Tory Leadership Race

[Stirlingsays]

The ECHR does not prevent such people from being deported.. I suspect every country In the EU and us have policies in place to enable deportation of criminals. What the Convention prescribes is a procedure to ensure due process is properly followed to sift genuine asylum seekers from the rest. And to legally characterise those deemed persona non grata.

And there's the rub. Without an efficient system and resources we are stuck with criminals and that is government not the law.

I know we have someone who worked for Border Control but I also know someone who worked Heathrow. A whole plain from Jamaica came in. Could have been Albania Vietnam or Nigeria. The boss waived the whole lot through without a check as they did not have the manpower.

Removing the ECHR is a populist gymic that will have zero impact on the issue. It is akin to voting Leave to address the problem. All that did was check literate and critical European workers with no impact at all on non EU migrants.

Relaxing rules on non EU migrants was a political choice that Johnson made....which he admits to in his autobiography, but he blames the business lobby and if I remember rightly the treasury....he admits it went too far.

However, as with lockdowns the PM is responsible for the advice he decides to listen to and agree with....the buck stops with him.

He blames everyone except himself of course.....when the reality is that he was supporting non EU immigration from years before the EU referendum was a thing. Only people taking notice would have been aware that Johnson was going to betray the main reason most people voted leave.....I wasn't taking notice so I feel very betrayed.

That doesn't leave me feeling ok with the rich gravy train neoliberal elites poorly managing European decline in the EU......Everytime I see them it just annoys me.

 

[Spiderman]

The ECHR does not prevent such people from being deported.. I suspect every country In the EU and us have policies in place to enable deportation of criminals. What the Convention prescribes is a procedure to ensure due process is properly followed to sift genuine asylum seekers from the rest. And to legally characterise those deemed persona non grata.

And there's the rub. Without an efficient system and resources we are stuck with criminals and that is government not the law.

I know we have someone who worked for Border Control but I also know someone who worked Heathrow. A whole plain from Jamaica came in. Could have been Albania Vietnam or Nigeria. The boss waived the whole lot through without a check as they did not have the manpower.

Removing the ECHR is a populist gymic that will have zero impact on the issue. It is akin to voting Leave to address the problem. All that did was check literate and critical European workers with no impact at all on non EU migrants.

I am not sure what you say about the flight from Jamaica can actually be true, although the vast majority would be British or have a U.K. visa so probably a. “ light touch” was employed. There has been staff shortages for years in BF due to the ridiculous entry requirements together with the very unsocialable rosters and piss poor management.
Any foreign national/EU National sentenced to more than 12 months can have a deportation order served on them. Whether this is implemented or not is another matter. ECHR have been known to intervene and certainly HRA has stopped many

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

British law as it stands is not protecting British people. The question is why?

What is the answer to 99% of questions? Money.

Some might suspect that ideology is behind it. I would say that ideology and the ECHR are just the instruments of those who gain. Who gains the most from flooding Europe with criminals?

Follow the money.

 

[silvertop]

I am not sure what you say about the flight from Jamaica can actually be true, although the vast majority would be British or have a U.K. visa so probably a. “ light touch” was employed. There has been staff shortages for years in BF due to the ridiculous entry requirements together with the very unsocialable rosters and piss poor management.
Any foreign national/EU National sentenced to more than 12 months can have a deportation order served on them. Whether this is implemented or not is another matter. ECHR have been known to intervene and certainly HRA has stopped many

I know this is/was your game but this was actually true. This is a person I know closely and trust. They usually worked at another port and were shocked.

ECHR intervenes because people have not been given a proper hearing. That is, they are fighting in the court to have their case properly heard... in the court. Properly resource BF and the process system and you will make inroads. Scrap ECHR without resourcing and you stay with the issue but get rid of a cherished Convention that is largely unchallengeable in its objectives.

 

[nead1]

I went to an event recently where John Curtice, the well known academic and pollster was speaking; he was interestingly quite dismissive of both Tory candidates and suggested he had not seen either of them display the political skills required of party leadership.
He also commented on the links in peoples minds between Brexit and immigration and confirmed that many people voted for Brexit as they assumed it would lead to less immigration/tighter controls - no great surprise in such an observation. However, he then went on to say that Patel - presumably endorsed by Johnson - introduced what he described as a very liberal regime that simply replaced EU immigration with more "diverse" immigration often from the sub continent. I certainly hadn't expected to hear Patel described as "liberal".
The whole analysis just confirmed for me the absurdity of not only putting Brexit to a vote (Government's are elected to decide on such big issues) but also the consequences of the outcome which we can all see every day. Apparently, the exit bill alone agreed as part of the deal Johnson endorsed, has come close to £30bn. No wonder there is so little public money available.

 

[Spiderman]

I know this is/was your game but this was actually true. This is a person I know closely and trust. They usually worked at another port and were shocked.

ECHR intervenes because people have not been given a proper hearing. That is, they are fighting in the court to have their case properly heard... in the court. Properly resource BF and the process system and you will make inroads. Scrap ECHR without resourcing and you stay with the issue but get rid of a cherished Convention that is largely unchallengeable in its objectives.

Fair enough about the flight. That decision would, I suspect, have been taken at a very high level ( possibly ministerial). Heathrow has always been a law unto itself and managers know that any delays at Border Control would hit the press. Can’t totally agree about not getting a proper hearing. All nationals who are refused a visa/leave to remain or asylum get an appeal. These are heard by independent court, if unsuccessful there they have right if appeal to a tribunal. Believe me, certainly in recent times, they tend to come down on the side of the appellant ( I have many examples of when I was a visa officer). If both these appeals are unsuccessful that should be the end of it but ECHR are often then involved. IMO 2 independent appellate authorities gives the appellant a fair hearing

 

[Badger11]

I know this is/was your game but this was actually true. This is a person I know closely and trust. They usually worked at another port and were shocked.

ECHR intervenes because people have not been given a proper hearing. That is, they are fighting in the court to have their case properly heard... in the court. Properly resource BF and the process system and you will make inroads. Scrap ECHR without resourcing and you stay with the issue but get rid of a cherished Convention that is largely unchallengeable in its objectives.

I'm sorry that is simply not true. Before you can take a case to the ECHR you have to go through the British legal system so they have had their day in court and more.

Parliament has made laws, our courts have ruled on those laws but the individual didn't like losing so decides to have another go.

 

[Spiderman]

I'm sorry that is simply not true. Before you can take a case to the ECHR you have to go through the British legal system so they have had their day in court and more.

Parliament has made laws, our courts have ruled on those laws but the individual didn't like losing so decides to have another go.

More often than not at taxpayers expense

 

[Stirlingsays]

The eight schools of the right.

Somewhat fun.

 

[silvertop]

Relaxing rules on non EU migrants was a political choice that Johnson made....which he admits to in his autobiography, but he blames the business lobby and if I remember rightly the treasury....he admits it went too far.

However, as with lockdowns the PM is responsible for the advice he decides to listen to and agree with....the buck stops with him.

He blames everyone except himself of course.....when the reality is that he was supporting non EU immigration from years before the EU referendum was a thing. Only people taking notice would have been aware that Johnson was going to betray the main reason most people voted leave.....I wasn't taking notice so I feel very betrayed.

That doesn't leave me feeling ok with the rich gravy train neoliberal elites poorly managing European decline in the EU......Everytime I see them it just annoys me.

Johnson was never a genuine Brexiteer. He comes from a very small demographic that genuinely believe in their divine right to rule. A belief only one hair's breadth above a vast mass of the population who, like dumb cattle, agree that view and pathetically follow. It says as much about us that he achieved that as it does about him.

Brexit was simply a means for him to achieve his entitled right to the top job. It was a vehicle. This argument has been done to death on other threads, but I genuinely believe execution of Brexit would have been better achieved under May - Remainer or otherwise. At least she had a semblance of integrity, something Johnson wholly lacks.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Johnson was never a genuine Brexiteer. He comes from a very small demographic that genuinely believe in their divine right to rule. A belief only one hair's breadth above a vast mass of the population who, like dumb cattle, agree that view and pathetically follow. It says as much about us that he achieved that as it does about him.

Brexit was simply a means for him to achieve his entitled right to the top job. It was a vehicle. This argument has been done to death on other threads, but I genuinely believe execution of Brexit would have been better achieved under May - Remainer or otherwise. At least she had a semblance of integrity, something Johnson wholly lacks.

Pretty much, though I wouldn't have gone with May on anything because she isn't actually a conservative.....pure neoliberalism.

If you are going to have Brexit you need a true believer and that's Farage and others....and that was never going to be allowed.

 

[silvertop]

I'm sorry that is simply not true. Before you can take a case to the ECHR you have to go through the British legal system so they have had their day in court and more.

Parliament has made laws, our courts have ruled on those laws but the individual didn't like losing so decides to have another go.

That is the point. Article 6 ECHR - a right to a fair trial.

As Spider says, the process has built in what appears to be an automatic appeal so one wonders what point the 1st instance hearing serves. Under that system (not ECHR) they have a right to be heard and heard again and will cite Article 6 if they are not.

There are simply not enough judges, hearing venues, trial dates etc. available to accommodate them all. It is process and underfunding that is killing the system, not the ECHR.

And Jenrick will do absolutely nothing to address that if he became PM.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

That is the point. Article 6 ECHR - a right to a fair trial.

As Spider says, the process has built in what appears to be an automatic appeal so one wonders what point the 1st instance hearing serves. Under that system (not ECHR) they have a right to be heard and heard again and will cite Article 6 if they are not.

There are simply not enough judges, hearing venues, trial dates etc. available to accommodate them all. It is process and underfunding that is killing the system, not the ECHR.

And Jenrick will do absolutely nothing to address that if he became PM.

If they were turned around or held off shore, this process would be unnecessary.
The problem here is appearances.

Until we understand the size and nature of this problem, politicians will dither around tying to look virtuous. They must forget about moral conundrums, defy the pressure from various influences and act.
The time for a radical rethink across Europe is now. The hand wringers will never be satisfied. That is their nature. A liberal approach to this will ultimately destroy Europe as we know it.

 

[silvertop]

If they were turned around or held off shore, this process would be unnecessary.
The problem here is appearances.

Until we understand the size and nature of this problem, politicians will dither around tying to look virtuous. They must forget about moral conundrums, defy the pressure from various influences and act.
The time for a radical rethink across Europe is now. The hand wringers will never be satisfied. That is their nature. A liberal approach to this will ultimately destroy Europe as we know it.

I suspect the government is groaning under the weight of successive legal opinions on this from the best legal brains but still can't find a solution.

Let us deal with the boat crossings. And let us just deal with the end product i.e. untold numbers clinging to a barely sea-worthy RIB heading our way.

Clearly the best solution is to make the countries they are leaving better; and the only effective way we can do with such unstable basket case nations is by this modern day middling nation increasing our influence and impact in those countries and trading them into happiness.

Attacking the gangs is the one method routinely spouted. However, as with the drug trade, with the profits at stake it is a winless fight. Lopping heads off the hydra.

Returning to those boats, I have little doubt it would be within the practical capabilities of this country to blow every crossing boat out of the water. It would serve as an effective deterrent and there are plenty of folk on here who would applaud such a policy, notwithstanding the loss of collateral boats such as private yachts, fishing boats etc.

I also have little doubt that there is no country that would do that, save perhaps North Korea. We would become an international pariah who no-one will deal with or listen to.

Perhaps the RN can capture those boats in international waters and tow them back to French waters. Obviously the French would need to be co-operative otherwise we have warships crossing into sovereign French territory. Besides, the Greeks tried that and accidentally sunk a boat with dozens of dead including kids to explain.

There is also the rules of the sea requiring ships to pick up passengers from vessels in distress. Something the gang leaders rely on.

Any ideas?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I suspect the government is groaning under the weight of successive legal opinions on this from the best legal brains but still can't find a solution.

Let us deal with the boat crossings. And let us just deal with the end product i.e. untold numbers clinging to a barely sea-worthy RIB heading our way.

Clearly the best solution is to make the countries they are leaving better; and the only effective way we can do with such unstable basket case nations is by this modern day middling nation increasing our influence and impact in those countries and trading them into happiness.

Attacking the gangs is the one method routinely spouted. However, as with the drug trade, with the profits at stake it is a winless fight. Lopping heads off the hydra.

Returning to those boats, I have little doubt it would be within the practical capabilities of this country to blow every crossing boat out of the water. It would serve as an effective deterrent and there are plenty of folk on here who would applaud such a policy, notwithstanding the loss of collateral boats such as private yachts, fishing boats etc.

I also have little doubt that there is no country that would do that, save perhaps North Korea. We would become an international pariah who no-one will deal with or listen to.

Perhaps the RN can capture those boats in international waters and tow them back to French waters. Obviously the French would need to be co-operative otherwise we have warships crossing into sovereign French territory. Besides, the Greeks tried that and accidentally sunk a boat with dozens of dead including kids to explain.

There is also the rules of the sea requiring ships to pick up passengers from vessels in distress. Something the gang leaders rely on.

Any ideas?

No boats need to be sunk.

The issue here is the never ending nature of 'refugees'. They will only become more.

Continuing as we are is simply not an option. It is just a question of when we get serious.

The safety of illegal migrants cannot be everyone else's responsibility. It has to be their own.

Our societies have to come first. Our government's first duty is to its citizens. Hand wringing will become irrelevant when we reach a critical point.

The best idea is to create a detention centre on an overseas territory where migrants can be detained until they are returned home. That should deter the vast majority, and it will be cheaper and safer than having them here.

 

[silvertop]

No boats need to be sunk.

The issue here is the never ending nature of 'refugees'. They will only become more.

Continuing as we are is simply not an option. It is just a question of when we get serious.

The safety of illegal migrants cannot be everyone else's responsibility. It has to be their own.

Our societies have to come first. Our government's first duty is to its citizens. Hand wringing will become irrelevant when we reach a critical point.

The best idea is to create a detention centre on an overseas territory where migrants can be detained until they are returned home. That should deter the vast majority, and it will be cheaper and safer than having them here.

For the record, so long as the centers met international standards, I had little issue with Rwanda save on the crippling cost.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

For the record, so long as the centers met international standards, I had little issue with Rwanda save on the crippling cost.

How costly is it compared to a virtually infinite number being processed here?

I'd make this a European wide project funded by every country affected. It could be staffed by a multinational staff. Just pick the location and build it.

 

[Spiderman]

For the record, so long as the centers met international standards, I had little issue with Rwanda save on the crippling cost.

The centres would, the answer to the crossings is a deterrent, Rwanda was that deterrent.
With regard to your previous comment about towing the boats back, I agree but unfortunately the French have never been cooperative regarding returns.
A big problem with this mass movement of people across Europe is the open border policy, which imo will soon disappear as more and more EU countries try to get to grips with the problem

 

[Phil’s Barber]

I’ll ignore the ignorant insult, because you are either evading the point or still don’t understand it.

What you say about the illegal small boat migrants, whilst not entirely accurate, is largely a statement of fact which isn’t disputed.

It’s not though the subject. You made a claim about the cost of undocumented migrants in the UK being £3.2 billion which I asked you to justify. Not about those arriving in small boats and claiming asylum. The illegals established here mostly arrived legally but became undocumented by overstaying. Most work in the black economy. They cannot draw benefits.

So kindly justify your claim.

It’s really not difficult. The government at the time, who were footing the bill, stated it was costing £8M per day to house the flood of people arriving illegally. That figure is now £9M per day with increases in numbers since the original figure was released. Times that by 365 gives you £3.2Billion per year.

The number of genuine asylum seekers within that figure is SO minimal as to be insignificant.

That is just the financial cost of housing them. It doesn’t include the monetary handouts they are being given, the new mobile phones they are given upon arrival, the drain on our health and education services and the cost to society with the untold crimes they are already responsible for.

 

[HKOwen]

Even if this all stopped today the damage is done, a huge number of non contributory culturally diametrically opposed are in and not leaving. There will be some kind of amnesty or just give them all status.

This is the decade the country reached tipping point in terms of the place we mostly grew up in.