• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Silly McSilly Face said:
I am not describing a "technical term" only. Everyone, from the government, opposition, press, and most importantly the general public refer to these people arriving by boats and lorries as illegal immigrants. You lot on here are the exception, not I. I am explaining the technical terminology because one of you lot asked the question as to why everyone refers to them as illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...
Many are referred to by the general public as asylum seekers. You're spouting rhetoric.



https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/s...bout-asylum/#:~:text=There is no such thing,4.
 
Last edited:
kb 1984 said:
Jesus Christ just what is needed politicians encouraging mobs to roam the streets. What happens when they attack and kill some innocent more than likely brown man going about his business. Seriously what is wrong with these people
Click to expand...

I know its boring but I keep referring bac to when the mob travelled up to Southport and the guy had to lock himself in his shop because they wanted to bash his head in because of his skin colour, all despite the claims of "we don't care if they are here and hard working" rubbish.

Its just racism at this point, straight up, torch bearing lynch mob racism
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
There is a place for flippancy when people are jumping on someone just trying to help with understanding and getting riled up. Its not laughing at the subject, its poking fun at the debate.....as I said, the legal guidance in respect of ruling out asylum applications pretty much applues to every douchebag arriving on a boat. Does that say every person arriving on a boat is a douchebag or does it say every douchebag arriving on a boat is a criminal? I think what's happened here is that some people haven't liked my explanation of the facts and have instead gone down the route of analysing language and words and finding stuff that offends them.
Click to expand...
Tbf I was having a different conversation with you. But hey ho.

The conversation you were having with Glenda about labelling looks like semantics to me after reading. I think they are illegal immigrants the moment they touch land in the UK. But at what point they open their mouth and say 'i want to claim asylum' is anyone's guess, could be 30 mins later in the border office. At that point they are an asylum seeker. Nothing's changed in their head, they're not thinking 'oh my status has changed' and I'm not thinking anything different about them either.

If they've done something illegal and committed a crime, but they are not handcuffed by the police,kept in a cell, calling a solicitor, and the CPS compiling a case against them. So doesn't feel traditionally illegal?

They are all treated in the same way no matter what one labels them. I'm sure it's not bothering them given their situation.

I'm not getting 'emotional' over your contribution to the debate. Don't be silly, Silly.
But calling them 'douchebags' just shows the contempt with which you hold them. Plain and simple.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Its not incorrect. The refugee convention is an international treaty, and constitutionally, international treaties do not have legal effect in the UK without an act of parliament and therefore parliament is the root of interpretation and application of treaty provisions within the UK. The UK's immigration legislation, passed by parliament makes it a criminal offence to enter the uk without leave and remain in the uk without leave.
Click to expand...
It's an incorrect understanding of how the application of law works - laws are not absolutes.
On the particular topic of asylum, there is a defence written into statute!

Is it unlawful to enter the UK without a visa - yes.
Is it lawful to enter the UK to seek asylum - yes.
Two positions that clearly cannot coexist if looking at law in binary way, which is what you did. The application of law isn't binary - we wouldn't need Judges if it were.

Giving legal right to seek asylum creates a position where if entering the country without a visa, but seeking asylum, a judge would be highly unlikely to find in favour of - especially as there is a Statutory Defence again such a charge, which is an absolute if the criteria for said defence are met.
 
monkeybarry said:
It's an incorrect understanding of how the application of law works - laws are not absolutes.
On the particular topic of asylum, there is a defence written into statute!

Is it unlawful to enter the UK without a visa - yes.
Is it lawful to enter the UK to seek asylum - yes.
Two positions that clearly cannot coexist if looking at law in binary way, which is what you did. The application of law isn't binary - we wouldn't need Judges if it were.

Giving legal right to seek asylum creates a position where if entering the country without a visa, but seeking asylum, a judge would be highly unlikely to find in favour of - especially as there is a Statutory Defence again such a charge, which is an absolute if the criteria for said defence are met.
Click to expand...
It isn't lawful to enter the UK to claim asylum, if you did not have leave to enter the uk. You're right about the law being complex, but in the context of "why are those arriving in lorries and boats referred to as illegal immigrants?" The black and white text of the immigration legislation and offences provides the answer.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Tbf I was having a different conversation with you. But hey ho.

The conversation you were having with Glenda about labelling looks like semantics to me after reading. I think they are illegal immigrants the moment they touch land in the UK. But at what point they open their mouth and say 'i want to claim asylum' is anyone's guess, could be 30 mins later in the border office. At that point they are an asylum seeker. Nothing's changed in their head, they're not thinking 'oh my status has changed' and I'm not thinking anything different about them either.

If they've done something illegal and committed a crime, but they are not handcuffed by the police,kept in a cell, calling a solicitor, and the CPS compiling a case against them. So doesn't feel traditionally illegal?

They are all treated in the same way no matter what one labels them. I'm sure it's not bothering them given their situation.

I'm not getting 'emotional' over your contribution to the debate. Don't be silly, Silly.
But calling them 'douchebags' just shows the contempt with which you hold them. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
There is an element of a thought process i'm not going to lie in that if ive got my 3 year old kid to France, and they're being fed and looked after in a camp and I think "nah, you know what, I'll stick him on a tiny inflatable boat controlled by international drugs traffickers and the kid ends up washed up face down on a beach......well its not what i'd do in that situation let me tell you.....
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
There is an element of a thought process i'm not going to lie in that if ive got my 3 year old kid to France, and they're being fed and looked after in a camp and I think "nah, you know what, I'll stick him on a tiny inflatable boat controlled by international drugs traffickers and the kid ends up washed up face down on a beach......well its not what i'd do in that situation let me tell you.....
Click to expand...

Easy to say from the comfort of your world though, you can't make definitive statements like that.............
 
thfcsteff said:
1. No one has called you 'an ignorant racist who can't disguise their hate' so far as I can see. You have been called out for using terminology you then tried to say was 'flippancy' and 'humour' to 'lighten' the discussion.

2. You continue to assume that legal definitions solely define illegal activity/criminals. In the world I live in, a certain degree of context is usually applied, and this is usually the case (thankfully) when someone feels their only avenue is to board a dinghy over-rammed with other people and try to survive a channel crossing in order to make landfall and immediately declare their asylum seeking status.

Here are some other 'legal defintions' which taken at face value (and without any context) makes the majority of people in the UK guilty of at least one act of criminal behaviour, quite possibly on a repeat basis. Round 'em up, the douchebags!!!!!

  • Being drunk in a pub: While pubs are synonymous with drinking, it's actually illegal to be found drunk on licensed premises in England and Wales.
  • Handling salmon suspiciously: Section 32 of the Salmon Act 1986 makes it an offence to handle salmon under suspicious circumstances. This law is aimed at addressing illegal fishing or poaching, not merely appearing suspicious while carrying a salmon.
  • Carrying a plank of wood along a pavement: The Metropolitan Police Act 1839 makes it illegal to carry planks of wood along a pavement in the Metropolitan Police District (essentially Greater London) unless it's for loading or unloading a vehicle.
  • Shaking a rug or carpet in the street: Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, it's illegal to shake or beat any carpet or rug in the street after 8am, although shaking doormats before that time is allowed.
  • Paying with your phone at a drive-through while the engine is running: Using your phone while operating a vehicle is against the law, and if your car's engine is running while making a contactless payment at a drive-through, you could technically be considered in violation.
Click to expand...

ricky2tricky4city said:
Tbf I was having a different conversation with you. But hey ho.

The conversation you were having with Glenda about labelling looks like semantics to me after reading. I think they are illegal immigrants the moment they touch land in the UK. But at what point they open their mouth and say 'i want to claim asylum' is anyone's guess, could be 30 mins later in the border office. At that point they are an asylum seeker. Nothing's changed in their head, they're not thinking 'oh my status has changed' and I'm not thinking anything different about them either.

If they've done something illegal and committed a crime, but they are not handcuffed by the police,kept in a cell, calling a solicitor, and the CPS compiling a case against them. So doesn't feel traditionally illegal?

They are all treated in the same way no matter what one labels them. I'm sure it's not bothering them given their situation.

I'm not getting 'emotional' over your contribution to the debate. Don't be silly, Silly.
But calling them 'douchebags' just shows the contempt with which you hold them. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Fair play to you both for continually engaging. If I heard the kind of views you’re responding to being spouted in a pub I’d order a Guinness and sit in the corner furthest away from the person voicing them. 😃
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back