To Hell or Rwanda

Politics
101

Ah, good old whataboutery - yes, all politicians have a sometimes questionable relationship with perfect truth - even relatively honest ones are likely to fluff up their own achievements, or over promise, or put the most negative spin possible on their opponents.

But the present Tory government has taken this well beyond any political norms (unless your measured norms come from the likes of Putin, Orbán, Assad, Erdoğan or Lukashenko).

Tory lying is deliberate, systematic, unapologetic and enormously damaging as it becomes more and more normalised - and Johnson is liar in chief.

I think this was Robert’s claim - can’t find it for a second in the thread.

It’s bollox anyway - much crime is spur of the moment stuff without a thought to any but the most immediate consequences (or assumed gain), for most of the rest anyone habituated to crime assumes (perhaps despite evidence to the contrary) they won’t get caught.

Our overflowing prisons are a testament to just how little fear of punishment deters crime.

102

Good morning Henri.
Sorry about your shirt. Best to soak it in cold water before it dries.

I am sincerely pleased for you that you were brought up in a place, and in circumstances, where most folks refrained from committing offences simply because it was wrong to do so.
Relating to your comments about Drink/Driving, what I would say is that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the presence of a highly visible police patrol car parked just down the road, substantially increases the number of cars that are left in the pub car park overnight.
The perception of detection in such circumstances is high, and the penalties severe and ongoing, often causing loss of employment, loss of a person’s home, and marital break up.
Is it effective – Yes. Is it draconian – Yes. Is it right in all circumstances – probably not.

Sometimes people will break the law because they find the prospect of the consequences preferable to their otherwise ongoing situation. We used to have a tramp or two in Portsmouth who would actually wait for the arrival of the beat officer before heaving half a brick through a shop window. Usually it was the back end of November, and 3 months in the warm and dry Winchester prison with three meals a day, was preferable to being cold, wet, and hungry outside. You may find that surprising, but I assure you that it is true.
Perhaps there are migrants who have a similar opinion of things.

There are indeed many reasons why people migrate these days. Some are those are eligible to claim asylum because they are being persecuted for various acknowledged reasons. Others are seeking refuge from famine or poverty and that is also understandable.
What is a truth however, is that not all people who seek refuge are classified as being eligible for asylum, and therefore governments are entitled to try and sort out one from the other if they so wish. Asylum is something which may be given to the persecuted, and those who seek to escape famine or poverty are not eligible.
I’m not saying that this classification and distinction is correct. What I am saying is that it exists, and that such has been the case ever since the 1951 Convention started to address the matter.

Have a safe day. Robert.

103
104

No, actually. I was looking for a more definitive legal reference from a Police Law perspective such as would be the case for Magistrate’s Courts and Court Clerks reference in the form of Stone’s Justice’s Manual or rather, the Police equivalent of such a publication or handbook, if one should exist.

105

John I remember them coming over. They were initially housed in Raleigh Hall an old army camp. They were made very welcome. But those were different times, my aunt and uncle were married in 1972 and moved straight into a brand new three bedroomed council house despite having no children. I don’t know what has gone wrong in the UK since then (apart from Thatcher) but now everything seems to be broken.

1 Like
106

I remember back in 1975 one my colleagues, who had been a Ugandan refugee himself, taking the occasional afternoon off to help people joining their relations in London through the immigration process at Heathrow. He never mentioned it being confrontational or difficult to me. As you say, different times :frowning:

107

@John_Scully “I suppose one only commits a crime based on the assumption that one is going to get away with it, so the punishment is irrelevant, until it al goes horribly wrong.”

No, you may have missed my intent, what I tried to say was in terms of being a refugee and trying to get to a place of safety - they just are not aware or do not care about the laws, they just want safety.

108

@Robert_Hodge Thanks for your interpretation of the law.

By saying that I am not disputing your interpretation, I am saying that the law is never clear cut and 10 different barristers can, and do each have a different interpretation of a law, it’s wording, the intent Parliament had when they debated and eventually passed the law.

But I think one thing most people could agree on is there are good people and there are bad people (a persons definition of good and bad may be different, but the ethos is the same) and, there are good and bad laws.

In terms of “tramps seeking the warmth of prison”, nothing in this upturned world surprises me nowadays.

Henri

109

how true.
It’s the rush (particularly by the current regime led by the Crime Minister aided an abetted by equally rubbish ministers) to get legislation on the Statute Books, poor quality law is enacted with gaping holes in it through which coaches and horses can be driven at speed.
The Government’s current law officer (Attorney General) is equally of such poor quality so it is with little wonder that bad law reaches the Statute Books which itself generates a self perpetuating problem as the Courts become even more clogged up with appeals and Parliamentary time to fix the errors - not to mention the Tory cuts to Law and Order…

110

I agree with @Robert_Hodge.

No one’s answered : should the UK accept anyone that wants to live there? Should every country? It used to be like that in a lot of places. Why isn’t it, any more? Why have immigration controls as a standing thing, at all? Perhaps only have them temporarily for specific threats, such as early covid.

111

Hello @KarenLot , it feels much nicer saying hello than just tapping out a response…

I’m game to have a crack at your questions:

1. Should the UK accept anyone that wants to live there?

It would simply not be possible to accept every person that wanted to live in the UK.

There are 1.4 Billion people in India and a similar number in China and if only a fraction of the people in each of these two countries wanted to move to and live in the UK obviously it’s physically not going to be possible due to land size constraints alone.

This same constraint will apply to every country receiving people that want to live there apart from Australia which while it might have the space, most of it is desert, which could be turned into livable places but in real terms is just not feasible.

I think it used to be an option in many countries previously, but the numbers involved were possibly much, much smaller? It’s worth researching the numbers over the years that countries have accepted, depending how my day goes I may get chance to do that.

  1. Why have immigration controls as a standing thing, at all?

I think you nailed it, specific threats such as health risks, but probably more forefront in the tabloids and drummed into the general public might be terror threats or risks. I’m not a fan of big brother having carte blanch to snoop on every aspect of every persons private life without genuine reasons, evidence and control. But I have no issue with being stopped at a border and having my ID checked.

To expand further on your questions and to ask and self ask one of my own.

Should all asylum seekers be detained upon arrival into the UK?

Yes!

Each country should and could build processing centers in areas of their countries where there was space, imagine small bases like the Americans used to have at Upper Heyford etc. These processing centers should have first rate health centers, physical and mental health, so that the first priority could be to provide care and attention to ensure each person was provided the care they required.

The centers should have trained and empathetic staff, not prison officers for these are not convicted criminals, they are innocent until proven they have committed a crime (let’s remember even if a policeman saw a tramp throw a brick through a window, that tramp is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law).

Each persons claim for asylum MUST be assessed without delay. The delays in the current system are a disgrace. I understand there will be major issues with lost documents, cities records destroyed and some claims will be bogus. But if a solution was sought hard enough, one could be set up.

Under my suggestion are the seekers permitted to leave the base (processing center)? No, but make the bases like small towns, just like the old USA bases, wheels turning within wheels, live as normal as possible inside the bases while their claims are assessed, proper family housing, single women and single men’s housing, care for children, schools. Stop thinking or saying it can’t be done - we do it all the time, all over the world, we set up massive military bases in hostile places where every last nut and bolt has to be flown in, if they can do that in Afgan, they can do it in Grimsby.

It’s been becoming a massive problem for years, it needs a big solution, one that will last and last, facilities that can be reused and which we are proud of how people get treated there.

Claims should take a maximum of months to approve or deny, not years and years.

What happens after their claim is approved or denied? That’s a separate in depth question / answer, maybe a new thread topic?

(Forget sending them offshore, that’s a disgusting idea, a total cop out of responsibility and a dog whistle vote seeker policy.)

Ok, I’ve said my bit, I’ll get my kevlar on then :wink:

Henri

2 Likes
112

Don’t worry, mine was a general comment on offenders. Nothing to do with refugees, who I do not consider offenders. Fleeing for one’s life isn’t a crime, no matter what odious people like Patel and Johnson may say.

2 Likes
113

I think the volume you seek is Moriarty’s Police Law, but I doubt that either that or Stone’s would help in this matter.
Generally, words in legislation have the normal meaning as found in the Oxford English Dictionary, unless they are specifically defined in the glossary of terms contained within a particular enactment, in which case, that particular meaning is in respect of said enactment only.
I don’t believe that any of the legislation that we have so far mulled over in this discussion contains the word ‘clandestine’, and so we must assign the normal OED meaning of ‘Done secretly / kept quiet’.
Hope this helps to clarify.

114

If a community felt overwhelmed by migrants could this lead to civil unrest?

115

I suppose wanting to overturn the status quo could be a symptom - and not just the status quo directly about the issue.

116

I am more than happy for someone to take the place I have vacated!

117

It would be an interesting study if everybody could go wherever they wanted in the world - once this had happened many people would wish to move again.

Given the choice of anywhere in the world - where would you move to?

Climate change will make much of the world uninhabitable - it is very likely further down the line that mass migration will happen from extreme areas to more moderate locations.

1 Like
118

I was sure there was something in my memory about this and there is a definition in law which I have found:

Definition of clandestine entry
Section 32 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended) states:
‘(1) A person is a clandestine entrant if:
(a) he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a vehicle, ship or aircraft,
(aa) he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a rail freight wagon,
(b) he passes, or attempts to pass, through immigration control concealed in
a vehicle, or
(c) he arrives in the United Kingdom on a ship or aircraft, having embarked—
(i) concealed in a vehicle; and
(ii) at a time when the ship or aircraft was outside the United Kingdom,
and claims, or indicates that he intends to seek, asylum in the United
Kingdom or evades, or attempts to evade, immigration control’
Clandestine means an action that is secret or concealed. For the purposes of
immigration control a clandestine entrant is someone who requires leave to enter but
has failed to present themselves to an Immigration Officer on arrival in the UK.

The Home Office reference to it is here

Given the additional layers of surveillance you mention in an earlier post, Immigration Officers often accompany BF and the Police as a matter of routine and with the very best of intentions and expectations on arrival (and a good human rights lawyer to boot perhaps) could submit a case that they have indeed presented themselves to an Immigration Officer - always provided of course they don’t panic and try to do a “runner” which would have the effect of negating such a claim.

Thanks for the reminder about Moriarty’s Police Law. I mislaid my volumes of Stone’s years ago through various house moves and changes in professional activity over time.

119

Thanks for providing that reference.
It’s interesting to note that on the one hand a person who arrives on the shore in a small boat is not regarded as a clandestine entrant for the purposes of S32 of the 1999 Act per se, but it then goes on to say that For the purposes of immigration control a clandestine entrant is someone who requires leave to enter but has failed to present themselves to an Immigration Officer on arrival in the UK.
I think the provision of S32 is more in reference to further subsequent sections relating to persons facilitating the unlawful entry of another.

I too have long since disposed of my Moriarty’s and Stones. Far too bulky and heavy for the bookshelves.

1 Like
120

I think you have some good suggestions there.