You people, all talking about the final solution. It's all too reminiscent of Germany in the 1930's.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Ex-Spurs Player Gary 'the ears' Lineker is a prick - discuss
- Thread starter The Absolute GOAT
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Read it again Mick. The government hasn't been compared to the Nazi's, what he's actually said is the wording is not dissimilar to that employed in 1930's Germany.
What you've also chosen to ignore is Braverman ADMITTING that the policy has a better than 50% chance of violating Human rights. She's actually admitted it, so they've created a policy that knowingly violates Human rights.
And you want to defend that?
Not at this point in time, no.
Majority do.
The Government is always banging on about how we have zero unemployment and loads of business owners are moaning that they can't get cheap labour. My instinct is to let all those people who are already here, staying in immigration centres and hotels, get proper jobs. Let them work their way to citizenship.
My worry is that it would make the UK a more attractive destination and probably encourage more economic migrants to risk their lives crossing the Channel.
I've listed those areas that are covered by international law. There are some cases that include "economic migrants". I don't have any knowledge as to how this works, what is acceptable and what isn't. The definition of "migrant" is a wide one and what I posted attempts to cover some of the circumstances.
I've lived and worked in multiple countries as an ex-pat in my career, I had to apply to be given legal status, I wasn't escaping war, or famine, and I wasn't being persecuted. I was going there for the sole purpose as to earn a ton of money. So I had to fill out the forms and wait for a decision to be accepted or rejected. To this day I am unaware of the criterion used to accept or decline me (I was accepted in all applications).
I don't know the personal circumstances of your brother-in-law, but if he fitted the definitions as allready stipulated then he could enter the UK, he can't be arrested, he's not breaking the law because there is a law in existence that has been set up with accordance of the UK, especially for his protection.
It is NOT illegal to enter the UK if you fit the descriptions I've already posted. IT'S THE LAW as specified in 1951 Refugee Convention or The Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951.
What error
Wise assumption.
For fuck sake, if you come at me personally (and you did) I'm going to respond in kind, that's what I did, and that's what I will always do. If you can't handle this then don't make it personal, it's not a hard concept to take in surely.
Doesn't matter what the subject is Lineker is just after a pat on the back, he most likely don't give a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut about migrants or anyone else.
A lot of people dislike you with a passion on here Mick, you are in the top 10 of most ignored members if you at all doubted this claim.
I've not been one of them. Always got on with you even if I disagreed with you.
I've not been abusive towards you once but here you are dishing it out getting personal like a true cunt. Perhaps they were right and I was wrong all this time.
It what way is our Country of similar size to France and Germany. Maybe populations but not land to accommodate them.To be fair I think a lot of them actually do.
One of the great myths that the extreme right try and peddle is that every asylum seeker in history seeks to come to our country. When the reality is, compared to other countries of similar size / wealth such as France or Germany, we actually take in far fewer.
I don't know. But my guess is those that try to make our shores probably already have family, friends or some other connection that makes us a more attractive proposition
Sudan was also colonised by the British for half a century or so so their links are likely to be stronger with us. Just like fefugees fleeing war torn countries once colonised by the French, Dutch, Belgians etc have a natural tendency to migrate there
To be fair, risking your life crossing the channel in a dingy, and with a chance of being deported to Rwanda seems a better deal than having to live in France
Guido, you are wrong and you can't see it, you lectured me before about something that you had just discovered and here you are doing it again.
You are wrong in what you say because you can't see the difference between entering a country illegally and putting in an application for all of the things you quoted.
Stop being a dick and tell me
I'm on the edge of my seat here
Try not to fall off.
It's not illegal for you to come into my house.
But it is if you break in without permission
When you break the laws of a country, it affects the chances of you being accepted.
If Vladimir Putin landed on Ramsgate beach in a dinghy at 2 am are you telling me that international law mandates that we have to accept him?