For BA

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

Asylum seekers are NOT HERE ILLEGALLY.
They are perfectly legal while their case is being heard.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:28 pm

Sassy wrote:We aren't bending our laws. As a matter of fact her case is still being looked at, one of the reasons that she wasn't sent yesterday.

I really am shocked that woman think to send this girl back, without her family, the Home Office deliberately separated her from her mother and siblings, to face a situation like that is ok.

The Home Office are looking after the interests of the United Kingdom and its people.

That family are looking after the interests of themselves.

I'm on the side of my fellow countrymen.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:30 pm

Who cares, I'm on the side of women.

by eddie Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:33 pm

Sassy wrote:You move yourself and claim asylum, no-one moves you.

Lol righto. And we'd get money and somewhere to live if we just turned up?
I don't think so sassy!

by harvesmom Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:39 pm

Well reading up on it, the rest of her family will be sent back anyway, its just that her case has been looked at separately.

The latest news I read, which was 3 hours ago has said that the Home Office will not intervene in her deportation, it has been through the proper legal process and their decision was that she is not in danger of violence or persecution in her homeland.

This Country, this small island we live on sends enough foreign aid to other countries without me having to sit here feeling guilty for saying we have to draw a line in the sand. And my taxes have paid for that, and yours, and I am entitled to an opinion of where they should go I think.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:40 pm

After saying my piece, I doubt she'll actually go.

by eddie Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:43 pm

harvesmom wrote:Well reading up on it, the rest of her family will be sent back anyway, its just that her case has been looked at separately.

The latest news I read, which was 3 hours ago has said that the Home Office will not intervene in her deportation, it has been through the proper legal process and their decision was that she is not in danger of violence or persecution in her homeland.

This Country, this small island we live on sends enough foreign aid to other countries without me having to sit here feeling guilty for saying we have to draw a line in the sand. And my taxes have paid for that, and yours, and I am entitled to an opinion of where they should go I think.

Good,post harves.
Personally she seems like a nice enough girl,who's worked hard.
But if she's in no danger?
Then she's here illegally so needs to be deported.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:45 pm

Doesn't surprise me that they are going to send her back, they send hundreds of women back to Sri Lanka to be raped and tortured again. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/5837/Briefing_-_experiences_of_refugee_women_in_the_UK.pdf

And of course you are entitled to your opinion HM. However, when it comes to young women being sent to cope with that, I don't have lines in the sand. I just think about how I would feel if that was my 19 year old grandaughter. But each to his own.

And just because the Home Office says she is in no danger doesn't make it so. They said exactly that about the women from Sri Lanka.

by harvesmom Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:54 pm

Its simply a different opinion to mine Sassy that's all. IMO we cant be the sticking plaster to the rest of the world, we have enough problems of our own. Kids are going hungry, being abused, the list goes on. I am in the camp of charity begins at home, rightly or wrongly.

by Guest Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:56 pm

Probably HM, but then I don't class one place as home lol

by harvesmom Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:58 pm

That's fair enough, I class home as where I've paid (a bloody extortionate amount lol) of taxes for 31 years.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:00 am

I never stay anywhere very long. Longest was Somerset and I loved that, but I'd move anywhere, anytime.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:35 am

Sassy wrote:I never stay anywhere very long. Longest was Somerset and I loved that, but I'd move anywhere, anytime.

For many, especially in London, people can't afford to live here anymore, and certainly on forums, we seem to lose track of the real thing as well, and put idiots in charge as well!

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:27 am

Who's paying for this family to live here? They live in london don't they?

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:54 am

Sassy wrote:Doesn't surprise me that they are going to send her back, they send hundreds of women back to Sri Lanka to be raped and tortured again. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/5837/Briefing_-_experiences_of_refugee_women_in_the_UK.pdf

And of course you are entitled to your opinion HM. However, when it comes to young women being sent to cope with that, I don't have lines in the sand. I just think about how I would feel if that was my 19 year old grandaughter. But each to his own.

And just because the Home Office says she is in no danger doesn't make it so. They said exactly that about the women from Sri Lanka.

Mauritius is no Sri Lanka Sassy!!

"Mauritius, a volcanic island of lagoons and palm-fringed beaches in the Indian Ocean, has a reputation for stability and racial harmony among its mixed population of Asians, Europeans and Africans. The island has maintained one of the developing world's most successful democracies and has enjoyed years of constitutional order. It has preserved its image as one of Africa's few social and economic success stories."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13882233

by Fred Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:03 am

Sassy wrote:Doesn't surprise me that they are going to send her back, they send hundreds of women back to Sri Lanka to be raped and tortured again. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/5837/Briefing_-_experiences_of_refugee_women_in_the_UK.pdf

And of course you are entitled to your opinion HM. However, when it comes to young women being sent to cope with that, I don't have lines in the sand. I just think about how I would feel if that was my 19 year old grandaughter. But each to his own.

And just because the Home Office says she is in no danger doesn't make it so. They said exactly that about the women from Sri Lanka.

In addition to double Maths, being a renowned published author amongst many other things did you gain a BA in talking Bollocks?

If you add up the number of times you say his or that person should be allowed to stay or another should be forgiven for defrauding the welfare system the country would be full and very very poor.

Clearly your double Maths was obtained without a rudimentary understanding of Arithmetic. Just when do you get off spending other peoples money? If this girl s as god as she seems she can study here later and when she is well qualified can get work here. As for her family they are economic migrants nothing more nothing less.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:55 am

Now, after that load of waffle, evidence that I have ever said anyone should be forgiven for defrauding the welfare system.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:57 pm

First country rule is a widely accepted principle of the law.

It is absurd to believe that anyone genuinely fleeing their home country and in fear of their life will not claim asylum in the nearest safe country, but most who arrive here have done exactly that!

Travelling through many safe countries before arriving here, their chosen destination.

Asylum is thereby just an excuse to get to stay here.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:02 pm

No, you lost that argument before. That is not the law. I refer you to Irn's post on previous page, and a previous thread where it was set out in more detail and you were shown to be completely wrong.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:24 pm

Not at all Sassy.

It is an established principle of the law. As shown in the other thread.

That is why it is a consideration of the asylum adjudicators when assessing the claims.

by Fred Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:58 pm

Sassy wrote:No, you lost that argument before. That is not the law. I refer you to Irn's post on previous page, and a previous thread where it was set out in more detail and you were shown to be completely wrong.

You have been wrong for years Sassy regarding many things bu you haven't once had the good grace to admit it. On this topic you have argued that there aren't bogus asylum seekers even when they have travelled through several safe countries to get to us. As I said earlier you are wonderfuly generous with other peoples money. As long as you aren't picking upthe tab why should you give a toss.

by Guest Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:08 am

Alright said Fred wrote:
Sassy wrote:No, you lost that argument before. That is not the law. I refer you to Irn's post on previous page, and a previous thread where it was set out in more detail and you were shown to be completely wrong.

You have been wrong for years Sassy regarding many things bu you haven't once had the good grace to admit it. On this topic you have argued that there aren't bogus asylum seekers even when they have travelled through several safe countries to get to us. As I said earlier you are wonderfuly generous with other peoples money. As long as you aren't picking upthe tab why should you give a toss.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

by Sponsored content

For BA

For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA

Re: For BA