Cruel Sports

Originally posted by Ardross@Apr 23 2005, 12:38 PM
HT - you will know very well that I do approve of the current asylum system at all . That ought to be very clear to you from what I have posted above . I am surprised that you consider the potential psychological effects of your proposal as being of such little import.


Sorry Miss X - I know you have these burn marks on your back , you have, evidently from gynaecological examination ,been raped but the lie detector says you haven't - now get back to where you came from . The idea is abhorrent .
Click to expand...
Ardross, If there was no need for the test it wouldn't be done. I'm not suggesting that if the pope comes here on a visit he should be strapped to the machine and asked if he's the pope.

In Miss X's case, if there was doubt on the part of the authorities, wouldn't she prefer to have the lie detector explained to her and then be attached to the device as opposed to incarcerated for 6 months (during which time she might be raped).
 
Very happy for the Pope to be tested :D

If there is doubt ? What levle of doubt would there have to be before the lied etector comes in on your test Tom ?
 
Yes, that'd be rather interesting to know, HT.

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of a terrorist group?" Taps pencil impatiently on desk.

"Err... mmm... uh... yes. But not for the last two weeks."

"That's what we like in the UK - good, honest people. Right, that'll be all. You're passed. Like a cuppa?"

Ardross - I was told today that Labour has now climbed down from its lofty 'the more the merrier' position on asylum and may in fact be thinking that quotas aren't such a bad idea after all. Now, that was only in conversation - unlike you, I haven't had recourse to newspapers today to verify it. If it's true, then how are you going to persuade yourself that it isn't a vile, racist concept?

I can't see what the hoo-ha about imposing a limit on the number of asylum applicants is. Look, we've apparently 'liberated' Afghanistan to the point where it's now back to providing the West with record crops of opium to turn into heroin (its worst-ever output being under the Taliban), so exports are well up; we've 'liberated' Iraq so that it can accept back the thousands of Iraqis, mostly Shi'ites, who emigrated during Saddam's nastier moments - except that they won't come back, as they're now happily established in other countries; Eastern Europe has settled down into selling its womenfolk to British brothels; and Zimbabweans who feel oppressed are being accepted by neighbouring African countries, so who is - seriously - left to claim asylum?

As for immigration (which, thank you, I do know is an entirely separate issue), are you not aware that we're one of the few countries which permit any amount of unskilled, uneducated, unfunded people to apply? Back as far as the 1970s, Canada required potential settlers to have a minimum of education, be literate, and, far more importantly, bring $100,000 with them. No money - no papers. Australia doesn't want a load of thickos, either, though as long as you speak some form of English (even Geordies get in) and have some capital, they'll give you a shot. We appear to accept anyone just as long as they can quote some family member as a link. We'll then 'help' them to learn our language, find a job, and probably some accommodation, too. I don't know any other country quite so obliging, with - apparently - not even the obligation to be free from disease on the part of the applicant, judging by the rise in TB.

Your point about migrant workers (which include vast hordes of seasonal workers, of course) is that they do 'the jobs we don't want to do'. Well, what a namby-pamby, weak-kneed approach to taking the scroungers off the dole that is! With the rise in working from home, there are plenty more opportunities for people to do some sort of work. If the government - of whatever persuasion - in this country got a bit tougher (as it used to) about making people take and STAY in work, we wouldn't need these 'migrants' to pick up our litter, clean our ashtrays, and wash our beer glasses. They're employed because they'll take the lowest possible pay, which is one reason why 'we' don't apply for some of these crappy jobs. That is exploitation by any other name, and I'd have thought that you would be the last to condone such a practice. And, on the other hand, by deliberately keeping hourly rates low, so as to attract cheap labour, the employers are consciously excluding British workers.

I am beginning to understand some of the arguments that there is at work a sinister thread of deliberate destruction of the country's middle classes, a steady erosion of what were once national values, and the mocking of this country for those beliefs and values. You know, the ones that 'liberated' all those countries from which people still want to claim asylum? The thread runs through a variety of inept and/or corrupt agencies and organizations in what appear as more and more to be attempts to impose certain changes upon us all by subterfuge - one of these is the weasel of political correctness and the relentless application of 'rights' to this and that, regardless of whether the recipients of such rights acknowledge any moral or societal responsibility in their exercise.

(Christ, I've knackered myself. Anyway, there's more than a whiff of a pro-Marcusian stance in your political postings, and I wonder if that is the agenda to which you'd most ally yourself?)
 
Sure am Jules

Test is that they have to be satisfied that there is a well founded fear of persecution.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Apr 24 2005, 01:20 AM
I was told today that Labour has now climbed down from its lofty 'the more the merrier' position on asylum and may in fact be thinking that quotas aren't such a bad idea after all.
Click to expand...
Er, not quite - I do understand that you don't have too much time to catch up on the news and so (seriously) woudn't accuse you of taking your view of any party's policy from any particular newspaper, though some - one in particular - have certainly published some rather strange versions of both Labour and LibDem policy on these matters.

Firstly, let me recommend to everyone the Channel 4 News Factcheck site. If you are in any doubt about whether a politician is lying (odds on that is the case) or that any media report could possibly be just a little biased (heaven forfend) the check it out on:
Channel 4 Factcheck

First, let's look at the facts as to whether what Ardross has said about the better processing of asylum claims is true. The answer would apperar to be a definite "Yes".

(1) Asylum applications are down 70 per cent from a peak at October 2002.

(2) There is the lowest backlog for a decade - 10,300 compared to more than 50,000 at the end of 1996 (under a government of which Mr Howard was a member).

(3) Four out of five new asylum claims are now decided in two months rather than the 20 months it took under Mr Howard's reign at the Home Office in the 1990s.

(4) 2,300 immigration officers have been appointed and border controls tightened.

(5) Enforcement action on illegal working has been stepped up and the removal of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants has doubled since 1997.

krizon, as for Labour "changing its policy today" you really have been misinformed. On 6th February the (fairly new) Home Sectretary Charles Clarke announced the government's plans which included:

(i) New points system for migrants wanting to work or study

(ii) Financial bonds for migrants in sectors open to abuse to guarantee they return home

(iii) End to automatic right for immigrants' families to settle

(iv) Fixed penalty fines for each illegal worker used by employers

(v) Only skilled workers allowed to stay permanently, after English language tests

(vi)End to appeals for those wanting to work or study

(vii) Refugees only given temporary leave to stay while safety in home country reviewed

(viii) More detention of failed asylum seekers

(ix) Fingerprinting of all visa applicants

Now, some say that it's not enough, while others claim it to be too draconian but, in fairness, it can hardly be described as "no policy at all", can it?
 
Under viii, what are they doing with the asylum seekers pending finding them invalid and bunging them back home?

I'm quite happy to be told what I was told is wrong, but as there's so much guff flying about via political editors, Home Office 'experts', and via BBC Parliament (tv channel), it's hard to pick the lint out of the navel, Brian. I do have some views on all three categories of 'incomers', but what I'd like to see are some coherent, workable policies laid down by whichever Government is leading the country. There have been so many lies, misinformation, and apparently a huge degree of chaos in administering particularly the asylum issue that I tend to view anything coming out of the mouth of THIS Govt. as the equivalent of its stance on WMDs.
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Apr 23 2005, 12:00 AM
. Ask anyone who works in asylum and immigration law .
Click to expand...
They are the last people you should ask -they have a vested interest.I worked for a government agency that dealt with refugees for 6 months and like most social worker types they spent most of the day sending emails about protest marches.
 
Back
Top