Tim Martin – Wetherspoons
- This topic has 76 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
#a way to avoid legal taxation laws coming in from the EU# :This,to some people, is a problem.
#a way to avoid legal taxation laws coming in from the EU# :This,to some people, is a problem.
Yes Rees Mogg is just one person who wanted to avoid intrusion in to their financial assets. Many rich and extremely wealthy people living in the UK have money invested in tax havens and those assets under EU law would mean declaring globel assets, France has done this for many years. Sure many have avoided declaring those assets here and elsewhere in the EU but new much stronger laws would have meant many of those avoiding paying their taxes would be found out and severely penalised, including prison sentences. So the newspaper barons and the Tory party set out to ensure Brexit nwas succesful and in the last week an all out assault on Facebook, Twitter & the social media by those people managed to drag Brexit over the line. Lies told from day one until the final days were criminal, so much so that now there are people that want blatant lies to be a criminal offence, I doubt this will ever happen on Tory watch though….
Apparently the British border force entered French waters yesterday with permission from the French …who were accompanying a dingy full of immigrants…they « rescued » them and took them to Dover. The world is going mad. there is a recording of the rescue…..Priti Patel? Where are you ? It seems the illegals have only to set off in a leaky dingy and they are rescued by the British.
I do wish that those referring to refugees as illegals would desist. There is absolutely nothing illegal about claiming asylum. It’s a basic and international human right.
What is more, the receiving country has an obligation to process your application and to accommodate you in legal standard conditions while they do process you.
Furthermore, there is no obligation or requirement to apply for asylum in any country. Refugees are perfectly entitled to travel through as many countries as they wish to apply in whichever country they wish.
Now the only way to claim asylum in UK, is to arrive and surrender to officials. There is no other way, and it does not matter a jot how you arrive. Sure, you could try to apply at a UK Embassy around the world. But you have to get in first!
You cannot simply board a boat in the channel, if the occupants deny being in distress.
Of course the refugees deny being in distress to any French vessel, but willingly accept assistance from UK vessels. I’m sure both the French and UK vessels know this, so there’s no point messing about, just carry out the rescue. It’s quicker and safer for all concerned.
Finally, the only illegal immigrants in UK are:
1. Visa overstayers, of which the UK do not keep any record, they merely make an estimate.
2. Those who escape from detention after an unsuccessful asylum application. Hopefully the government know how many have escaped detention.
3. Those migrants who have sneaked in to UK, and not surrendered to officials. By definition, the UK government have no idea how many there are.
That would be okay with me, ed. I wouldn’t mind Hungary leaving the EU as their blatant disregard of democratic standards makes them a disgrace to the EU. An expensive one on top of that.
I do wish that those referring to refugees as illegals would desist. There is absolutely nothing illegal about claiming asylum. It’s a basic and international human right.
I would be interested to know why you think it is ok for people during a pandemic to deliberately put themselves in danger to escape from a safe country (France) so they are rescued and taken to the UK where they are placed in hotels because apparently the barracks which were seen as perfectly fit for British troops to be housed in are not good enough for assylum seekers, why they are allowed in with no papers, no background checks, no criminal checks, no proof that the place they have come from is dangerous, given free board and lodging and money at the taxpayer’s expense when British people returning to their own country have to pay to stay in hotels at their expense to isolate, many British people are relying on food banks to feed their families but asylum seekers get everything paid for by the taxpayer. Doesn’t seem very fair to me somehow. And how many if any, failed asylum seekers are actually deported by pretti useless patel?
I do wish that those referring to refugees as illegals would desist. There is absolutely nothing illegal about claiming asylum. It’s a basic and international human right.
I would be interested to know why you think it is ok for people during a pandemic to deliberately put themselves in danger to escape from a safe country (France) so they are rescued and taken to the UK where they are placed in hotels because apparently the barracks which were seen as perfectly fit for British troops to be housed in are not good enough for assylum seekers, why they are allowed in with no papers, no background checks, no criminal checks, no proof that the place they have come from is dangerous, given free board and lodging and money at the taxpayer’s expense when British people returning to their own country have to pay to stay in hotels at their expense to isolate, many British people are relying on food banks to feed their families but asylum seekers get everything paid for by the taxpayer. Doesn’t seem very fair to me somehow. And how many if any, failed asylum seekers are actually deported by pretti useless patel?
Homeless and hungry people are at the mercy of the UK government policy. There is no international or human rights standard that applies. If you are unhappy about the treatment of homeless and hungry people take it up with the appropriate government, but don’t blame the refugees, nor conflate the problem with asylum. The two issues are entirely unrelated.
Similarly, people arriving from abroad and having to quarantine is an entirely separate issue to asylum seekers. I suspect the refugees are required to quarantine just as anyone else is.
The issues that you raise are all part of the processing of the application, so it’s nonsense to suggest they don’t happen
Human and International Rights do not get suspended during a pandemic, and rightly so. Peoples’ immediate survival is more important than a chance illness which may or may not be serious.
But that doesn’t mean that protection and appropriate behaviour can be discarded.
Also, the deportation process carried out by the government is totally separate from claiming asylum. If the UK cannot carry out due process after a failed asylum application, then they should not be in governemt. But it’s absolutely not the fault of the refugees.
The government has an international legal obligation to accommodate the asylum seekers.
The barracks is not adequate for soldiers, that is why they were closed. They fall below the minimum standards for soldiers and for refugees. What is the point the government setting standards that it intends to ignore? Other organisations meet those standards, why should the government not meet them also?
I think Hungary will be the next country to leave the EU ,maybe this year.
Why do you think that Ed ?
Unless they want to get back into the USSR , they would be stupid to give up the €5 billion or so that they receive from the EU every year ?
I would be interested on your reason for thinking that they are about to leave the EU .
Perhaps Hungary would rather be poor and free….like England!
People who championed and voted for Brexit are desperate for any other country to leave the EU,anyone will do,they are still trying to convince themselves that it wasn,t one the stupidest thing that a country has ever done.
That would be okay with me, ed. I wouldn’t mind Hungary leaving the EU as their blatant disregard of democratic standards makes them a disgrace to the EU. An expensive one on top of that. how you can use the word: Democratic and EU in one sentance is ironic to say the least!
No ed, it is not ironic at all unless you consider Hungary more democratic than the EU which, however, would deprive any discussion of a serious foundation.
Perhaps Hungary would rather be poor and free….like England!
You have lost me there Ed . I thought that the UK was one of the richest countries in the world , at least in the top 25 . I didn’t know that the UK had been held captive by the EU , but then I live in the EU and you probably don’t?
Thé site is called United in Brittany…a site for those who love France ..
It doesn’t mean we hate the Uk…on the contrary .
It does mean we have made a choice….you don’t like Europe …leave.
Simple really.
Thé site is called United in Brittany…a site for those who love France .. It doesn’t mean we hate the Uk…on the contrary . It does mean we have made a choice….you don’t like Europe …leave. Simple really.
Has anyone suggested that criticism of UK means that they hate the UK? You seem to have a habit of extrapolating one criticism into another unconnected issue. If a parent criticises their children’s behaviour does it mean they hate their children? If a teacher criticises their students performance does it mean they hate their students?
I would suggest quite the opposite, I would suggest that criticism in such instances means a love for whatever is being criticised, and they want the object of their criticism to reach a higher standard of performance.
In the case of the UK, I would suggest that criticism means they want the UK to regain its status in the world of a civilised, sympathetic, democratic, world-respected country that it once was, not the selfish, inward-looking, refugee-hating and blaming, undemocratic country that it is quickly becoming.
I used to be proud to be British, even though I prefer to live in France. I am becoming ashamed of the behaviour of UK, as of late. But that doesn’t mean hate. I could be ashamed and critical of my dog’s behaviour, but I still love it.
Your comments remind me of Harry G. Frankfurt, and his definition of bullcarp: “Speech intended to persuade without regard to truth.”
Refugee hating…wow what a generalization.
They are entering the Uk illegally….fact.
most are fleeing poverty…with the exception of a minority.
Clearing the illegal camps in Calais…I,d be interested on your take on that…
They are not in France officially ..they burn their passports…
what sort of world do you actually want?
If you couldn’t afford to live in France or Europe you would have a problem,especially now after Brexit.
Taking one word or one comment from my post is really rather childish…I suggest you avoid reading it instead…that’s a real choice…now I,m going to enjoy my Sunday.
I don’t think that the present governement in the UK hate refugees Bobby , just certain ones !
This I conclude after hearing how many Hong Kong inhabitants will be moving to the UK , but then …… they are not classified as refugees I suppose.
Will certainly upset China , but they ( UK governement ) don’t seem to worry about that .
So what would be your solution for dealing with asylum seekers, economic migrants etc crossing from France?
Good question Snowy.
ps if someone does something that’s not legal…like entering France or the Uk by dingy…paying traffickers…doesn’t that make them illegal?
Refugee hating…wow what a generalization.
Who the heck mentioned the phrase “refugee hating”?
It certainly wasn’t me, so where did it come from?
Someone’s vivid imagination is the only conclusion I can deduce.
They are entering the Uk illegally….fact.
Nonsense, not fact at all, just pure bullcrap. and another of your inventions.
The only way to claim asylum is to arrive in the country of your choice, by any means possible, and surrender to the authorities. Sinse the UK’s introduction of the Carriers Act, ships, planes etc will not allow you to board if you do not have a visa to enter the country of your destination. Otherwise they become liable for your accommodation, return transport, etc. And they are susceptible to large UK fines.
Thus the only way is by dinghy from France. If there was another legal route don’t you think the refugees would have found it by now? Do you think they choose the most dangerous, and possibly the most expensive route possible.
That is exactly what the refugees are doing. So for you to call it illegal is your, and only your perception.
Please explain to us how a refugee claims asylum in UK legally if you think what the refugees are doing is illegal.
most are fleeing poverty…
Wow, I cannot understand why the UK government spend millions of pounds on thousands of investigators, translators, etc processing and investigation every application, when you could do the job for them in an afternoon.
One afternoon a month and a quick glance down the list, and you could process all the outstanding applications pretty quickly. There’s just no need for investigators, translators, agents, embassies, etc. All that is just a waste of money.
Good question Snowy. ps if someone does something that’s not legal…like entering France or the UK by dingy…paying traffickers…doesn’t that make them illegal?
It’s not illegal. It’s the only route possible. The UK, by the Carriers Act has closed the other legal route.
The Carriers Act put paid to people buying an air ticket to UK, without having a visa, and then claiming asylum on arrival.
The Act makes the Carriers liable for the refugees accommodation and onward transport to somewhere else, and a hefty fine, if the refugee does not have a visa.
Please explain to the forum your idea of how to claim asylum in UK by what you would call the legal route.
I suggest you acquaint yourself with international law on refugees. Your assumptions are based on bigoted urban mythology.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
