A reminder that so much of conservative politics is based off "owning the libs".
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
A reminder that so much of conservative politics is based off "owning the libs".
God I really despise her, as if lawyers applying the current laws is "exploiting" anything.
Criticising judicial activism can be roughly translated to 'we want carte blanche to do what we want'.
Finally, a sensible solution
.
Finally, a sensible solution
will have to be the invasion rather than the payment it seems
Yeah she has the Ian Ducan Smith vibes, unlike other Tories who are clearly in it for themselves(Boris for example)there's a deep rooted cruelty to Patel. Reminds me of Tidal Swinton Thatcher character.
have you read the article?
Its behind a paywall so the only bit I could see is they want to change the rules to make it that you have to state your reasons for applying for asylum at the time of making the application? - which frankly I'm surprised isnt the case already ... there may well be other more controversial measures listed in the article but Ive not read it - have you? - could you / somebody give a run down of the measures?
Sounds fine, we'll let them chose the time and the place, as long as it's 1815 and Waterloo.
Nope as you can see I only replied to her criticising lawyers for applying rules that exist. Didn't comment on the changes she wanted to make.
Nice try on the 'gotcha' though.
im not sure belgium will be so keen on letting us use waterloo - perhaps we just go old school and have a 2 leg encounter at hastings and agincourt?
on a more serious note i wonder if next summer we might have people crossing the other way to get into europe post brexit?
It is the case already, but some people have multiple reasons to claim asylum (e.g - fleeing war, persecution due to sexuality/race etc.) and they may get denied on the grounds they initially apply on (due to inability to produce evidence, typically) but accepted on other grounds.
I can't get past the paywall either, but the proposed change appears to be that they have to choose one criteria and if they fail they have no right to re-apply on the basis on another. Obviously this will lead to a situation where people who qualify for asylum can get turned down because of poor/absent legal advice at the outset, or because of harsh decision-making (our asylum system has been notoriously harsh since it was tightened substantially in the early 2000s).
will need to see the proposal hence I wondered if anybody has looked behind the paywall - my understanding was that they wanted to reduce the time so people would be able to apply on miltiple grounds concurrently but not reapply on new grounds repeatedly? (right of appeal still exists as well I assume?)
is legal aid provided in asylum cases? - genuinely not sure but given the categories and that a several hour interview is done to establish the facts (with interpreters provided) it genuinely does not seem too onerous for somebody to know the reasons they do not feel it is safe to return to their own country
Last edited:
Have managed to find a source elsewhere, not sure on the legalities of sharing the text of paywalled articles here so I won't. But, according to The Times, the change is that they have to declare all their grounds to claim asylum at the outset, after which they can't add new ones.
The main issue (aside from the danger of poor legal advice mentioned above) is that when you put forward an initial reason for claiming asylum, you are expected to provide evidence straightaway or your case will be dismissed out of hand and you'll be deported. If you can't provide any evidence, you don't reach the formal decision making stage and there is no right of appeal.
The reason you get a lot of people being granted asylum on the basis of a secondary criteria is because people in this situation often don't have the documentation on hand to evidence their strongest criteria from the outset. The system (by design since reforms in the 2000s designed to reduce the number of successful applications regardless of their merit) does not give applicants time to gather evidence. In order to stave off deportation long enough to gather the required evidence, applicants will initially apply on the grounds of a weaker criteria they can partially evidence in the hopes that the processing time will buy them time to gather the evidence they need to demonstrate they fulfill another criteria (itself a gargantuan effort as they are often asking for documentation to support their case from a regime who wants them dead).
Undoubtedly, these 'time-buying' claims cost the taxpayer money, but it's a situation forced upon applicants and their legal council by the unreasonable expectation the current process puts upon them. If they didn't do it thousands of applicants who qualify for asylum would be deported to suffer or die. Patel's plan is basically to remove this tactic of buying time, forcing applicants to provide any and all evidence to support their claim almost immediately on arrival and thereby allowing the government to deport people before they have a chance to gather the evidence they need to build a case.
In terms of legal aid, applicants can apply but there's no guarantee of success. In these situations the bill is usually footed by charities with finite resources or the work done pro-bono by lawyers who have a finite capacity to work for free.
It certainly seems the system needs changing - not certain the proposed changes will be the answer but in essence making the proper claim rather than a flimsy one at outset seems logical - would clearly need some clarity about evidence requied and how to obtain it being provided at the same time as well
I am assuming most people crossing from france have made themselves aware of the procedure and evidence required in the UK and are weighing that up in the decision as to if its sensible to get in a dinghy with their family prior to crossing?
how does our system / document requirements compare to france / italy / greece for example
Frankly, the system is a disgrace and not for the reasons you cite. It isn't designed to assess whether people are eligible for asylum, it's designed to reject as many applicants as possible regardless of their eligibility and make it difficult for those who make it through. This move is a further step in that direction.
On your second paragraph, the asylum system is considered complex by the standards of lawyers and professional caseworkers who receive rigorous training in the relevant legislation. Certainly, it's far more complex than the nationality legislation many Home Office caseworkers deal with, which is itself a lot more complex than the guidelines employed by decision-makers in HMRC or DWP. From the questions you've posed in here it seems you've had difficulty establishing even superficial details of the process independently, despite access to the internet, considerable free time and fluency in the English language. Assuming that people who have left their homeland under threat of death or violence and whose current hardship has left them considering a dangerous crossing will have access to the resources required to research and prepare a thorough legal case in a foreign language is either naïve in the extreme or wilfully ignorant. The nature of asylum cases is that people will often not have access to the resources they need to launch a case until they get here, and even then it can be a struggle.
I'm afraid I don't know about systems in other countries.
It’s probably worth creating a separate thread for this, given where the narrative seems to be heading in the media.
with all that to contend with it really is strange that people would leave a safe country in France by putting their kids in a dinghy to cross the worlds busiest shipping lane then - unless they would be eligable for asylum here but not there - though my gut feel is that is probably unlikley to be the case as im sure france does not deport people to be persecuted?
Why what’s the narrative in the media? I rarely watch/ read the news at the moment.
Ultimately, if your opinion is that absolutely no cross-channel asylum seekers have legitimate cases then there's no point in wasting everyone's time and goodwill by pretending to be interested in the process.
not at all - just that if they dont feel they have that france seems a lot safer than a dinghy for kids
There is nothing strange for people having a sense of empathy.
BBC news had a journalist in a boat alongside a migrant boat, interviewing them as they came across. It was just bizarre to watch.
I think it’s going to become a massive topic of conversation if the weather stays good enough for more crossings.
But let’s be honest the entire thing is a massive dead cat. This has been happening for years and years.
I suspect most planning to cross will want to do so before the weather gets signifigantly worse - so probably the next month or so - which will be a fractious backdrop to the brexit negotiations
Not sure if this is true regarding Cummings.
The problem here is that there isn't a 'Civil Service entrance exam' per se. A lot of entry-level roles involve basic numeracy/comprehension tests or situational judgement tests which are routinely passed by people with no education beyond GCSE, higher up roles may involve more difficult versions of these tests. It could refer to the Fast-Stream graduate scheme, which involves multiple stages of different tests (numeracy, literacy, situational judgement, a scenario-based roleplay exercise, a video interview, a day in a testing centre and a final in-person interview). The vast majority of people fail at some point along the way (the average successful applicant will fail twice before getting in).
Don't think someone should be called out either for failing a situational judgement test, they're bollocks.
It's amazing how you can be the biggest loser politician and most useless ineffectual Labour leader ever, yet still carry the blame for so many of our social and political ills. Very impressive the way these Tory pigs and the utter scum that voted for them escape any responsibility for their mess.
So much for turning the blue wall red again then...
The blame lies with the average Joe. We are exceptionally ignorant and thick.
Yeah I'm sure some random comment on a football message board is gonna influence that.
The only thing that will turn the blue wall red again is the inevitable suffering and pain that will come with 4 more years of these corrupt incompetent bellends dragging the country through the gutter.
Yes but that attitude of people are scum if they voted for Conservative or the whole red tory rubbish directed at anybody who thought jezbollah was going to prove unelectable isn't going to be the attitude that wins votes back
Alright Guido.
Its more the media And their influence than the average Joe who are to blame.
Leveson 2 would be the right thing to do. One of the major reasons Labour had such bad press during the last election is because they were going to hold the press to account. Something the Tories will not do.
Priti Patel apparently told a load of Tory MPs on a call that the migrants are coming because they think France is racist and they might be tortured. One MP is reported as saying “She was calling them racist and she is right. They are more racist than us,”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-believe-france-racist?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The fecking brass neck of these cnuts. The UK is considerably more racist than France.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-believe-france-racist?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The fecking brass neck of these cnuts. The UK is considerably more racist than France.
Not according to reports done by the EU. France is more racist than the UK by almost every measure they used
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-being-black-in-the-eu-summary_en.pdf
Full report
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-being-black-in-the-eu_en.pdf