all the boats so far that had women and children in em ... Why do you need to litter your posts with angry swear words on here BTW ??? Were you not just banging on about using the military and force to repel the invaders? I think those were your exact words. I presume you mean the Navy then. Their ships are referred to as War ships I believe. What will they send out then? Pedalos? According to the news just now there are women and children on the boats. Sorry about the fecking swearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 9:31 AM So what, exactly, do you expect "our military" to do? Strafe them, sink their boat and drown them, or safeguard their passage in the best manner under prevailing sea conditions, and arrest them once safely on land? And how would that differ from what is now being done? Difficult to see what we can do. It seems that International Law is on the side of the Traffickers, and we are obliged to help their ' clients ' once they are inside our international waters. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 9:52 AM …………………………….. No no Brian! you forget. When team Brexit drew up the territorial waters plan they declared a 200 mile exclusion zone! Which means we can send patrol boats all the way up the Seine to Paris! Brexit will sort it all out you will see! Farage will be there at the helm with his Khaki shorts on and rifle in hand, hoping to get back on the telly. That'll show em! They will probably convert the Royal Yacht Britannia into a Migrant and French bashing patrol boat. Zut Barry! Zat mean Calais is Hinglish hagain hafter hall zees years - which his where all ze migrant hare. But zat mean we now hown hall the migrant. We must himmediately habandon ze 200 mile zone! :-) Even Trump couldn't make that one up! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 1:09 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 9:52 AM …………………………….. No no Brian! you forget. When team Brexit drew up the territorial waters plan they declared a 200 mile exclusion zone! Which means we can send patrol boats all the way up the Seine to Paris! Brexit will sort it all out you will see! Farage will be there at the helm with his Khaki shorts on and rifle in hand, hoping to get back on the telly. That'll show em! They will probably convert the Royal Yacht Britannia into a Migrant and French bashing patrol boat. Zut Barry! Zat mean Calais is Hinglish hagain hafter hall zees years - which his where all ze migrant hare. But zat mean we now hown hall the migrant. We must himmediately habandon ze 200 mile zone! :-) Even Trump couldn't make that one up! :-D The weren't making it up! This is the proposed map of the zone. It goes further than Paris. so next time you're on some sunny lazy canal in deepest Normandy or Brittany even and some "Frog" is sat there with his fishing rod pulling out Trouts you can just give him a slap and take his fish!! I gather the Brexit party were also advocating sinking any funny foreigner fishing vessels Belgrano style that came within the zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 1:55 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 1:09 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 9:52 AM …………………………….. No no Brian! you forget. When team Brexit drew up the territorial waters plan they declared a 200 mile exclusion zone! Which means we can send patrol boats all the way up the Seine to Paris! Brexit will sort it all out you will see! Farage will be there at the helm with his Khaki shorts on and rifle in hand, hoping to get back on the telly. That'll show em! They will probably convert the Royal Yacht Britannia into a Migrant and French bashing patrol boat. Zut Barry! Zat mean Calais is Hinglish hagain hafter hall zees years - which his where all ze migrant hare. But zat mean we now hown hall the migrant. We must himmediately habandon ze 200 mile zone! :-) Even Trump couldn't make that one up! :-D The weren't making it up! This is the proposed map of the zone. It goes further than Paris. so next time you're on some sunny lazy canal in deepest Normandy or Brittany even and some "Frog" is sat there with his fishing rod pulling out Trouts you can just give him a slap and take his fish!! I gather the Brexit party were also advocating sinking any funny foreigner fishing vessels Belgrano style that came within the zone. More Barry fake news *-) ........... BTW if you dont like living in a democracy ;-) .......... There's still time to move to the non democratic EU >:-) ......... http://daystobrexit.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 9:56 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 8:37 AM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 8:11 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:31 AM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 7:22 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 6:58 AM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:10 PM Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact: One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications." It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it. That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker? The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees. It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it. Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country. An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country. In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation. There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo. This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application. It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.? Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law. That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country. In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim. There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU. Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet. Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring? We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ??? LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac. I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway. Chuckle ... Strange how some who break the law in your eyes are "funny' yet those who just want a day out in the sun breaking the law are "morons" because they dare to do it near you ... Hypocrite ... As for your precious Dublin Agreement you keep banging on about ... https://migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/528/dublin-agreement-on-returning-asylum-seekers-is-almost-completely-useless ... Doesnt work and never did, if you leave your whites only village and ask those who live with what you want if the Dublin Agreement has worked I reckon they'd say no Hmm. A link from a right wing lobby pressure group. *-) Those who just wanted a day out in the sun? I would have no problem with that but thats not what it was though was it? They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic. They would be morons no matter where they did it and it wasnt just here as the news has reported from other popular beauty spots around the country. Whichever way you dress it up, what is apparent here is Brexit and sticking two fingers up at the French and Europe has opened up the flood gates for migrant crossings in the channel. Good luck with sorting that one out as we cut the ties even further on 31st December. No amount of posturing, stamping your feet and sending in Navy warships will change that. Its a prime example of how working together and getting on with your neighbours is the only way to improve things. Send the Navy in if you like but the world will be watching and all they will likely see is the Navy picking them up and bringing them to Dover. I doubt you will see them getting blown out of the water. But you like "low life criminals" who break the law "stealing and vandalising the place" ... You find it "funny" remember , unless of course in your hypocrite way its near you ... You were happy to have the military take to the streets of North Yorkshire with the eyes of the world watching and your happy that thugs rip apart British history yet you aren't happy with the military escorting illegal immigrants away from our shores ... Hypocrite I never said I wouldnt be happy with our military escorting migrants from our shores I just dont think it will happen because it wont work. The Navy are more about saving lives and protecting people these days. I can just imagine the scene now with the worlds cameras rolling. A load of desperate people in a dangerously over loaded dinghy. Women and Children crying and along comes a fecking war ship. What are they going to do? Run them down, gun them down? Nudge them a bit in the other direction? Are they fcuk. They will just be forced to rescue them. They cant then just pop them on the beach at Calais, the French will just tell them to fcuk off! Flexing your muscles and acting all powerful and hard is pointless. Cooperation is the key and we just dumped all that. "war ships" ... You truly believe they'll send out "war ships" ... Lordy ... "Women and children crying and along comes a fecking war ship" Chuckle, they'd be pretty lucky to find a boat out of all the boats so far that had women and children in em ... Why do you need to litter your posts with angry swear words on here BTW ??? Were you not just banging on about using the military and force to repel the invaders? I think those were your exact words. I presume you mean the Navy then. Their ships are referred to as War ships I believe. What will they send out then? Pedalos? According to the news just now there are women and children on the boats. Sorry about the fecking swearing. The Navy doesnt just have war ships Barry, take it youve heard of patrol boats ??? ... Swear away, if its a release for your frustration then fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 9:31 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact: One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications." It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it. That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker? The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees. It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it. Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country. An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country. In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation. There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo. This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application. It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.? Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law. That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country. In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim. There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU. Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet. Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring? We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ??? So would you care to explain how that might be achieved? Where, exactly, is the UK border? How, exactly, does who, prevent people crossing it? You do realise that the UK border does not run down the French coast, don't you? I assume you also realise that if we want to keep certain people out it is for us to keep them out and not for other countries to prevent them leaving in case they want to come here. Read the above Fullfact analysis of the rules. UK territorial waters extend 12 miles offshore. In locations where the Channel is less than 24 miles wide the English - French border is mid channel. In areas where the Channel is more than 24 miles wide, the space between UK territorial waters and French territorial waters is international waters. At its narrowest point, in the Dover Strait, between Dover and Cap Gris-Nez, the Channel is just 22 miles wide. So where/how does anyone intercept an overloaded inflatable in mid channel, in the middle of the "world's busiest shipping lane" without endangering its occupants in contravention of Article 98 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and/or Regulation V-33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to both of which the UK is signatory? Once they cross the French/UK border in mid Channel they have, legally or illegally, entered the UK, and are subject to our legal jurisdiction, and until they reach that point they remain under French legal jurisdiction. So what, exactly, do you expect "our military" to do? Strafe them, sink their boat and drown them, or safeguard their passage in the best manner under prevailing sea conditions, and arrest them once safely on land? And how would that differ from what is now being done? Like many who live with these types I simply dont care what the Navy does at all or how it does it to stop those you and Barry believe we should house in towns and cities away from you ... Current legal jurisdiction can be changed and Government has talked about doing so and the sooner it is the better ... If EU based Italy can refuse them to land then little old scaredy pants Blighty can do the same and those illegals got in the sea without force so one can only presume they like the sea, so stay in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Look like the lads who tried threatening me and the missus in Ouistreham last year ... ... They were a bit more gobby then though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Instead of putting these types up in four star luxury hotels and spa complexes put them up in something less costly to the UK taxpayer and way less comfortable, I know Barry finds criminality funny but we the UK should not reward criminality with luxury ... Maybe rent some unused farm land in North Yorkshire and install some heated containers in a secure fenced in compound while these young fellas applications are processed quickly ... One can only imagine the photos these young fellas are sending home to their mates from inside these luxury hotels, hardly deterring others to come is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 9:31 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM……………………. Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet. Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring? We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ??? So would you care to explain how that might be achieved? Where, exactly, is the UK border? How, exactly, does who, prevent people crossing it? You do realise that the UK border does not run down the French coast, don't you? I assume you also realise that if we want to keep certain people out it is for us to keep them out and not for other countries to prevent them leaving in case they want to come here. Read the above Fullfact analysis of the rules. UK territorial waters extend 12 miles offshore. In locations where the Channel is less than 24 miles wide the English - French border is mid channel. In areas where the Channel is more than 24 miles wide, the space between UK territorial waters and French territorial waters is international waters. At its narrowest point, in the Dover Strait, between Dover and Cap Gris-Nez, the Channel is just 22 miles wide. So where/how does anyone intercept an overloaded inflatable in mid channel, in the middle of the "world's busiest shipping lane" without endangering its occupants in contravention of Article 98 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and/or Regulation V-33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to both of which the UK is signatory? Once they cross the French/UK border in mid Channel they have, legally or illegally, entered the UK, and are subject to our legal jurisdiction, and until they reach that point they remain under French legal jurisdiction. So what, exactly, do you expect "our military" to do? Strafe them, sink their boat and drown them, or safeguard their passage in the best manner under prevailing sea conditions, and arrest them once safely on land? And how would that differ from what is now being done? Like many who live with these types I simply dont care what the Navy does at all or how it does it to stop those you and Barry believe we should house in towns and cities away from you ... Current legal jurisdiction can be changed and Government has talked about doing so and the sooner it is the better ... If EU based Italy can refuse them to land then little old scaredy pants Blighty can do the same and those illegals got in the sea without force so one can only presume they like the sea, so stay in it Re Italy: https://tinyurl.com/yxv2kzpg Seems it's not quite as simple legally as you'd like! And those migrants had already been taken on board rescue ships, and were eventually landed on Italian soil in any case. There may well be many who think as you do, which is why we need people who think otherwise, isn't it? As to where I think they should go, I don't have an opinion. Their claims first have to be evaluated, so it is only those with convincing cases who will need accommodation, the others will presumably be refused entry and deported. But what you've failed to do is demonstrate how they should be dealt with. "Don't care" is hardly an answer is it? You do care, because you endlessly whinge on about them. You just aren't prepared to think through what you're saying, and spell out its implications, are you? Bit uncomfortable, I suppose! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 2:41 PM Look like the lads who tried threatening me and the missus in Ouistreham last year ... ... They were a bit more gobby then though Is that your Kayak you bought in the med last summer? I bet you ripped them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-08 2:02 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 1:55 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 1:09 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 9:52 AM …………………………….. No no Brian! you forget. When team Brexit drew up the territorial waters plan they declared a 200 mile exclusion zone! Which means we can send patrol boats all the way up the Seine to Paris! Brexit will sort it all out you will see! Farage will be there at the helm with his Khaki shorts on and rifle in hand, hoping to get back on the telly. That'll show em! They will probably convert the Royal Yacht Britannia into a Migrant and French bashing patrol boat. Zut Barry! Zat mean Calais is Hinglish hagain hafter hall zees years - which his where all ze migrant hare. But zat mean we now hown hall the migrant. We must himmediately habandon ze 200 mile zone! :-) Even Trump couldn't make that one up! :-D The weren't making it up! This is the proposed map of the zone. It goes further than Paris. so next time you're on some sunny lazy canal in deepest Normandy or Brittany even and some "Frog" is sat there with his fishing rod pulling out Trouts you can just give him a slap and take his fish!! I gather the Brexit party were also advocating sinking any funny foreigner fishing vessels Belgrano style that came within the zone. More Barry fake news *-) ........... BTW if you dont like living in a democracy ;-) .......... There's still time to move to the non democratic EU >:-) ......... http://daystobrexit.co.uk/ Actually its exactly what the party you voted for were advocating and the Belgrano stuff was also true. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/12/brexit-party-mep-criticised-over-belgrano-twitter-comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 3:02 PM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 9:31 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM……………………. Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet. Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring? We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ??? So would you care to explain how that might be achieved? Where, exactly, is the UK border? How, exactly, does who, prevent people crossing it? You do realise that the UK border does not run down the French coast, don't you? I assume you also realise that if we want to keep certain people out it is for us to keep them out and not for other countries to prevent them leaving in case they want to come here. Read the above Fullfact analysis of the rules. UK territorial waters extend 12 miles offshore. In locations where the Channel is less than 24 miles wide the English - French border is mid channel. In areas where the Channel is more than 24 miles wide, the space between UK territorial waters and French territorial waters is international waters. At its narrowest point, in the Dover Strait, between Dover and Cap Gris-Nez, the Channel is just 22 miles wide. So where/how does anyone intercept an overloaded inflatable in mid channel, in the middle of the "world's busiest shipping lane" without endangering its occupants in contravention of Article 98 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and/or Regulation V-33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to both of which the UK is signatory? Once they cross the French/UK border in mid Channel they have, legally or illegally, entered the UK, and are subject to our legal jurisdiction, and until they reach that point they remain under French legal jurisdiction. So what, exactly, do you expect "our military" to do? Strafe them, sink their boat and drown them, or safeguard their passage in the best manner under prevailing sea conditions, and arrest them once safely on land? And how would that differ from what is now being done? Like many who live with these types I simply dont care what the Navy does at all or how it does it to stop those you and Barry believe we should house in towns and cities away from you ... Current legal jurisdiction can be changed and Government has talked about doing so and the sooner it is the better ... If EU based Italy can refuse them to land then little old scaredy pants Blighty can do the same and those illegals got in the sea without force so one can only presume they like the sea, so stay in it Re Italy: https://tinyurl.com/yxv2kzpg Seems it's not quite as simple legally as you'd like! And those migrants had already been taken on board rescue ships, and were eventually landed on Italian soil in any case. There may well be many who think as you do, which is why we need people who think otherwise, isn't it? As to where I think they should go, I don't have an opinion. Their claims first have to be evaluated, so it is only those with convincing cases who will need accommodation, the others will presumably be refused entry and deported. But what you've failed to do is demonstrate how they should be dealt with. "Don't care" is hardly an answer is it? You do care, because you endlessly whinge on about them. You just aren't prepared to think through what you're saying, and spell out its implications, are you? Bit uncomfortable, I suppose! :-D Dont go all Hollywood Brian ... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 3:28 PM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 2:41 PM Look like the lads who tried threatening me and the missus in Ouistreham last year ... ... They were a bit more gobby then though Is that your Kayak you bought in the med last summer? I bet you ripped them off. No I would never rip those Frenchy types off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 3:30 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 2:02 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 1:55 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 1:09 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 9:52 AM …………………………….. No no Brian! you forget. When team Brexit drew up the territorial waters plan they declared a 200 mile exclusion zone! Which means we can send patrol boats all the way up the Seine to Paris! Brexit will sort it all out you will see! Farage will be there at the helm with his Khaki shorts on and rifle in hand, hoping to get back on the telly. That'll show em! They will probably convert the Royal Yacht Britannia into a Migrant and French bashing patrol boat. Zut Barry! Zat mean Calais is Hinglish hagain hafter hall zees years - which his where all ze migrant hare. But zat mean we now hown hall the migrant. We must himmediately habandon ze 200 mile zone! :-) Even Trump couldn't make that one up! :-D The weren't making it up! This is the proposed map of the zone. It goes further than Paris. so next time you're on some sunny lazy canal in deepest Normandy or Brittany even and some "Frog" is sat there with his fishing rod pulling out Trouts you can just give him a slap and take his fish!! I gather the Brexit party were also advocating sinking any funny foreigner fishing vessels Belgrano style that came within the zone. More Barry fake news *-) ........... BTW if you dont like living in a democracy ;-) .......... There's still time to move to the non democratic EU >:-) ......... http://daystobrexit.co.uk/ Actually its exactly what the party you voted for were advocating and the Belgrano stuff was also true. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/12/brexit-party-mep-criticised-over-belgrano-twitter-comments Torpedoes are ineffective against rubber dinghy's ;-) .......... Just sayin :D ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM ……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM ……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port? That's the right decision Brian. And the Chuckle brothers get their wishes....Brainless doesn't care what the Navy do and no more whining from Parasiteman about not being able to get trades folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM ……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port? Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 I'd like to trudge down to Cornwall from war torn Huddersfield, throw away my passport etc and demand asylum for a better life and expect to be put up in Padstows finest hotel while given umpteen generous benefits etc for me and my family ... Will it work ya think ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:53 AM John52 - 2020-08-08 7:45 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:13 AM John52 - 2020-08-08 7:08 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:00 AM Who are the "friends" ??? Look is up in a dictionary as its obviously a word you are not familiar with Makes no difference who they are - they can still disagree, in a civilised manner, without calling names, changing the subject or altering the facts, and stay as friends. You should try it sometime. Who are the "friends" ??? ... Second time of asking Why are you trying to change the subject again Umpteenth time of asking You brought sumat about "friends" into the thread remember, if you cant remember look back ... One can only assume you mean "friends" on here because if you dont and you mean "friends" elsewhere your changing the subject again and you dont care for the subject being changed ... So for the 3rd time who are the "friends" ??? It cant be difficult to answer surely ??? I said friends can disagree Makes no difference who the friends are You are just trying to change the subject so you can use it for yet another personal attack Instead of explaining what 'tough military action' you propose against unaccompanied children and pregnant women in little rubber boats. Do you think people can't see what you are trying to do ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:15 PM I'd like to trudge down to Cornwall from war torn Huddersfield, throw away my passport etc and demand asylum for a better life and expect to be put up in Padstows finest hotel while given umpteen generous benefits etc for me and my family ... Will it work ya think ??? Seems to have escaped your attention the Tories have created a housing crisis. That means there is a shortage of accommodation. So councils which are legally obliged to house women and children don't have any accommodation to put them in - the Tories made them sell all our public owned housing off for a pittance remember? So now we have to rent it back from Tory landlords for extortionate amounts of money. And have to rent whatever accommodation is available which in some cases is a luxury hotel Thats why your council tax is so high when all your services are being cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 John52 - 2020-08-08 9:25 PM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:53 AM John52 - 2020-08-08 7:45 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:13 AM John52 - 2020-08-08 7:08 AM Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:00 AM Who are the "friends" ??? Look is up in a dictionary as its obviously a word you are not familiar with Makes no difference who they are - they can still disagree, in a civilised manner, without calling names, changing the subject or altering the facts, and stay as friends. You should try it sometime. Who are the "friends" ??? ... Second time of asking Why are you trying to change the subject again Umpteenth time of asking You brought sumat about "friends" into the thread remember, if you cant remember look back ... One can only assume you mean "friends" on here because if you dont and you mean "friends" elsewhere your changing the subject again and you dont care for the subject being changed ... So for the 3rd time who are the "friends" ??? It cant be difficult to answer surely ??? I said friends can disagree Makes no difference who the friends are You are just trying to change the subject so you can use it for yet another personal attack Instead of explaining what 'tough military action' you propose against unaccompanied children and pregnant women in little rubber boats. Do you think people can't see what you are trying to do ? It is obviously is difficult for you to answer ... Who'd have thought ... How is asking a question on something you've mentioned a "personal attack"??? ... Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.