What's all this hatred of Bounty bars all of a sudden. They're quite nice, I think.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 2,507
Coconut is horrid.
I'm not a big fan of coconut, but Bounty bars I've always liked
With you on that Herc, have you tried the bounty ice cream bars ? Even better, imo.
BBC news first thing this morning. The headlines: Children as young as 9 are drug-running to keep their parents heads above water.
Over to ITV then... There will be massive power cuts this winter on the coldest days, people will die of hyperthermia.
They bring on someone from the electricity board - We have no plans for power cuts at this present time.
I think re power cuts, the balance of opinion is "unlikely, but possible".
The fact that the govt has been "wargaming" various scenarios for the upcoming winter means it's being taken seriously.
Quote: Firkin @ 4th November 2022, 7:02 AMWith you on that Herc, have you tried the bounty ice cream bars ? Even better, imo.
Someone on TV was raving about them - I'll give them a try, thank you!
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 4th November 2022, 9:16 AMSomeone on TV was raving about them - I'll give them a try, thank you!
Oh dear, just checked, and Tesco (my weekly delivery people) don't sell them - will have to hunt a pack down elsewhere.
Quote: Lazzard @ 3rd November 2022, 2:14 PMCaedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
"Kill them all. The Lord will know his own"Albania is technically a "safe" country ie not a war-zone - consequently they are not de facto qualified for asylum.
Many are, though - especially amongst women and children - who were the bulk of the first arrives.
Consequently the rate of refusal is distinctly higher for Albanians - and probably more so for this recent influx of men - we just don't have the figures yet
Obviously 24 hours is an unreachable target - especially with the current backlog.
And anyway - 24 hours is the target for time spent in reception camps - not asylum decisions.
Either way, you do it as quick as you can - by resourcing it better.
There are people who are very good at this.
We just need to employ more of them.
Until an arrival is vetted, the home office has no way of knowing whether an arrival is a genuine refugee, an economic immigrant (who has jumped-the-queue) or a crook or a terrorist under cover. At this stage the person is possibly a criminal. Only after the case is considered are the genuine refugees actually entitled to the benefits described in the 1951 Convention and the !967 Protocol.
If they are let out of the camp, the criminal elements can leave the designated hotel and disappear into the general population.. Letting them out now appears to be what the Home office is doing in desperation to reduce the number of persons staying at Marston etc. due to complaints from left wingers such as those on here.
Six months from now I can foresee the left wing busy complaining that the government is useless because it has let terrorists and crooks loose into the UK.
What's the answer though? I really have no idea.
Quote: Lazzard @ 2nd November 2022, 3:32 PMYou're right, the Convention does not explicitly state 'country choice' as a right.
Equally, and more importantly, it does not state that you a have to claim asylum in first safe country.
Neither does the Geneva Convention (another popular lie in certain quarters)
This is the malicious myth that is regularly circulated.
Nothing to do with biased, or re-vamped anything - there is no obligation.
It's not written anywhere. It's not a law.
Your logic is faulty. You cannot infer anything from the ABSCENCE of something in a document. I could quite easily and equally credibly say, that at the time of the 1951 convention (just 6 years after WWII) refugees has to walk the whole escape route so it is far more likely that they would seek asylum in the first 'Safe' country they entered. One could say that this was so obvious at the time that they didn't bother to write it into the convention. { I don't actually think this was the case, but it just shows that you cannot logically infer anything from the abscence of "where" in the text of the convention}.
Quote: Lazzard @ 2nd November 2022, 3:32 PMUnder the Dublin Agreement it was possible to send asylum claimants back to the first EU country they had their papers stamped.
But not anymore. Brexit saw to that.
The Dublin agreement was typical EU nonsense. Once asylum is granted the refugee gets more or less the same rights as EU citizens including the right of free movement. i.e the right to move and work in any of the EU countries. So once asylum was granted they could move to the country that had 'sent' them back to the entry country. In other words the Dublin Agreement was/is useless.
The current Albanian 'refugees' have missed a trick there, they should have migrated before Brexit, then they could have applied in the first country and after getting asylum status they could have legally moved to the UK and they wouldn't have had to pay huge sums for a dangerous channel crossing.
Quote: billwill @ 5th November 2022, 11:37 PMYour logic is faulty. You cannot infer anything from the ABSCENCE of something in a document. I could quite easily and equally credibly say, that at the time of the 1951 convention (just 6 years after WWII) refugees has to walk the whole escape route so it is far more likely that they would seek asylum in the first 'Safe' country they entered. One could say that this was so obvious at the time that they didn't bother to write it into the convention. { I don't actually think this was the case, but it just shows that you cannot logically infer anything from the abscence of "where" in the text of the convention}.
The Dublin agreement was typical EU nonsense. Once asylum is granted the refugee gets more or less the same rights as EU citizens including the right of free movement. i.e the right to move and work in any of the EU countries. So once asylum was granted they could move to the country that had 'sent' them back to the entry country. In other words the Dublin Agreement was/is useless.
The current Albanian 'refugees' have missed a trick there, they should have migrated before Brexit, then they could have applied in the first country and after getting asylum status they could have legally moved to the UK and they wouldn't have had to pay huge sums for a dangerous channel crossing.
The logic isn't faulty - an absence in an agreement doesn't mean you can just fill in the gaps with whatever you fancy.
None of that changes the fact that it is a lie to say "The rules say that they should have applied for immigration at the FIRST safe nation that they crossed."
They don't.
I'm not blaming you, because I don't for a second believe you are circulating falsehoods on purpose - you are not doing it for malign purposes.
But plenty of people are and they are circulating mis-information to rile up the populace - they convinced you, for instance.
You're right, Dublin was a bit of a mess - but it worked in as much as it would deter a certain percentage of people heading for Calais.
Not brilliant though.
In terms of criminal elements getting in - that's always a possibility and there will be a certain (though small) percentage who abscond.
Again, don't trust the figures for absconding that the usual suspects circulate- these include people who merely missed their first interview.
More mis-information designed to scare people.
Of course, processing facilities in Northern France - as offered by the French & refused by the UK - would mitigate against this greatly, reducing the chances of criminal elemenys entering.
A cynical man might think they were keeping the situation at crisis point on purpose.
Certainly until the next election.
If you are going down the cynical route then.
How come probably over 90% of these desperate people are 18 to 30-year-old men?
Watch any video on Twitter and you'll hardly see any women and children. Where are they?
Do these terrible conditions they are suffering only affect men?
Ukraine refugees were predominantly women and children.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 6th November 2022, 12:33 PMIf you are going down the cynical route then.
How come probably over 90% of these desperate people are 18 to 30-year-old men?
Watch any video on Twitter and you'll hardly see any women and children. Where are they?
Do these terrible conditions they are suffering only affect men?
Ukraine refugees were predominantly women and children.
Well, in terms of Albanians, of the 55% granted ayslum, 86% were women and children. Which leads one to think, when it's actually put into practice, the system is pretty good at weeding out those trying to wrongly seek asylum.