Yeah, she was right on a lot of issues. Allowed inevitable progress to occur. Made a lot of enemies, and made her own people into enemies.
Who knows.
Theresa May
- Thread starter Raees
- Start date
Who knows.
I had no idea:
Who's job was it to watch and verify?
That's either a terrible attempt at humour, or we're in Nazi territory.
He's beling very disingenuous there. Read the article. Some applicants chose to film themselves to support their application. And were told that was inappropriate.
This is exactly how Britain's Got Talent started.
It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'attention whore'
Can't tell you how angry this woman makes me, she has the most punchable face too and her voice is very irritating.
It's still a difficult one. I'm not sure how I would have gone about proving I was straight in that situation, particularly when I was a teenager and I couldn't get a girlfriend.
It's a weird one alright. But if someone is claiming asylum purely on the basis of their sexuality then it's not all that outrageous to ask them for some sort of evidence. Otherwise it's the easiest loophole in the world to exploit. People in long term straight relationship are often asked to provide evidence that their relationship is legitimate if that's the basis for citizenship. Shared bank accounts, stuff like that.
They have to film a porno?
No and more fool them if they think they should. As I said he's being wilfully disingenuous by implying anyone made them film anything. Did you read the article?
I'm still wondering how you prove sexuality
It's a kind of self regulating claim isn't it? The countries where being gay gets killed don't have a population willing to feign homosexuality.
Meh, I think the article is somewhere between his tweet and your description. I don't really know any ways to "prove" your sexuality, other than filming it.
It says the change in approach is based on a supreme court ruling, rather than government policy, making the tweet even more misleading.
You shouldn't really have to either. Some LGBT refugees are straight people that have been persuctuted because someone accused them of being something other than a cisgender heterosexual.
It's literally a modern day witch hunt.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1927333407482492/?active_tab=about
At least she's getting a good turnout for her leaving do.
At least she's getting a good turnout for her leaving do.
Oof, I missed that, and I'm blaming the article. The Court doesn't hand down rulings in a vacuum, I'm assuming either the govt or some asylum seekers had started a case. That would be useful to know!
Following the link to the talk didn't reveal anything else except this tweet, where the lawyer seems to agree with Owen Jones:
Oh god, my mum just text me asking why I'm going to Theresa May's party. Old people facebook eh?
The article isn't even attacking the government and it's the Guardian, rather than the DM.
As @Pogue Mahone says, not requiring proof of their sexuality or persecution leaves a gaping loophole, but it seems no-one knows how to do it, while ensuring these people maintain their dignity.
Presumably they won't have proof in terms of shared bills etc...cos they've had to be so clandestine in their relationships. It's a thorny one ok- probably needed a consultation with Stonewall etc...
Sounds like she might have bought herself some more time with her speech to the 1922.
Did wonder if that meeting could've been curtains for her tbh.
And that's why I hate the role social media has taken in politics. Half-baked "facts" fired off to try and score points from their acolytes which don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny but nobody has the time to check them because they're already caught up in the next round of mud-slinging. It's not as though you need to make stuff up to demonise May anyway. She's an absolute fecking disaster.
Agreed but the most depressing thing about this is that the political parties are encouraging it and using it as a tool. The Conservatives social media strategy was to sully Corbyn's name. Their official account was paying money to advertise on Facebook and Instagram with mistruths about his history and stances.
That's the daft thing. She's given plenty of ammo without people having to rely on mistruths.
It really does.
I'm not entirely sure how that differs from other forms of media.
She willingly left people who believed their lives depended on proving their sexuality without a framework to do it. Are we supposed to look down on those who subsequently tried anything they could in the hope it would save their life? Or perhaps look down on the policy and the person presiding over it.
As far as the suggestions that anyone could just feign homosexuality go...If you think this would ever happen on a large scale you utterly do not understand the issue.
Well there is one called Teresa May who was around before Theresa May was known as a politician.
Right. That article has no link or information about the court case, which might well have been launched by the govt (or at least involved the govt), and which resulted in the "prove you're gay" rule.
And the person giving a speech about the issue, also a lawyer specialising in immigration of homosexuals fleeing persecution, retweeted that half-baked "fact" without comment, which seems to be an endorsement.
I would first blame the article for being incomplete, or the lawyer and/or Owen Jones for being frauds (if indeed they are misleading), before going onto the nebulous entity that is social media.
140 characters often gives an extremely misleading tl;dr for people who can't be arsed to read the full piece for context. Which is what happened here.
Good luck. She has completely lost the plot.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-this-mess-and-im-going-to-get-us-out-of-it
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-this-mess-and-im-going-to-get-us-out-of-it
Yep. A lot of these types are attention seekers who just want more retweets, likes and followers. If they have to lie and mislead to get there, then these people think its well worth the cost.
Level of detail would be one key differentiator.
Not sure it was a full-on policy or more an oversight or just confusion in the aftermath of the game-changing court ruling.
The story is from 2013, is it still an issue now? (No idea, just not heard much since).
Without wanting to be crass, do asylum-seekers have to show torture scars, even female genital mutilation victims? Sounds callous on one level, but you do need some level of checks on another.
Glad I don't have to make these calls tbh, given you'll be dealing with people at their lowest ebb, day to day.
We don't have a box for that on the form
Last edited:
@Jippy @Pogue Mahone
I found the case the article referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HJ_and_HT_v_Home_Secretary
To sum up:
1. Earlier, the Home Office used to send back homosexual asylum seekers, with orders to "blend in" to their conservative, probably lethal, societies. 2 people appealed their deportation order, starting 2001.
2. This case reached the SC in 2010. They ruled that ordering people to blend in is not kosher.
3. That's it for the case, decided in Jul 2010. So I don't know whether or not the Tory govt had anything to do with this rule (in that they were defneding it in court after coming to power, since the trial must have started before the change of govt).But it is certain that the Blair and Brown Labour govts were very happy with this deportation policy.
4. Due to the court order, May's Home Office couldn't ask gay aslum seekers to blend in after being deported. They decided to come up with new rules.
5. One of these seemed to involve proving their non-straightness.
Thus, Owen Jones' tweet is right, the article is wrong or at best misleading, the lawyer is right; and this isn't the time for a crusade against social media, and it was an appropriate attack on May.
I found the case the article referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HJ_and_HT_v_Home_Secretary
To sum up:
1. Earlier, the Home Office used to send back homosexual asylum seekers, with orders to "blend in" to their conservative, probably lethal, societies. 2 people appealed their deportation order, starting 2001.
2. This case reached the SC in 2010. They ruled that ordering people to blend in is not kosher.
3. That's it for the case, decided in Jul 2010. So I don't know whether or not the Tory govt had anything to do with this rule (in that they were defneding it in court after coming to power, since the trial must have started before the change of govt).But it is certain that the Blair and Brown Labour govts were very happy with this deportation policy.
4. Due to the court order, May's Home Office couldn't ask gay aslum seekers to blend in after being deported. They decided to come up with new rules.
5. One of these seemed to involve proving their non-straightness.
Thus, Owen Jones' tweet is right, the article is wrong or at best misleading, the lawyer is right; and this isn't the time for a crusade against social media, and it was an appropriate attack on May.