| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: So you want to immigrate to the UK? |
 |
|
Here are some easy to follow steps if you want to settle in the UK:-
1. Hijack a plane at gunpoint, preferably from an impoverished Islamic hellhole.
2. Order the captain to fly to the UK.
3. Claim asylum, and protection under 'Human Rights' legislation.
4. Claim free housing, healthcare and education for your dependents.
5. Be granted leave to remain, even though the regime you claimed to be fleeing from is no longer in power.
Once again, the judiciary strike a blow for common sense and justice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4757523.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If Lesotho won't take you, where the h*ll else would you go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Ah ha.
I see.
Well, no, I don't.
Care to articulate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Link appears to be broken...
edit:
| Quote: |
| The PM said the ruling was an "abuse of common sense" and should be overturned, and he is considering an appeal. |
"Considering"?!?
I would think he should be 'demanding'.
I can understand some of Bigverne's outrage when I read things like this...
Last edited by Bulsajo on Fri May 12, 2006 5:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| talk about rewarding terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the joke thread, but perhaps more apt here ...
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I don't want to live in the UK.
too many poms.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waggo
Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I despair for my country sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Care to articulate? |
What's to articulate? A bunch of men who hijacked a plane, have been granted leave to remain in the UK. Even someone as chronically deluded as yourself must agree how insane that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems the poms have bollocksed this one up.
I can understand Big Verne despairing at the situation - but I wonder - how could the situation be resolved? Or should we just accept that the system doesn't always work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whilst I seldom agree with BV's pov, I have to say that letting these guys stay is a blatant failure of the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| Whilst I seldom agree with BV's pov, I have to say that letting these guys stay is a blatant failure of the system. |
Ditto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Wangja wrote:
Whilst I seldom agree with BV's pov, I have to say that letting these guys stay is a blatant failure of the system.
Ditto.
|
Well, lest we all get a bit too clubby here...
| Quote: |
The question of what should happen to the nine and their families had caused a serious clash between the government and the judiciary over human rights law.
The High Court judge expressed his anger over the way ministers failed to follow correct legal procedures and "deliberately delayed" implementing an adjudication appeal panel's decision from two years ago.
The decision in June 2004 meant that, under human rights law, the nine could not be sent back to Afghanistan where their lives would be at risk.
The judge also made an unprecedented order that the Home Office should pay legal costs on an indemnity basis - the highest level possible - to show his "disquiet and concern".
The nine men were jailed at the Old Bailey in 2001 for hijacking the Ariana Boeing 727 on an internal flight in Afghanistan.
Appeal judges quashed the convictions in May 2003 but insisted that their decision was "not a charter for future hijackers". They said a mistake in directing the jury was the only reason the men's appeal had succeeded.
|
Okay, someone can correct me if I've misread this, but...
1. In 2001, the guys were convicted of hijacking a plane to the UK.
2. In 2003, the convictions were overturned on appeal.
3. In 2004, the adjudication appeal panel ruled that the men could not be sent back to Afghanistan, because their lives would be in danger.
4. In 2006, the High Court upheld the panel's decision.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but when the convictions were overturned in 2003, the men became, in the eyes of the law, innocent of any wrongdoing. So after that point, wasn't it proper for the appeals panel to treat them as it would treat any other non-criminals? And if the law says that you have to be granted asylum if you face danger in your own country, what choice did the High Court have but to allow the men to stay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And if the law says that you have to be granted asylum if you face danger in your own country, what choice did the High Court have but to allow the men to stay? |
That's the whole point. The law is the problem. Since the Labour government signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, there have been numerous cases where the rights of criminals have been put before the safety of the country. These Afghans should have been deported, without trial or appeal, back to Afghanistan. Just because they may have been in danger in Afghanistan (isn't everyone?) does not mean that we should have an obligation to resettle them. Particularly when they hijacked a plane to enter the country. If a law can produce such absurd and frankly dangerous rulings, then it needs to be changed, which the government is considering doing. Many commentators argue that the reason this law was brought in was to appease Mr. Blair's wife, and her lawyer friends, who have made quite a bundle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
And if the law says that you have to be granted asylum if you face danger in your own country, what choice did the High Court have but to allow the men to stay?
That's the whole point. The law is the problem. Since the Labour government signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, there have been numerous cases where the rights of criminals have been put before the safety of the country. These Afghans should have been deported, without trial or appeal, back to Afghanistan. Just because they may have been in danger in Afghanistan (isn't everyone?) does not mean that we should have an obligation to resettle them. Particularly when they hijacked a plane to enter the country. If a law can produce such absurd and frankly dangerous rulings, then it needs to be changed, which the government is considering doing. Many commentators argue that the reason this law was brought in was to appease Mr. Blair's wife, and her lawyer friends, who have made quite a bundle.
|
Yes, you COULD blame the law. Or, you could blame the trial judge for misdirecting the jury and rendering their verdict illegitimate.
Did the UK never grant asylum prior to the passing of this law? If they did grant asylum, how does the new law differ from the old one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
