The Reform Thread

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Take the ECHR, there’s absolutely no reason why British laws couldn’t cover most of it, leaving out the pony that allows degenerates the “right to a family life”. British judges, deciding on British law. Same with race relations, nobody (including me) would vote for a party that had no protections against discrimination. But if the race relations act , the refugee conventions, the ECHR, and other stuff drafted over 60 years ago needs replacing to reflect the modern world, and the British people give their consent, then what’s the issue? 

The ECHR IS BritishLaw.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

The ECHR IS BritishLaw.

Only since ‘98. 
 

I think that’s the point Rupert was making. Repeal that act, pull out of the ECHR, and put forward a British human rights act. If that’s what the boss’ want, that’s what they should get. 
 

 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Only since ‘98. 
 

I think that’s the point Rupert was making. Repeal that act, pull out of the ECHR, and put forward a British human rights act. If that’s what the boss’ want, that’s what they should get. 
 

 

I'll ask again, what parts of the existing legislation should go? I'm with you that immigration, legal and illegal, is too high, and needs looking at, but you're not clear what you say is wrong with various well established acts. 

[badgerx16]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Only since ‘98. 
 

The UK was one of the first countries to ratify it, in 1951.

Edited Sunday at 13:29 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

I'll ask again, what parts of the existing legislation should go? I'm with you that immigration, legal and illegal, is too high, and needs looking at, but you're not clear what you say is wrong with various well established acts. 

We have all the necessary legislative tools to control immigration, have had since before Brexit. The issue, which to be fair LD has touched on, is why successive Governments of either main party have failed to acknowledge they have the power.

[egg]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

We have all the necessary legislative tools to control immigration, have had since before Brexit. The issue, which to be fair LD has touched on, is why successive Governments of either main party have failed to acknowledge they have the power.

Indeed, but I'm still not understanding why LD feels that we need to repeal well established statute. We need a plan and action on the ground to address immigration and infrastructure, that we agree on, but if someone feels that statute needs to repealing to achieve that, they need to be able to explain why. All he's so far is that it's a bit old. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

41 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The UK was one of the first countries to ratify it, in 1951.

It wasn’t written into British law until The Human Rights act 1998. Before this, public authorities in the UK were not required by domestic law to comply with the Convention. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I'll ask again, what parts of the existing legislation should go? I'm with you that immigration, legal and illegal, is too high, and needs looking at, but you're not clear what you say is wrong with various well established acts. 

I’m not a lawyer, so have no idea what specific parts of which specific acts are stopping us from controlling our borders. Anything that allows refugees to claim asylum in the UK despite travelling through several “safe countries”, anything that stops us from locking up people coming here illegally or via illegal routes, anything that gives someone the right to “a family life”, even if they’re a convicted criminal, needs to go. If you’re saying we have all those levers anyway, then great, but I seriously doubt we have.
 

There’s only 2 ways to stop illegal immigration. One, is to build up the countries they’re coming from, (absolutely impossible), or two, make your country a hostile environment for illegals. 

Legal immigration is easy and the Government should be accountable. Both parties have let us down, pretending they want it lower, but are shit scared of the OBR/ treasury , they won’t limit welfare and start driving people into low paid work,  and both are unwilling to be straight with the British people. A reckoning is coming, the people are reaching tipping point. 

Edited Sunday at 14:49 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

24 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It wasn’t written into British law until The Human Rights act 1998. Before this, public authorities in the UK were not required by domestic law to comply with the Convention. 

The UK was bound by International Law to uphold the ECHR, other than Article 4 which we did not ratify. The HRA simply meant that UK Courts could judge relevant cases, rather than their having to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, and also placed new responsibilities on Public bodies to ensure they complied with their responsibilities.

 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 Anything that allows refugees to claim asylum in the UK despite travelling through several “safe countries”, .

 

I don't think there is any international agreement or treaty that establishes that concept.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I don't think there is any international agreement or treaty that establishes that concept.

You’d better tell Soggy and some other lefties on here, because their mantra has been you don’t need to claim asylum in the first safe country you reach. Are they wrong? 

[egg]

29 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’m not a lawyer, so have no idea what specific parts of which specific acts are stopping us from controlling our borders. Anything that allows refugees to claim asylum in the UK despite travelling through several “safe countries”, anything that stops us from locking up people coming here illegally or via illegal routes, anything that gives someone the right to “a family life”, even if they’re a convicted criminal, needs to go. If you’re saying we have all those levers anyway, then great, but I seriously doubt we have.
 

There’s only 2 ways to stop illegal immigration. One, is to build up the countries they’re coming from, (absolutely impossible), or two, make your country a hostile environment for illegals. 

Legal immigration is easy and the Government should be accountable. Both parties have let us down, pretending they want it lower, but are shit scared of the OBR/ treasury , they won’t limit welfare and start driving people into low paid work,  and both are unwilling to be straight with the British people. A reckoning is coming, the people are reaching tipping point. 

Thanks for the explanation. None of that explains why you feel the need to rip up a raft of existing legislation. What you're saying is that you'd like changes to achieve an end that you support. That's a different thing to repealing and starting again which you had said that you support. 

What's wrong with a right to family life? You enjoy it, and presumably you'd want to have laws that allow it to continue. It's use is wide reaching. Example, a woman refusing to finalise a divorce years after separation, whereas the bloke wants to move on and remarry. That's a family life - why shouldn't that bloke have a law which permits his right to the family life he wants?  If you'd like to see it's use moderated or clarified, fine, but I'm struggling to see a reasonable objection to the principle. 

I agree that immigration numbers are too high and unsustainable. But we have a skills shortage and absolutely need controlled legal immigration to address that. 

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’d better tell Soggy and some other lefties on here, because their mantra has been you don’t need to claim asylum in the first safe country you reach. Are they wrong? 

You misunderstood my post, there is nothing that states a refugee has to seek asylum in the first "safe" country they enter.

[Lord Duckhunter]

20 minutes ago, egg said:

What's wrong with a right to family life? You enjoy it, and presumably you'd want to have laws that allow it to continue.

If I was in a foreign country & didn’t have the right to remain indefinitely, committing an offence that resulted in a prison sentence would over ride that right.
 

I suspect I am one of a few posting on here that has been an illegal immigrant, having over stayed my US tourist visa to work for 4 years. We were constantly on our guard against committing minor traffic offences or getting into fights.I lost count of the number of times one of us illegal expats got into some minor aggro, only for others to remind them what they were risking if the situation escalated. I actually knew a scouser that did time in the North , and was told he’d be deported once his spell was over. The day of his release he fully expected the INS to either come and get him, or be waiting outside. He walked out, got on a bus and made his way to Florida, with no sign of the INS. He was a good bloke, I liked him and was glad he got that break, but he could have had no complaints had he been deported.

To me, you abide by the laws of the country you’re in, and if you don’t, you’re gone. Regardless of what “family life” you think you’re entitled to. Obviously citizens or people with the right to residence are different, but if you’re illegal, tough. Don’t commit the crime. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You misunderstood my post, there is nothing that states a refugee has to seek asylum in the first "safe" country they enter.

Can a country refuse an asylum claim on the basis they came from a safe country? To me, if you’re trying to get from France to the UK, you’re an economic migrant trying to jump the queue. 

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Can a country refuse an asylum claim on the basis they came from a safe country? To me, if you’re trying to get from France to the UK, you’re an economic migrant trying to jump the queue. 

Only if there is such an agreement between them.

[aintforever]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Can a country refuse an asylum claim on the basis they came from a safe country? To me, if you’re trying to get from France to the UK, you’re an economic migrant trying to jump the queue. 

Loads of Ukrainian economic migrants over here then.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, aintforever said:

Loads of Ukrainian economic migrants over here then.

Do you mean the Ukrainians that have entered the country as a result of the legal route set up to help them flee war?

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Do you mean the Ukrainians that have entered the country as a result of the legal route set up to help them flee war?

Of course. They have still traveled through safe countries to get here.

[Lord Duckhunter]

50 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Loads of Ukrainian economic migrants over here then.

Yep, legal ones Dopey

 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

To me, you abide by the laws of the country you’re in, and if you don’t, you’re gone. Regardless of what “family life” you think you’re entitled to. Obviously citizens or people with the right to residence are different, but if you’re illegal, tough. Don’t commit the crime. 

But you want loads of our laws repealed, seemingly without being able to explain why. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Of course. They have still traveled through safe countries to get here.

Earning your nickname once more then.

They have legally travelled under a Government sponsored scheme and are refugees not economic migrants.

It's not rocket science.

Edited Sunday at 17:41 by Weston Super Saint

[aintforever]

30 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Earning your nickname once more then.

They have legally travelled under a Government sponsored scheme and are refugees not economic migrants.

It's not rocket science.

I agree, wether they are legal or illegal, they are refugees - even though they got here via a safe country. Going through a safe country doesn’t change them to economic migrants.

It really isn’t rocket science.

Edited Sunday at 18:07 by aintforever

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Going through a safe country doesn’t change them to economic migrants.

 Of course it does. 
 

If somebody enters the country illegally from a safe country, they are not fleeing persecution or war, they’re trying to get to a country with better prospects than the safe one they were in.
 

If a Frenchman comes to England on a small boat, is he an asylum seeker or an economic migrant? 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 Of course it does. 
 

If somebody enters the country illegally from a safe country, they are not fleeing persecution or war, they’re trying to get to a country with better prospects than the safe one they were in.
 

If a Frenchman comes to England on a small boat, is he an asylum seeker or an economic migrant? 

A Frenchman is not fleeing war, someone from Ukraine is.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

A Frenchman is not fleeing war, someone from Ukraine is.

 I thought we’d established that the Ukrainian’s are not entering the UK illegally. 

Glad we agree on something though, someone  leaving France on a small boat isn’t fleeing war. 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If a Frenchman comes to England on a small boat, is he an asylum seeker or an economic migrant? 

He is a Huguenot.

[aintforever]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

 I thought we’d established that the Ukrainian’s are not entering the UK illegally. 

Glad we agree on something though, someone  leaving France on a small boat isn’t fleeing war. 

If you are fleeing war you are a refugee, wether you enter a country legally or illegally doesn’t change that fact.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

If you are fleeing war you are a refugee, wether you enter a country legally or illegally doesn’t change that fact.

 

You’ve said yourself that people coming from France aren’t fleeing war. 

[aintforever]

6 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’ve said yourself that people coming from France aren’t fleeing war. 

No I said a Frenchman wasn’t fleeing war.

Edited Sunday at 18:29 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

So Ukrainians who arrived here through France were not fleeing war?

You win the, rather puerile and pathetic, semantic point. Grab yourself an MLG badge.

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You win the, rather puerile and pathetic, semantic point. Grab yourself an MLG badge.

It’s an important point, labelling refugees as economic migrants just because they came here via a safe country is wrong.

If Putin starts lobbing missiles at us and I travel through France to my mate’s gaff in Spain to stay safe I would not be an economic migrant, even if how I got there was illegal.

Edited Sunday at 18:34 by aintforever

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Putin starts lobbing missiles at us and I travel through France to my mate’s gaff in Spain to stay safe I would not be an economic migrant, 

No, you’d be a coward. 
 

Good job you weren’t around during the blitz, you’d be hot footing it to Ireland. 

[Weston Super Saint]

38 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I agree, wether they are legal or illegal, they are refugees - even though they got here via a safe country. Going through a safe country doesn’t change them to economic migrants.

It really isn’t rocket science.

Jesus wept.

Ukrainians are technically not 'travelling through' other safe countries, given they are flying directly to the UK (likely from Poland where they first sought sanctuary from war).

Anyone who travels from Syria via Turkey and across most of Europe, where they could claim sanctuary, to end up in Northern France in order to make an illegal crossing of the channel, is most likely not a refugee, but more likely to be an economic migrant - albeit one that has been coached to claim asylum if they get caught.

For you, this is probably rocket science, for everyone else it's a fairly simple concept.

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It’s an important point, labelling refugees as economic migrants just because they came here via a safe country is wrong.

If Putin starts lobbing missiles at us and I travel through France to my mate’s gaff in Spain to stay safe I would not be an economic migrant, even if how I got there was illegal.

If you stayed for more than 90 days without being granted a visa, you'd be an illegal immigrant. 

[aintforever]

19 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If you stayed for more than 90 days without being granted a visa, you'd be an illegal immigrant. 

And a refugee, not an economic migrant, despite being illegal and going via a safe country.

You get it yet? If you are fleeing war you are a refugee, wether you get into a country legally or illegally doesn’t change that. Wether you stopped at the first safe country or not doesn’t change that.

Edited Sunday at 19:08 by aintforever

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, aintforever said:

And a refugee, not an economic migrant, despite being illegal and going via a safe country.

You get it yet? If you are fleeing war you are a refugee, wether you get into a country legally or illegally doesn’t change that. Wether you stopped at the first safe country or not doesn’t change that.

You were the one equating Ukrainians to 'economic migrants'.

 

[aintforever]

41 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No, you’d be a coward. 

A refugee coward, not economic migrant coward.

Apology accepted.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

A refugee coward, not economic migrant coward.

Apology accepted.

A dead coward if anything. If Russia is nuking the UK, Spain won't be exempted.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

A Frenchman is not fleeing war, someone from Ukraine is.

How far do they need to flee?

[sadoldgit]

On 16/02/2025 at 18:37, Lord Duckhunter said:

No, you’d be a coward. 
 

Good job you weren’t around during the blitz, you’d be hot footing it to Ireland. 

So, in Duckieworld, all of the parents who sent their children to the country during the Blitz were cowards for not letting them stay and get bombed?

All of the Jewish people who fled Nazi Germany were cowards because they didn’t stay and get murdered?

Trying to avoid being bombed or killed is not cowardice, it is called self preservation. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and a civilian.

Edited Tuesday at 11:19 by sadoldgit

[Ted Bates Statue]

On 16/02/2025 at 18:37, Lord Duckhunter said:

No, you’d be a coward. 
 

Good job you weren’t around during the blitz, you’d be hot footing it to Ireland. 

There must be a very small group of people on here who were a) old enough and b) actually contributed towards the war effort (or any war, come to think of it)

As much as your ramblings suggest otherwise, I suspect you fit into neither category and are in no position to judge anyone's bravery

[Lord Duckhunter]

How many men fled London during the blitz, and what would you call the ones that did? Unless Aintclever is a bird or child, he’s in that category….

If Britain was being bombed by Russia, he said he’d hide in Spain. Personally, I’d like to think I’d stay & help with the aftermath, but each to his own. 

Edited Tuesday at 13:47 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

8 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How many men fled London during the blitz, and what would you call the ones that did? Unless Aintclever is a bird or child, he’s in that category….

If Britain was being bombed by Russia, he said he’d hide in Spain. Personally, I’d like to think I’d stay & help with the aftermath, but each to his own. 

It was a hypothetical scenario you bellend. Just giving you an example of a situation where a refugee fleeing war might travel through a safe country and be an illegal immigrant but wouldn’t be an economic migrant.

Edited Tuesday at 21:45 by aintforever

[Sir Ralph]

On 16/02/2025 at 19:02, aintforever said:

And a refugee, not an economic migrant, despite being illegal and going via a safe country.

You get it yet? If you are fleeing war you are a refugee, wether you get into a country legally or illegally doesn’t change that. Wether you stopped at the first safe country or not doesn’t change that.

I dont agree but lets take your argument that they are still refugees. Even if they are at the point of crossing to the UK, why are they making that trip from a safe country already - what is the purpose of that specific trip? If that trip is not to escape persecution (which it cant be), then why should they be accepted if they do so by illegal means? Why are there so many young males up to the age of 30 fleeing persecution? Are some of these countries run by authoritarian feminist dictatorships? 

I'm in agreement with taking true refugees but when making these comments do you understand the financial impact on local communities here? Some local authorities are and will be going bust because they cant afford the costs on local infrastructure and are having to pull money from other budgets (eg social care, etc), which means that those most in need in this country dont have the relevant services. The problem with this stance of open borders and no questions is that we dont have a magic money tree - there are real implications to housing a lot of people that arent real refugees. Maybe when commenting on these points think about the implication on the other side. It isnt people being xenophobic or racist always - there are real and proper reasons to address this matter,

Edited Wednesday at 10:42 by Sir Ralph

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

why are they making that trip from a safe country already - what is the purpose of that specific trip? If that trip is not to escape persecution (which it cant be), then why should they be accepted if they do so by illegal means?

They’re queue jumping economic migrants and should be treated as such.

If they’ve travelled from Syria how many safe countries do they need to pass through before they’re no longer fleeing war and what are the timescales. If someone’s been in Calais 8 months are they still urgently trying to stay safe, having a holiday before moving on, or picking which country they want to live in? 

Aint clever seems to think they should be able to visit a few safe countries , and still be “fleeing war”, perhaps someone should commission a “escape to the country” type programme. A Syrian “15” year old man and his fighting age mates, could be shown homes in Turkey, Italy, Spain, France & the UK before deciding which country to claim asylum in. 
 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I dont agree but lets take your argument that they are still refugees. Even if they are at the point of crossing to the UK, why are they making that trip from a safe country already - what is the purpose of that specific trip? If that trip is not to escape persecution (which it cant be), then why should they be accepted if they do so by illegal means? Why are there so many young males up to the age of 30 fleeing persecution? Are some of these countries run by authoritarian feminist dictatorships? 

I'm in agreement with taking true refugees but when making these comments do you understand the financial impact on local communities here? Some local authorities are and will be going bust because they cant afford the costs on local infrastructure and are having to pull money from other budgets (eg social care, etc), which means that those most in need in this country dont have the relevant services. The problem with this stance of open borders and no questions is that we dont have a magic money tree - there are real implications to housing a lot of people that arent real refugees. Maybe when commenting on these points think about the implication on the other side. It isnt people being xenophobic or racist always - there are real and proper reasons to address this matter,

I get the problems with taking in too many, I'm not disputing that or advocating open boarders. My point is that just because someone travelled travelled through a safe country doesn't automatically make them an economic migrant.  

Someone fleeing a warzone is in a very vulnerable position, there are many reasons why they might go to a specific country where they feel safe. If you have lost your house, job and most of your possessions overnight, you are going to need help. You will naturally want to go where you have contacts, family or speak the same language.    

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I get the problems with taking in too many, I'm not disputing that or advocating open boarders. My point is that just because someone travelled travelled through a safe country doesn't automatically make them an economic migrant.  

Someone fleeing a warzone is in a very vulnerable position, there are many reasons why they might go to a specific country where they feel safe. If you have lost your house, job and most of your possessions overnight, you are going to need help. You will naturally want to go where you have contacts, family or speak the same language.    

Of course they do. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to or that it is our problem. If you're absolutely desperate and fleeing war then in an emergency situation you would have to accept the assistance and help of the first safe place that will have you. You can then apply like everyone else for a safe and legal passage to your preferred country. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Of course they do. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to or that it is our problem. If you're absolutely desperate and fleeing war then in an emergency situation you would have to accept the assistance and help of the first safe place that will have you. You can then apply like everyone else for a safe and legal passage to your preferred country. 

I agree. But desperate people will do what they think is best for them. 

Edited Wednesday at 14:18 by aintforever

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I agree. But desperate people will do what they think is best for them. 

Right. You can't blame the individual for wanting to try to cheat the system and get to the country they prefer but that doesn't mean they should be treated differently or not labelled as an economic migrant if they've chosen to reject a number of safe countries prior to arriving at the one they prefer. They have a choice in that scenario and have chosen to break the law and go to the country they fancy. 

Edited Wednesday at 15:07 by hypochondriac