Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
Brian, does that comment of yours mean you are happy with the illegals coming here via Calais?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
no jan,it only makes other people happy.to see the removal of these people.but remember what happened last time.
just add its about time they moved them on.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
looking at chas's comments he seems to blame the French for everything and the mayor of Calais blames the uk for the lure of our benefit system. I thought it was up to people to claim asylum rather than a country offer it.
france does not have the same appeal free money wise.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,098
The problem is that the 1951 convention ( amended by the 1967 Protocol) defines refugees as:-
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."
As of July 2013 there were 145 parties to the Convention, and 146 to the protocol. These include some of the most tyrannical states on the planet and states from which the refugees are actually fleeing!
Whilst the convention and the protocol were signed up to by almost everyone it was very much an expression in the original founder's case of post war guilt over the treatment of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and no-one thought that there would be many who would qualify for refugee status.
Indeed during the 50s/60s most cases of political asylum were based on 'plucky' escapees from Communist states who we milked for publicity.
The growth of international transport post 60s along with the increase of Civil rather than inter-state wars has meant that half the planet seems keen to jump on the nearest plane/truck and head for one of the few countries which still takes these outdated treaties seriously. i.e. The U.K.
One only has to look at the way our European Partners across the Channel (apparently one can't say 'frogs' anymore?) deal with matters.
The 'jungle' in Calais has purposefully not been regularised.
The inhabitants should either have been granted Asylum, removed whence they came, or granted temporary exceptional leave to remain.
Perhaps the French should add 'hypocrisie' to 'Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité'?
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson