Jump to content
Guest guest33730

I know no one will care but...........

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

It isn’t illegal to enter any country and claim asylum and there’s nothing in law that says you have to claim it in the first country you get to.  Some on here are busy quoting statistics and volume of such people in comparison to other countries when the thing that’s being discussed is did these people chose to risk their lives and that of their families or did they have no choice whatsoever.   How many other countries have taken them in doesn’t form part of that.  Regardless of what I think about the situation, I don’t blame them for wanting to try.  As I’ve said, it’s human nature to want the best.   Is that the same as they had no choice but to do it, no it’s not the same.  There are an enormous amount of migrants settled all across Europe that is testimony to that.  They may have settled for a bit less than their ideal but that’s not what’s in question.  

Seeing the film footage, you do have to question their intelligence on the amount of people trying to get in the boats,  grossly overloaded and in reality it’s a miracle that more have not lost their lives. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

In a region where working class white people blame white elites for our misery rather than immigrants and brown people.  You should visit.

It must be a bad place to say you are living in misery are you planning on leaving anytime soon? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

Absolutely, but remember that we need to divert attention from Tory sleaze, BoJo incompetence, privitisation of the NHS, 4% GDP drop, so......LOOK OVER THERE EVERYONE, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COMING OVER HERE TO MAGICALLY TAKE BOTH YOUR JOBS AND LIVE ON BENEFITS!!!

Last year 79.5 million refugees were forced to flee their homes.  The UK took in 0.026% of them.    

Always a cry of the desperate in politics when all else has failed. UK has always ben good at blaming Johnny Foreigner for it's own self induced woes. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

Seeing the film footage, you do have to question their intelligence on the amount of people trying to get in the boats,  grossly overloaded and in reality it’s a miracle that more have not lost their lives. 

I guess looking across the channel on a fine day it doesn't look to be that far. Certainly nothing in relation to those fleeing Indonesia by boat to Australia. I also guess it fortunate for those on these boats, that more haven't been mowed down by shipping navigating up and down the Channel. A quick look on AIS on Goggle will give an idea of the danger. Ships galore , one assumes these small boats would be close to impossible to spot from the bridge of a traversing ship. On a foul weather day no chance. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

It isn’t illegal to enter any country and claim asylum and there’s nothing in law that says you have to claim it in the first country you get to.  Some on here are busy quoting statistics and volume of such people in comparison to other countries when the thing that’s being discussed is did these people chose to risk their lives and that of their families or did they have no choice whatsoever.   How many other countries have taken them in doesn’t form part of that.  Regardless of what I think about the situation, I don’t blame them for wanting to try.  As I’ve said, it’s human nature to want the best.   Is that the same as they had no choice but to do it, no it’s not the same.  There are an enormous amount of migrants settled all across Europe that is testimony to that.  They may have settled for a bit less than their ideal but that’s not what’s in question.  

I agree entirely. Australia has already been through the very circumstances which are current in the UK. We have also had to put up with the holier-than-though keyboard warriors who like to think that they are some sort of spokesperson for asylum seekers. Its very easy to take that stance and if we all took the easiest stance then very few, including the asylum seekers themselves, are going to benefit. 

There are red flags appearing now at the English Channel that are very reminiscent of the red flags that were evident in the Timor Sea several years ago. Its obvious that France is complicit as merely a node in human trafficking, just like Indonesia had been. Whether its France or Indonesia, its not good enough to allow people seeking asylum arriving in a country, only to be sent on to another country via open water. Its clearly a political statement against that subsequent country, and often the exchange of money between asylum seekers and local authorities has also been evident.

Does Australia still take in asylum seekers? The answer is yes, and it takes in more asylum/refuge seekers (0.89% of world refugees) than many other countries which have a larger population including the UK .  Australia was able to establish off shore processing which gave priorities to families seeking asylum, and far less opportunities to unaccompanied young men.  Subsequently drownings more or less ceased.  

The UK would be entitled to call France out for being part of the human misery trail, rather than stepping up to be part of the solution..    

 

 

 

  

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Blue Flu said:

I guess looking across the channel on a fine day it doesn't look to be that far. Certainly nothing in relation to those fleeing Indonesia by boat to Australia. I also guess it fortunate for those on these boats, that more haven't been mowed down by shipping navigating up and down the Channel. A quick look on AIS on Goggle will give an idea of the danger. Ships galore , one assumes these small boats would be close to impossible to spot from the bridge of a traversing ship. On a foul weather day no chance. 

I sailed up and down the channel with my father when he was in MN , also many trips across to France and Holland during my rally days as you say a very busy shipping area and yes a miracle that none have been hit. 
The weather can turn in a split second. The whole thing is a total mess and the only outcome I can see is more deaths until a message / action is taken to stop it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

I sailed up and down the channel with my father when he was in MN , also many trips across to France and Holland during my rally days as you say a very busy shipping area and yes a miracle that none have been hit. 
The weather can turn in a split second. The whole thing is a total mess and the only outcome I can see is more deaths until a message / action is taken to stop it. 

I've sailed up and down  the Channel myself as a young fellow in the MN. Then again like you countless times on ferry crossings to Hock of Holland and France. They have a rather good system for large vessels in keeping to their side , but have navigated the Channel a few times in fog with fog horn sounding and near to no visibility. (obviously radar) Quite eerie to suddenly see a freighter appear out of the fog, so close, even if going in the same direction. I could not imagine being in a small boat, not much bigger than a dinghy. But in previous years as I recall crossings ceased during the extreme winter months. One assumes, if following past patterns, small boat arrivals are almost at their end or the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off to Wings Over Illawarra 2 day air show tomorrow and catch up with some ex RAAF mates.  First public display routine from the F-35 and last for the F-18.  Hoping the rain stays away..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

I've sailed up and down  the Channel myself as a young fellow in the MN. Then again like you countless times on ferry crossings to Hock of Holland and France. They have a rather good system for large vessels in keeping to their side , but have navigated the Channel a few times in fog with fog horn sounding and near to no visibility. (obviously radar) Quite eerie to suddenly see a freighter appear out of the fog, so close, even if going in the same direction. I could not imagine being in a small boat, not much bigger than a dinghy. But in previous years as I recall crossings ceased during the extreme winter months. One assumes, if following past patterns, small boat arrivals are almost at their end or the season.

Yes fog is very eerie, remember going past the Edison lighthouse on dead slow , lots of mackerel caught that day , crew were happy having a good feed. 
hopefully the weather will put them off , 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2021 at 08:12, FirstWorldProblems said:

Horrendous take. 
 

1) Asylum seekers are not illegal.

2) They are not stupid people. They are desperate people.

Well according to the UNHCR convention "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1 ..... provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence" (my emphasis)

Clearly the UNHCR thinks they are doing something illegal even when they have come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened so when they haven't even come directly from such a territory how could they not be illegal?


Chartered Accountant (England & Wales); Registered Tax Agent & Fellow of The Tax Institute (Australia) www.kbfayers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2021 at 23:13, Tulip1 said:

It isn’t illegal to enter any country and claim asylum and there’s nothing in law that says you have to claim it in the first country you get to.  Some on here are busy quoting statistics and volume of such people in comparison to other countries when the thing that’s being discussed is did these people chose to risk their lives and that of their families or did they have no choice whatsoever.   How many other countries have taken them in doesn’t form part of that.  Regardless of what I think about the situation, I don’t blame them for wanting to try.  As I’ve said, it’s human nature to want the best.   Is that the same as they had no choice but to do it, no it’s not the same.  There are an enormous amount of migrants settled all across Europe that is testimony to that.  They may have settled for a bit less than their ideal but that’s not what’s in question.  

Technically you are correct that there's "nothing in law" because the UNHCR convention is not a law. It's just a convention under which illegals can be detained indefinitely if they fail to claim asylum in the first country they get to. People are drowning because the UK is too "unconventional" to tell would be migrants they'll spend the rest of their live in detention if they survive the boat trip.


Chartered Accountant (England & Wales); Registered Tax Agent & Fellow of The Tax Institute (Australia) www.kbfayers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2021 at 22:09, Blue Flu said:

Thing being different rules apply in various countries. Some allow the refugees to work outside while others don't. I don't know of any that allow citizenship but I know countries where abuse of refugees within their midst is rife. 

It's little wonder many want some degree of permeance and belonging. A natural human requirement. Turkey cannot take all incomers obviously. They have done well with Syrian resettlement, but recently disclosed could not accept more. 

The people entering UK are to be ascertained what status exactly they are. As for countries en route, many are discouraging them by coercive ways to continue. I'm not aware that East European countries have signed the Human Rights Convention on Refugees. They were often fleeing themselves at the time. 

Germany and Sweden have contributed way above expectations and other countries have a regular intake within EU. 

All the East European countries have signed the Human Rights Convention on Refugees (and yes that does include Belarus).


Chartered Accountant (England & Wales); Registered Tax Agent & Fellow of The Tax Institute (Australia) www.kbfayers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken said:

Well according to the UNHCR convention "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1 ..... provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence" (my emphasis)

Clearly the UNHCR thinks they are doing something illegal even when they have come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened so when they haven't even come directly from such a territory how could they not be illegal?

Asylum seekers are legally allowed to come to the UK even when making an ‘illegal entry’.   Although it would be illegal for migrants who are not seeking asylum to enter by unofficial routes, asylum seekers are entitled to come to the UK via whatever means possible - but they must inform the authorities of their presence upon their arrival and they must have a good reason for seeking asylum.   If they fail to do that, then they are illegal

Asylum seekers cannot therefore come to the UK ‘illegally’.  

The UK's immigration and asylum law explicitly protects asylum seekers arriving via unofficial routes (such as crossing the channel on a small boat).

  • Haha 1

British  | Lived in Australia 2001-02 on 457   | Married Aussie wife & moved back to UK | Plan to return to Sydney 2026 when all kids have finished school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

I agree entirely. Australia has already been through the very circumstances which are current in the UK. We have also had to put up with the holier-than-though keyboard warriors who like to think that they are some sort of spokesperson for asylum seekers. Its very easy to take that stance and if we all took the easiest stance then very few, including the asylum seekers themselves, are going to benefit. 

There are red flags appearing now at the English Channel that are very reminiscent of the red flags that were evident in the Timor Sea several years ago. Its obvious that France is complicit as merely a node in human trafficking, just like Indonesia had been. Whether its France or Indonesia, its not good enough to allow people seeking asylum arriving in a country, only to be sent on to another country via open water. Its clearly a political statement against that subsequent country, and often the exchange of money between asylum seekers and local authorities has also been evident.

Does Australia still take in asylum seekers? The answer is yes, and it takes in more asylum/refuge seekers (0.89% of world refugees) than many other countries which have a larger population including the UK .  Australia was able to establish off shore processing which gave priorities to families seeking asylum, and far less opportunities to unaccompanied young men.  Subsequently drownings more or less ceased.  

The UK would be entitled to call France out for being part of the human misery trail, rather than stepping up to be part of the solution..    

 

 

 

  

  

I agree with a lot of points being made. The French are certainly not doing much in the way of preventing people leaving their shores. I expect it is in part the result of a fracture in relations with UK on other fronts. But saying that, asylum seekers are crossing other borders to enter France. I guess France see's no reason not to 'share' the burden. 

Australia is not particularly generous though in the taking in of refugees. It last year declined  numbers that had recently risen under Turnbull, and then brought in less than half of that number last financial year, (just over 5,000) Countries with borders do not generally have the ability to 'control' entry to such an extent. Hence while official intake by Australia has been 'high', only been beaten by Canada I believe in population terms, in raw numbers, countries like Sweden  and Germany take in many more. UK does not feature very high .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ken said:

All the East European countries have signed the Human Rights Convention on Refugees (and yes that does include Belarus).

Yes rather odd considering their stance on the matter. I suspect though their signature was not part of the original agreement back in 1951. But the entire agreement is past its useful date and needs revision at the very least. Countries have moved away from the original concept as numbers become overwhelming. Even Denmark is talking about sending asylum seekers elsewhere for clearance. No idea if decision made in their favour, if Denmark would be obliged to take them in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 3 footballers have collapsed this week, could it be anything to do with the covid vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lavers said:

So 3 footballers have collapsed this week, could it be anything to do with the covid vaccine?

Maybe but I know of three otherwise young healthy people who died suddenly.  The most recent was a friend of our sons.  Another was a young woman I worked with.  She parked her car at the train station, waved to a couple of friends then collapsed and died.  One of my school friends collapsed and died when out walking with her parents.  They all apparently died of "natural causes".   Probably all had an underlying heart condition that they and members of their family had no idea about as they felt healthy and well. 

I've read statistics about sudden death in young people and apparently roughly 1 in 100,000 people between 1 year old and 35 years old die suddenly.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lavers said:

So 3 footballers have collapsed this week, could it be anything to do with the covid vaccine?

As Toots said, it's rare but it's not that rare.  There was a spate of young sportsmen dying of it a few years ago in the US, I remember seeing a documentary about it.  

https://www.sads.org/What-is-SADS

To quote from that site:

  • LQTS is now known to be 3 times more common in the US than childhood leukemia.
  • 1 in 200,000 high school athletes in the US will die suddenly, most without any prior symptoms—JAMA 1996; 276
Edited by Marisawright

Scot by birth, emigrated 1985 | Aussie husband applied UK spouse visa Jan 2015, granted March 2015, moved to UK May 2015 | Returned to Oz June 2016

"The stranger who comes home does not make himself at home but makes home itself strange." -- Rainer Maria Rilke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lavers said:

So 3 footballers have collapsed this week, could it be anything to do with the covid vaccine?

I have seen advice not to exercise for two weeks after taking Pfizer, but not officially. I have heard it can place a strain on the heart.


Nearly there! Don't drop the ball now guys! Vaccines are weeks away. Stay safe!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

I agree with a lot of points being made. The French are certainly not doing much in the way of preventing people leaving their shores. 

I found this to be interesting.  I too had not realised just how much the French had been doing to prevent people leaving their shores for the U.K.  

https://unherd.com/2021/11/the-calais-crisis-cant-be-solved/


British  | Lived in Australia 2001-02 on 457   | Married Aussie wife & moved back to UK | Plan to return to Sydney 2026 when all kids have finished school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

Yes rather odd considering their stance on the matter. I suspect though their signature was not part of the original agreement back in 1951. But the entire agreement is past its useful date and needs revision at the very least. Countries have moved away from the original concept as numbers become overwhelming. Even Denmark is talking about sending asylum seekers elsewhere for clearance. No idea if decision made in their favour, if Denmark would be obliged to take them in. 

No the Eastern European Nations weren't part of the agreement originally, the dates they joined were: Albania 1992; Armenia 1993; Azerbaijan 1993; Belarus 2001; Bosnia and Herzegovina 1993; Bulgaria 1993; Croatia 1992; Czechia 1993; Estonia 1997; Georgia 1999; Hungary 1989; Latvia 1997; Lithuania 1997; Montenegro 2006; Poland 1991; Moldova 2002; Romania 1991; Russia 1993; Serbia 2001; Slovakia 1993; Slovenia 1992; FYR Macedonia 1994; Ukraine 2002. However to be fair most of these countries didn't exist until the 1990s.

Note also that although signed from 28 Jul 1951 (with additional signatures added up to 11 Sep 1952 in the case of France) the convention didn't come into force until 22nd April 1954 and that many (perhaps most) of the signatories still hadn't ratified on that date. Note also that countries that joined after 11 Sep 1952 didn't actually sign the convention but acceeded to it, including Australia on 22 Jan 1954 so despite not actually being a signatory on the original document it's one of very few countries that was in the Convention from the day it came into force.


Chartered Accountant (England & Wales); Registered Tax Agent & Fellow of The Tax Institute (Australia) www.kbfayers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

As Toots said, it's rare but it's not that rare.  There was a spate of young sportsmen dying of it a few years ago in the US, I remember seeing a documentary about it.  

https://www.sads.org/What-is-SADS

To quote from that site:

  • LQTS is now known to be 3 times more common in the US than childhood leukemia.
  • 1 in 200,000 high school athletes in the US will die suddenly, most without any prior symptoms—JAMA 1996; 276

Surprising that is such a high number for this.

Maybe it's time to start sitting on my arse haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

I agree with a lot of points being made. The French are certainly not doing much in the way of preventing people leaving their shores. I expect it is in part the result of a fracture in relations with UK on other fronts. But saying that, asylum seekers are crossing other borders to enter France. I guess France see's no reason not to 'share' the burden. 

Australia is not particularly generous though in the taking in of refugees. It last year declined  numbers that had recently risen under Turnbull, and then brought in less than half of that number last financial year, (just over 5,000) Countries with borders do not generally have the ability to 'control' entry to such an extent. Hence while official intake by Australia has been 'high', only been beaten by Canada I believe in population terms, in raw numbers, countries like Sweden  and Germany take in many more. UK does not feature very high .

I don't think it's a competition, necessarily between Canada and Australia. I am certain that both Canada and Australia know exactly who is a refugee and who is not, Equally, both Australia and Canada have had a very long standing diplomatic arrangement whereby both countries share diplomatic missions world wide for both Canadians and Australians including shared data bases and the like, and so there is consistency rather than competition.   Equally I don't see the taking-in of refugees is either generous or otherwise. Its just a matter done for the greater good on an incidental basis. The exception is that Australia is under no obligation to take refugees from Papua-New Guinea for instance, yet it does, rarely, on a case-by-case basis.

Canada is a hell of a long way from Australia and so taking in refugees tends to be more of a regional issue for Canada, and as related to the regional issues for Australia for instance.  

   

Edited by Dusty Plains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

I don't think it's a competition, necessarily between Canada and Australia. I am certain that both Canada and Australia know exactly who is a refugee and who is not, Equally, both Australia and Canada have had a very long standing diplomatic arrangement whereby both countries share diplomatic missions world wide for both Canadians and Australians including shared data bases and the like, and so there is consistency rather than competition.   Equally I don't see the taking-in of refugees is either generous or otherwise. Its just a matter done for the greater good on an incidental basis. The exception is that Australia is under no obligation to take refugees from Papua-New Guinea for instance, yet it does, rarely, on a case-by-case basis.

Canada is a hell of a long way from Australia and so taking in refugees tends to be more of a regional issue for Canada, and as related to the regional issues for Australia for instance.  

   

I am not inferring there is competition between Canada and Australia, just stating fact. As for taking in refugees , well Australia certainly does present itself at times in the 'generosity' (although not the word I would have necessarily used) in the numbers taken in as second highest intake in the world. 

Those figures are only official entrants coming through UN channels and not the actual numbers that present in other countries by turning up . Australia falls considerably down the list when following those figures. 

I suspect regional preference would dominate intakes between the countries. Although Australia has lifted its component of South American  numbers, although from a very small base. 

I recall Canada was very active in taking Indo China refugees after the war there in huge numbers. So not entirely regional.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had to go to three different beaches today in order to find parking. On the verge of returning home. An all too common occurrence on weekends and evenings. But worth it in the end. City Beach was great, if quite crowded, with a small wave and ideal water. 

But the parking issue is a concern. Even during evenings in summer, we are forced to return from Scarbourgh  due to lack of parking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×