This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/02/irene-clennell-deport...
It's almost enough to make me want to leave this increasingly shameful country.
It's almost enough to make me want to leave this increasingly shameful country.
22
20
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I saw this, absolutely disgusting. She was on the Jeremy Vine show on Tuesday and just seemed distraught.
On a lighter note, a child knighting Nigel Farage and asking if he hates foreigners
youtube.com/watch?v=jWo-eYWsps4&
I saw this, absolutely disgusting. She was on the Jeremy Vine show on Tuesday and just seemed distraught.
On a lighter note, a child knighting Nigel Farage and asking if he hates foreigners
youtube.com/watch?v=jWo-eYWsps4&
Post edited at 20:52
10
4
11
6
11
4
10
12
In reply to Rog Wilko:
We've done this one. It's nothing to do with xenophobia, Nigel farage, or your self dislike.
She broke the rules around her residency permissions, so was deported.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=659259&v=1#x8507230
We've done this one. It's nothing to do with xenophobia, Nigel farage, or your self dislike.
She broke the rules around her residency permissions, so was deported.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=659259&v=1#x8507230
Post edited at 22:16
27
32
In reply to Big Ger:
Why would you bring 'self dislike' into things?
'Anybody who doesn't think what I think has self dislke' ?
Seems rather random...
Why would you bring 'self dislike' into things?
'Anybody who doesn't think what I think has self dislke' ?
Seems rather random...
Post edited at 22:49
9
3
6
2
In reply to Timmd:
No worries mate, I've a thick skin!
The "self dislike" comes from the existential futility engendered by someone making statements such as; "It's almost enough to make me want to leave this increasingly shameful country."
No worries mate, I've a thick skin!
The "self dislike" comes from the existential futility engendered by someone making statements such as; "It's almost enough to make me want to leave this increasingly shameful country."
Post edited at 00:31
14
15
5
7
7
22
In reply to Big Ger:
I think you're interpreting it too literally. It's a more about a feeling rather than a practical plan of action.
I think you're interpreting it too literally. It's a more about a feeling rather than a practical plan of action.
7
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Good effort for posting. I donated a tenner. I think the more she gets the stronger the message to our government how completely out of step with public opinion they are. And if she gets back here with a surplus I suspect she'll probably use it in a positive way - maybe to help others etc. But then again legal fees can be pretty mental at times.
Good effort for posting. I donated a tenner. I think the more she gets the stronger the message to our government how completely out of step with public opinion they are. And if she gets back here with a surplus I suspect she'll probably use it in a positive way - maybe to help others etc. But then again legal fees can be pretty mental at times.
6
6
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I saw this. As forced removals seem to be running at circa 12K per year and dropping https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-october-t... Other than having a natural empathy for the tribulations of another human, what makes this particularly bad or worse than the other 11,999. It appears she broke the rules. Is their some suspicion that the Home Office acted illegally. Or do you just think no one should be deported?
I saw this. As forced removals seem to be running at circa 12K per year and dropping https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-october-t... Other than having a natural empathy for the tribulations of another human, what makes this particularly bad or worse than the other 11,999. It appears she broke the rules. Is their some suspicion that the Home Office acted illegally. Or do you just think no one should be deported?
Post edited at 19:36
18
2
In reply to Root1:
Just out of interest -- and I genuinely don't know the answer to this question -- were the rules leading to her being deported ones brought in by the current government, or were they brought in under a previous government?
> This is a racist and xenophobic government. Stop.
Just out of interest -- and I genuinely don't know the answer to this question -- were the rules leading to her being deported ones brought in by the current government, or were they brought in under a previous government?
10
1
In reply to Lenin:
I think he thinks there should (ideally) be room for what could seem like common sense mixed with human decency within the system?
The OP seems like a human response to something unfortunate?
I think he thinks there should (ideally) be room for what could seem like common sense mixed with human decency within the system?
The OP seems like a human response to something unfortunate?
5
4
In reply to Lenin:
If the other 11,999 cases stink as badly as this one, then I probably do.
Unless I am misinformed this woman has spent decades in the country married to and now caring for a native; has children here who are British citizens; and whose breaking of rules consisted in spending too long out of the country looking after her aged mother. So good to know that our government is really getting on top of the immigration "problem". I can think of plenty of UK citizens who deserve deportation more than she does.
> Or do you just think no one should be deported?
If the other 11,999 cases stink as badly as this one, then I probably do.
Unless I am misinformed this woman has spent decades in the country married to and now caring for a native; has children here who are British citizens; and whose breaking of rules consisted in spending too long out of the country looking after her aged mother. So good to know that our government is really getting on top of the immigration "problem". I can think of plenty of UK citizens who deserve deportation more than she does.
Post edited at 20:09
10
2
In reply to Timmd:
Would the common sense approach not have been to have obeyed the rules or taken British Citizenship, I would have though 27 years would be time enough. She seems to have had a very full legal process, which will have cost us a lot of money. I would guess the people who deported her would rather not. At what point does Irene Clenell have to take some responsibility?
Would the common sense approach not have been to have obeyed the rules or taken British Citizenship, I would have though 27 years would be time enough. She seems to have had a very full legal process, which will have cost us a lot of money. I would guess the people who deported her would rather not. At what point does Irene Clenell have to take some responsibility?
Post edited at 20:09
16
4
In reply to Big Ger:
I'd love to know what the word "existential" adds to this sentence (apart from a self-aggrandising pomposity).
> No worries mate, I've a thick skin! The "self dislike" comes from the existential futility engendered by someone making statements such as; "It's almost enough to make me want to leave this increasingly shameful country."
I'd love to know what the word "existential" adds to this sentence (apart from a self-aggrandising pomposity).
Post edited at 20:13
9
1
In reply to Lenin:
I notice to omitted to quote me on human decency.
I never said she didn't have to take responsibility, it just strikes me that if somebody has a partner and grand children here, and seems to have not followed the rules in part from taking the trouble to look after their aged mother, it doesn't 'feel fair' to me.
Before you ask me about the fairness of other people following the rules to the letter, and other related arguments, I'm just talking about my instinctive response to her situation.
I'm sure it's flawed from a dispassionate debating point of view.
I notice to omitted to quote me on human decency.
I never said she didn't have to take responsibility, it just strikes me that if somebody has a partner and grand children here, and seems to have not followed the rules in part from taking the trouble to look after their aged mother, it doesn't 'feel fair' to me.
Before you ask me about the fairness of other people following the rules to the letter, and other related arguments, I'm just talking about my instinctive response to her situation.
I'm sure it's flawed from a dispassionate debating point of view.
Post edited at 20:17
5
2
In reply to Timmd:
I believe on the whole we live in a pretty decent country. For what its worth I feel sorry for the Lady. Just not happy at people calling my country xenophobic or shameful.
I believe on the whole we live in a pretty decent country. For what its worth I feel sorry for the Lady. Just not happy at people calling my country xenophobic or shameful.
16
6
In reply to Lenin:
Fair enough. I never really mind if people do. I seem to have got to a point in life where I don't mind (the idea of) seeming eccentric to people, so what people think of anything else doesn't really figure much.
Who cares when we're still going to die in the end*?
*It's not a biggie in the grand scheme of things, it can seem like losing people can put things into a certain perspective...to divert off topic briefly, some things can matter less.
Fair enough. I never really mind if people do. I seem to have got to a point in life where I don't mind (the idea of) seeming eccentric to people, so what people think of anything else doesn't really figure much.
Who cares when we're still going to die in the end*?
*It's not a biggie in the grand scheme of things, it can seem like losing people can put things into a certain perspective...to divert off topic briefly, some things can matter less.
Post edited at 20:31
2
4
In reply to Timmd:
A chemical experiment speeding through space to a fiery end. And I am not drinking this month training for climbing, not sure whats worse. Lets enjoy the ride =:-0
> Who cares when we're still going to die in the end?
A chemical experiment speeding through space to a fiery end. And I am not drinking this month training for climbing, not sure whats worse. Lets enjoy the ride =:-0
3
1
In reply to stp:
Ah, so it's a whimsical pipe dream...
> I think you're interpreting it too literally. It's a more about a feeling rather than a practical plan of action.
Ah, so it's a whimsical pipe dream...
3
9
In reply to Rog Wilko:
It adds the dimension, now proven, that the idea is too existence challenging to be actually actuated.
> I'd love to know what the word "existential" adds to this sentence (apart from a self-aggrandising pomposity).
It adds the dimension, now proven, that the idea is too existence challenging to be actually actuated.
1
8
In reply to Lenin:
If only it was 27 years, unfortunately, it's not. She moved to the UK in 1988 and in 1992 moved back to Singapore, in 2007 she tried to come back.
I make that 14 not contiguous years.
> Would the common sense approach not have been to have obeyed the rules or taken British Citizenship, I would have though 27 years would be time enough.
If only it was 27 years, unfortunately, it's not. She moved to the UK in 1988 and in 1992 moved back to Singapore, in 2007 she tried to come back.
I make that 14 not contiguous years.
9
8
In reply to Lenin:
Singapore does not allow dual citizenship.
At some point you have to recognise that the system is totally broken, she had to go back to Singapore to care for her dying parents, so clearly here that wasn't a choice these were circumstances beyond her control.
Unfortunately this is just one mediatic case, but this happens almost every day, people get caught in really stupid rules because of circumstances they don't control, and on top of that the rules keep changing, so you cannot possibly even plan.
Wait for it, 3 millions eu citizens are likely to suffer the sale treatments, so well see more and more of these totally absurd cases.
> Would the common sense approach not have been to have obeyed the rules or taken British Citizenship, I would have though 27 years would be time enough. She seems to have had a very full legal process, which will have cost us a lot of money. I would guess the people who deported her would rather not. At what point does Irene Clenell have to take some responsibility?
Singapore does not allow dual citizenship.
At some point you have to recognise that the system is totally broken, she had to go back to Singapore to care for her dying parents, so clearly here that wasn't a choice these were circumstances beyond her control.
Unfortunately this is just one mediatic case, but this happens almost every day, people get caught in really stupid rules because of circumstances they don't control, and on top of that the rules keep changing, so you cannot possibly even plan.
Wait for it, 3 millions eu citizens are likely to suffer the sale treatments, so well see more and more of these totally absurd cases.
Post edited at 00:39
9
7
In reply to RomTheBear:
Oh, just f*ck off with your bullshit.
Spend your time sorting the Greek/Turk problems out on your latest favourite country.
> Wait for it, 3 millions eu citizens are likely to suffer the sale treatments, so well see more and more of these totally absurd cases.
Oh, just f*ck off with your bullshit.
Spend your time sorting the Greek/Turk problems out on your latest favourite country.
14
12
In reply to RomTheBear:
That is not the UK's fault.
Which system is "broken"? I had to return to the UK to care for my dying mother last year, that system worked.
Which "stupid rule" caught her out?
If only all international governments were as wise as you Rom.
> Singapore does not allow dual citizenship.
That is not the UK's fault.
> At some point you have to recognise that the system is totally broken, she had to go back to Singapore to care for her dying parents, so clearly here that wasn't a choice these were circumstances beyond her control.
Which system is "broken"? I had to return to the UK to care for my dying mother last year, that system worked.
> Unfortunately this is just one mediatic case, but this happens almost every day, people get caught in really stupid rules because of circumstances they don't control, and on top of that the rules keep changing, so you cannot possibly even plan.
Which "stupid rule" caught her out?
> Wait for it, 3 millions eu citizens are likely to suffer the sale treatments, so well see more and more of these totally absurd cases.
If only all international governments were as wise as you Rom.
13
8
In reply to Big Ger:
So ?
You're not a foreigner in the UK so I don't really see the comparison here.
Several.
1) The following rule : "
(a)where the holder has stayed outside the United Kingdom for a continuous period of more than two years, the leave (where the leave is unlimited) or any leave then remaining (where the leave is limited) shall thereupon lapse"
Which BTW, was introduced whilst she was away, and so couldn't possibly have planned for it.
2) The income requirement on spousal visas
3) The fact that she has not right of appeal.
No need, the UK is pretty alone here in the developed world in terms of having one of the stupidest and most regressive immigration system. The US is catching up though but still nowhere as bad as the UK.
The irony is that all we have managed to achieve with that is to fuck up the lives of perfectly decent people - including our own citizens - whilst leaving open tons of loophole for less decent people.
> That is not the UK's fault.
So ?
> Which system is "broken"? I had to return to the UK to care for my dying mother last year, that system worked
You're not a foreigner in the UK so I don't really see the comparison here.
> Which "stupid rule" caught her out?
Several.
1) The following rule : "
(a)where the holder has stayed outside the United Kingdom for a continuous period of more than two years, the leave (where the leave is unlimited) or any leave then remaining (where the leave is limited) shall thereupon lapse"
Which BTW, was introduced whilst she was away, and so couldn't possibly have planned for it.
2) The income requirement on spousal visas
3) The fact that she has not right of appeal.
> If only all international governments were as wise as you Rom.
No need, the UK is pretty alone here in the developed world in terms of having one of the stupidest and most regressive immigration system. The US is catching up though but still nowhere as bad as the UK.
The irony is that all we have managed to achieve with that is to fuck up the lives of perfectly decent people - including our own citizens - whilst leaving open tons of loophole for less decent people.
Post edited at 02:33
10
7
In reply to Lusk:
Another outstanding contribution from Lusk...
Bullshit ? Sure, how much do you want to bet that we'll see many more cases like that with EU citizens once the UK leaves the EU ? 1000 pounds ? deal ? You may as well give me the money just now because it's guaranteed.
> Oh, just f*ck off with your bullshit.
Another outstanding contribution from Lusk...
Bullshit ? Sure, how much do you want to bet that we'll see many more cases like that with EU citizens once the UK leaves the EU ? 1000 pounds ? deal ? You may as well give me the money just now because it's guaranteed.
Post edited at 02:32
9
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
What's "stupid" about it?
Not planned for, but certainly didn't automatically exclude her.
What are stupid about them?
Are you sure she has no right of appeal? As she herself says; "However, thanks to the compassion and generosity of my own community in the north-east and people across Britain, I still stand a fighting chance of coming home. I am hoping to lodge an appeal against my deportation, which I believe has been conducted secretly, inappropriately and with little due process."
Probably best you stay away from Blighty then, seeing as you despise it so much.
> 1) The following rule : " (a)where the holder has stayed outside the United Kingdom for a continuous period of more than two years, the leave (where the leave is unlimited) or any leave then remaining (where the leave is limited) shall thereupon lapse"
What's "stupid" about it?
> Which BTW, was introduced whilst she was away, and so couldn't possibly have planned for it.
Not planned for, but certainly didn't automatically exclude her.
> 2) The income requirement on spousal visas
What are stupid about them?
> 3) The fact that she has not right of appeal.
Are you sure she has no right of appeal? As she herself says; "However, thanks to the compassion and generosity of my own community in the north-east and people across Britain, I still stand a fighting chance of coming home. I am hoping to lodge an appeal against my deportation, which I believe has been conducted secretly, inappropriately and with little due process."
> No need, the UK is pretty alone here in the developed world in terms of having one of the stupidest and most regressive immigration system. The US is catching up though but still nowhere as bad as the UK.The irony is that all we have managed to achieve with that is to f*ck up the lives of perfectly decent people - including our own citizens - whilst leaving open tons of loophole for less decent people.
Probably best you stay away from Blighty then, seeing as you despise it so much.
9
9
In reply to Big Ger:
There is normallly no more right of appeal for most immigrations decisions since 2014.
The only exception is appeal on human rights grounds (guaranteed by the ECHR, for now).
Yes I am guessing she will file an appeal on human rights grounds. I suspect she won't be granted an appeal on such grounds. Even if she does it will take easily two or three years and she won't be able to set foot in the country during that time.
Are you some kind of fanatic ?
Its not because I disagree with government policy that I despise the country, on the contrary, I wouldn't give a toss about this case if I despised it.
Listen, I don't despise the country, I despise a government who is persecuting many of my friends and their family in the UK and already has driven many of them away. It's pretty natural.
> What's "stupid" about it?Not planned for, but certainly didn't automatically exclude her.What are stupid about them?Are you sure she has no right of appeal?
There is normallly no more right of appeal for most immigrations decisions since 2014.
The only exception is appeal on human rights grounds (guaranteed by the ECHR, for now).
> As she herself says; "However, thanks to the compassion and generosity of my own community in the north-east and people across Britain, I still stand a fighting chance of coming home. I am hoping to lodge an appeal against my deportation, which I believe has been conducted secretly, inappropriately and with little due process."
Yes I am guessing she will file an appeal on human rights grounds. I suspect she won't be granted an appeal on such grounds. Even if she does it will take easily two or three years and she won't be able to set foot in the country during that time.
> Probably best you stay away from Blighty then, seeing as you despise it so much.
Are you some kind of fanatic ?
Its not because I disagree with government policy that I despise the country, on the contrary, I wouldn't give a toss about this case if I despised it.
Listen, I don't despise the country, I despise a government who is persecuting many of my friends and their family in the UK and already has driven many of them away. It's pretty natural.
Post edited at 04:11
8
4
In reply to RomTheBear:
https://www.gov.uk/immigration-asylum-tribunal/overview
So she has the right of appeal?
Nope.
You never seem to have anything good to say about the place.
So, "persecuting", a bit of a strong term that.
verb (used with object), persecuted, persecuting.
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
What have they done to make the UK government "persecute" them?
If a bit obsessive.
> There is normallly no more right of appeal for most immigrations decisions since 2014.
https://www.gov.uk/immigration-asylum-tribunal/overview
> The only exception is appeal on human rights grounds (guaranteed by the ECHR, for now).Yes I am guessing she will file an appeal on human rights grounds. I suspect she won't be granted an appeal on such grounds. Even if she does it will take easily two or three years and she won't be able to set foot in the country during that time.
So she has the right of appeal?
> Are you some kind of fanatic ?
Nope.
> Its not because I disagree with government policy that I despise the country, on the contrary, I wouldn't give a toss about this case if I despised it.
You never seem to have anything good to say about the place.
> Listen, I don't despise the country, I despise a government who is persecuting many of my friends and their family in the UK and already has driven many of them away.
So, "persecuting", a bit of a strong term that.
verb (used with object), persecuted, persecuting.
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
What have they done to make the UK government "persecute" them?
> It's pretty natural.
If a bit obsessive.
Post edited at 04:31
11
7
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The current government is the only one with the power to prevent this. Its called responsibilty, something sorely lacking in the uk.
The current government is the only one with the power to prevent this. Its called responsibilty, something sorely lacking in the uk.
7
5
In reply to Root1:
I would disagree. Our system is a set of checks and balances. The party in power, but also the opposition, The House of Lords, The Judiciary, The Media and the electorate (people should accept responsibility and vote). I would say at the moment the opposition is failing in their duty, therefore a key part of our system is not working. Hopefully this will be a short term thing. But to just to blame "The Government" is possibly a little simplistic. Thats what I think anyway. Off for a walk now
> The current government is the only one with the power to prevent this. Its called responsibilty, something sorely lacking in the uk.
I would disagree. Our system is a set of checks and balances. The party in power, but also the opposition, The House of Lords, The Judiciary, The Media and the electorate (people should accept responsibility and vote). I would say at the moment the opposition is failing in their duty, therefore a key part of our system is not working. Hopefully this will be a short term thing. But to just to blame "The Government" is possibly a little simplistic. Thats what I think anyway. Off for a walk now
11
2
In reply to Lusk:
That's the kind of response people resort to when they know they've lost the argument.
> Oh, just f*ck off with your bullshit.
That's the kind of response people resort to when they know they've lost the argument.
9
5
In reply to Big Ger:
No. A metaphor.
BTW I think it's pretty lame trolling about serious issue like this.
> Ah, so it's a whimsical pipe dream...
No. A metaphor.
BTW I think it's pretty lame trolling about serious issue like this.
Post edited at 10:25
7
3
In reply to Big Ger:
I've explained, she has one onky if she can prove she has a human right claim under the ECHR.
It's simply a lie.
I chose that term carefully, the laws and the way they are applied have been designed to harrass as many foreigners as possible until a stupid excuse can be found to deport them.
When you separate parents from their children and family for no good reason, and put them in detention without trial, for trivial technicalities, this is persecution.
> https://www.gov.uk/immigration-asylum-tribunal/overview So she has the right of appeal?
I've explained, she has one onky if she can prove she has a human right claim under the ECHR.
> Nope. You never seem to have anything good to say about the place.
It's simply a lie.
> So, "persecuting", a bit of a strong term that.verb (used with object), persecuted, persecuting.1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
I chose that term carefully, the laws and the way they are applied have been designed to harrass as many foreigners as possible until a stupid excuse can be found to deport them.
When you separate parents from their children and family for no good reason, and put them in detention without trial, for trivial technicalities, this is persecution.
Post edited at 11:12
8
8
In reply to Lenin:
People are now dying on a regular basis because this government refuses to properly fund the NHS purely because of political dogma.
People are being made homeless because housing benefits are being cut.
People are starving and having to use food banks because of this governments policies.
This level of austerity is totally unnecessary, and they are running this country into the ground.
And this isn,t this governments fault? The level of callousness and incompetence combined is truly astonishing.
People are now dying on a regular basis because this government refuses to properly fund the NHS purely because of political dogma.
People are being made homeless because housing benefits are being cut.
People are starving and having to use food banks because of this governments policies.
This level of austerity is totally unnecessary, and they are running this country into the ground.
And this isn,t this governments fault? The level of callousness and incompetence combined is truly astonishing.
8
2
In reply to Root1:
This deportation is absolutely appalling, but it has nothing to do with austerity, which is a different subject altogether.
This deportation is absolutely appalling, but it has nothing to do with austerity, which is a different subject altogether.
4
In reply to Root1:
Nice rant. But it does nothing to refute my comment about checks and balances and is nothing to do with the OP. Calm down dear.
> People are now dying on a regular basis because this government refuses to properly fund the NHS purely because of political dogma. People are being made homeless because housing benefits are being cut.People are starving and having to use food banks because of this governments policies.This level of austerity is totally unnecessary, and they are running this country into the ground. And this isn,t this governments fault? The level of callousness and incompetence combined is truly astonishing.
Nice rant. But it does nothing to refute my comment about checks and balances and is nothing to do with the OP. Calm down dear.
4
4
In reply to Lenin:
I think it was Lord Hailsham who was much cleverer and well-informed than either or even both of us described the British political system as an elected dictatorship.
> Our system is a set of checks and balances.
I think it was Lord Hailsham who was much cleverer and well-informed than either or even both of us described the British political system as an elected dictatorship.
4
1
1
In reply to Root1:
There was an item on the news last week that estimated the number of rough sleepers at about 6000.
While that's a whole heap of human misery the actual numbers seemed small considering the size of the population.
Even taking into account the mental illness, addictions, etc that can plague the homeless I would have thought that solving the rough sleeper problem wouldn't be beyond the scope of the government.
There was an item on the news last week that estimated the number of rough sleepers at about 6000.
While that's a whole heap of human misery the actual numbers seemed small considering the size of the population.
Even taking into account the mental illness, addictions, etc that can plague the homeless I would have thought that solving the rough sleeper problem wouldn't be beyond the scope of the government.
In reply to baron:
... given the political will
> I would have thought that solving the rough sleeper problem wouldn't be beyond the scope of the government.
... given the political will
5
2
In reply to john arran:
Yes, that's what bothered me.
Some social problems are so huge it's hard to know where to start.
This one at least seems manageable given the relatively small amount it would cost.
Yes, that's what bothered me.
Some social problems are so huge it's hard to know where to start.
This one at least seems manageable given the relatively small amount it would cost.
2
In reply to stp:
You shouldn't troll then.
And what is particularly 'serious" about this thread? What makes it say more "serious" than the discussions on campervans?
This is only a small climbing related forum, not the house of Lords.
> BTW I think it's pretty lame trolling about serious issue like this.
You shouldn't troll then.
And what is particularly 'serious" about this thread? What makes it say more "serious" than the discussions on campervans?
This is only a small climbing related forum, not the house of Lords.
2
9
In reply to RomTheBear:
So what type of, and why has, "government persecution" been applied to your family and friends as you claim?
So what type of, and why has, "government persecution" been applied to your family and friends as you claim?
> I despise a government who is persecuting many of my friends and their family in the UK and already has driven many of them away.
4
3
In reply to Big Ger:
I'll give you one. My daughter's friend, born here to Polish parents, told us last week she's moving 'back' to Poland, a country she's never been to and barely speaks the language of, because she's been bullied at school over the last year and her parents have been the target of racial abuse at work. Granted that isn't 'government persecution' as such, but the government has done f*ck all to prevent the recent spread of this sort of thing.
It really would be nice if you'd stop spouting crap about the situation in the UK from wherever the hell it is you live, but I'm not counting on it.
jcm
> So what type of, and why has, "government persecution" been applied to your family and friends as you claim?
I'll give you one. My daughter's friend, born here to Polish parents, told us last week she's moving 'back' to Poland, a country she's never been to and barely speaks the language of, because she's been bullied at school over the last year and her parents have been the target of racial abuse at work. Granted that isn't 'government persecution' as such, but the government has done f*ck all to prevent the recent spread of this sort of thing.
It really would be nice if you'd stop spouting crap about the situation in the UK from wherever the hell it is you live, but I'm not counting on it.
jcm
19
8
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Understatement of the year.
I wouldn't count on it either. But you may carry on doing so if you wish. I've no taste for censorship, unlike you, darling fascist bully-boy.
mgc
> Granted that isn't 'government persecution' as such,
Understatement of the year.
> It really would be nice if you'd stop spouting crap about the situation in the UK from wherever the hell it is you live, but I'm not counting on it.
I wouldn't count on it either. But you may carry on doing so if you wish. I've no taste for censorship, unlike you, darling fascist bully-boy.
mgc
Post edited at 04:10
6
11
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
But not in this case.
> That's the kind of response people resort to when they know they've lost the argument.
But not in this case.
1
1
1
1
In reply to baron:
Would you pay more tax to see the homeless housed, their medical issues attended to and their employability addressed through training? All homeless or only those born here? Ahead of or behind others 'more deserving'?
Not having a go at you, just pointing out that what seems like a simple humanitarian issue would quickly become a vote loser for the Tories, it's ultimately easier to leave them on the streets or criminalise their behaviour and lock them up.
jk
> Yes, that's what bothered me.Some social problems are so huge it's hard to know where to start.This one at least seems manageable given the relatively small amount it would cost.
Would you pay more tax to see the homeless housed, their medical issues attended to and their employability addressed through training? All homeless or only those born here? Ahead of or behind others 'more deserving'?
Not having a go at you, just pointing out that what seems like a simple humanitarian issue would quickly become a vote loser for the Tories, it's ultimately easier to leave them on the streets or criminalise their behaviour and lock them up.
jk
4
2
In reply to jkarran: The policy seems to be moving them on rather than dealing with them with rough sleeper spikes
2
In reply to jkarran
I think it's a disgrace that any person has to be homeless in the UK.
There should be enough money in the system to eradicate homelessness but if there isn't then paying more tax would be one option.
I don't care where a person comes from as long as they have a legal right to be here.
As for putting the homeless before other needy people then I'd rather not but I think that the homeless situation is easier to deal with than most social problems.
I think it's a disgrace that any person has to be homeless in the UK.
There should be enough money in the system to eradicate homelessness but if there isn't then paying more tax would be one option.
I don't care where a person comes from as long as they have a legal right to be here.
As for putting the homeless before other needy people then I'd rather not but I think that the homeless situation is easier to deal with than most social problems.
5
In reply to baron:
Homelessness is just a symptom of the other problems in the UK, be it mental healthcare, education, affordable housing, work place training etc.. If you tackle one or two, then several other 'problems' are likely to improve too.
> I'd rather not but I think that the homeless situation is easier to deal with than most social problems.
Homelessness is just a symptom of the other problems in the UK, be it mental healthcare, education, affordable housing, work place training etc.. If you tackle one or two, then several other 'problems' are likely to improve too.
6
In reply to summo:
Wow summo, that's the second post of yours I've agreed with today. Are you feeling alright?
Wow summo, that's the second post of yours I've agreed with today. Are you feeling alright?
2
1
In reply to summo:
Indeed.
While sorting out education, mental health, etc is a mammoth job, providing somewhere self to sleep each night shouldn't be.
Indeed.
While sorting out education, mental health, etc is a mammoth job, providing somewhere self to sleep each night shouldn't be.
In reply to john arran:
Yeah, thanks for asking. There is a first for everything!
> Wow summo, that's the second post of yours I've agreed with today. Are you feeling alright?
Yeah, thanks for asking. There is a first for everything!
In reply to baron:
No, but 99.9% of those homeless didn't end up there through choice. Many had jobs, houses, family and $hit went wrong. Pulling them off the streets into a hostel will solve their problem, but unless you fix 'the' problem, they'll quickly be replaced by more.
> Indeed.While sorting out education, mental health, etc is a mammoth job, providing somewhere self to sleep each night shouldn't be.
No, but 99.9% of those homeless didn't end up there through choice. Many had jobs, houses, family and $hit went wrong. Pulling them off the streets into a hostel will solve their problem, but unless you fix 'the' problem, they'll quickly be replaced by more.
4
In reply to Big Ger:
I coudl give you at least ten exmaples by i'll give you the closest to me :
My Cypriot wife applied for PR in order to get citizenship over a year ago. She lived in the UK for almost a decade, worked full time relatively high paying job, has never been unemployed, never claimed one penny from the state.
We expected plain sailing.
Ho boy how wrong we were. She got a response that her application was rejected on grounds of "deception", with a invitation to leave the country. No details given whatsoever.
After several letters they finally told her that it was refused because her tax records at HMRC do not match the ORIGINAL p60s she had provided.
We checked with HMRC, we made a subject access request to force them to give us their records, and it turns out a whole year is missing from her records, despite the fact that she has worked the full year and paid all her taxes.
The Home office won't give her PR until HMRC records are corrected, and HMRC does not want to correct their record unless they get copies of ORIGINAL payslips, which she doesn't have because her previous employer was giving them in electronic form. She can't get them stamped either as they have stopped trading.
In the end we just had enough, we just gave up and decided to leave the country and forget about this nonsense. Although we always felt welcome in our community, it's pretty clear that we are not wanted by the government. Not sure why, we both paid the top rate of tax, and have jobs in sector with skill gaps, and never claimed anything.
By that's just one example amongst many others, one of my colleague has a Taiwanese wife who has been refused ILR over a technicality. Pretty much same story, she works a high paying job, has never been unemployed, valued member of the community, ticks all the boxes. Unfortunately she couldn't find ONE payslip of the past five years and her ILR was rejected as a result. She got a letter telling her to leave the UK within 14 days. She has a British husband and a British son.
They lodged an appeal on human rights grounds, but during that time if she gets out of the UK to see her sick mother she won't be allowed back in. It will take at least two years for the appeal to resolve. In the meantime they just live in anxiety.
The behaviour of the home office cannot be described as anything else other than persecution, in my opinion. They are being deliberately hostile and they do whatever they can to harass people over grounds of dubious legality until they eventually despair and give up. Whenever they are taken to court they almost always lose, what did the government do ? They made it more difficult to appeal so that they can't be taken to court...
> So what type of, and why has, "government persecution" been applied to your family and friends as you claim?
I coudl give you at least ten exmaples by i'll give you the closest to me :
My Cypriot wife applied for PR in order to get citizenship over a year ago. She lived in the UK for almost a decade, worked full time relatively high paying job, has never been unemployed, never claimed one penny from the state.
We expected plain sailing.
Ho boy how wrong we were. She got a response that her application was rejected on grounds of "deception", with a invitation to leave the country. No details given whatsoever.
After several letters they finally told her that it was refused because her tax records at HMRC do not match the ORIGINAL p60s she had provided.
We checked with HMRC, we made a subject access request to force them to give us their records, and it turns out a whole year is missing from her records, despite the fact that she has worked the full year and paid all her taxes.
The Home office won't give her PR until HMRC records are corrected, and HMRC does not want to correct their record unless they get copies of ORIGINAL payslips, which she doesn't have because her previous employer was giving them in electronic form. She can't get them stamped either as they have stopped trading.
In the end we just had enough, we just gave up and decided to leave the country and forget about this nonsense. Although we always felt welcome in our community, it's pretty clear that we are not wanted by the government. Not sure why, we both paid the top rate of tax, and have jobs in sector with skill gaps, and never claimed anything.
By that's just one example amongst many others, one of my colleague has a Taiwanese wife who has been refused ILR over a technicality. Pretty much same story, she works a high paying job, has never been unemployed, valued member of the community, ticks all the boxes. Unfortunately she couldn't find ONE payslip of the past five years and her ILR was rejected as a result. She got a letter telling her to leave the UK within 14 days. She has a British husband and a British son.
They lodged an appeal on human rights grounds, but during that time if she gets out of the UK to see her sick mother she won't be allowed back in. It will take at least two years for the appeal to resolve. In the meantime they just live in anxiety.
The behaviour of the home office cannot be described as anything else other than persecution, in my opinion. They are being deliberately hostile and they do whatever they can to harass people over grounds of dubious legality until they eventually despair and give up. Whenever they are taken to court they almost always lose, what did the government do ? They made it more difficult to appeal so that they can't be taken to court...
Post edited at 21:53
15
2
In reply to summo:
Agreed.
But 'fixing the problem' will probably be a very long, very expensive process.
Whereas providing somewhere to live is a much quicker, if a more short term, solution.
Agreed.
But 'fixing the problem' will probably be a very long, very expensive process.
Whereas providing somewhere to live is a much quicker, if a more short term, solution.
In reply to Big Ger:
>"darling fascist bully-boy.mgc"
You're always claiming you never insult people, show me proof you cry... There you go again..
>"darling fascist bully-boy.mgc"
You're always claiming you never insult people, show me proof you cry... There you go again..
5
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
That's not persecution I'm afraid.
Not nice, and she has my sympathy, and I hope you get it sorted.
But to claim that that is persecution is hyperbole of the highest order.
That's not persecution I'm afraid.
Not nice, and she has my sympathy, and I hope you get it sorted.
But to claim that that is persecution is hyperbole of the highest order.
13
In reply to aln:
Nope, I've always claimed that I do not insult anyone unless they insult me first, lets' got to the tape to see what I was replying to, and what do we find?
"It really would be nice if you'd stop spouting crap about the situation in the UK from wherever the hell it is you live, but I'm not counting on it."
BTW; it's not "insulting" aln, it's a quote from "the young ones",
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boomshanka
but don't let that stop you from whining...
Nice to see you're talking to me again.
> >"darling fascist bully-boy. mgc" You're always claiming you never insult people, show me proof you cry... There you go again..
Nope, I've always claimed that I do not insult anyone unless they insult me first, lets' got to the tape to see what I was replying to, and what do we find?
"It really would be nice if you'd stop spouting crap about the situation in the UK from wherever the hell it is you live, but I'm not counting on it."
BTW; it's not "insulting" aln, it's a quote from "the young ones",
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boomshanka
but don't let that stop you from whining...
Nice to see you're talking to me again.
3
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Is that an insult?
Nice to see you're talking to me again.
You started it
> don't let that stop you from whining...
Is that an insult?
Nice to see you're talking to me again.
You started it
1
3
2
4
2
3
In reply to Big Ger:
There is no "getting it sorted" she'll never be given citizenship now.
No, it's a totally fair description.
"persecution" : "hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression."
Their behaviour cannot be described as anything other than hostility and ill-treatment towards foreigners.
> That's not persecution I'm afraid.Not nice, and she has my sympathy, and I hope you get it sorted.
There is no "getting it sorted" she'll never be given citizenship now.
> But to claim that that is persecution is hyperbole of the highest order.
No, it's a totally fair description.
"persecution" : "hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression."
Their behaviour cannot be described as anything other than hostility and ill-treatment towards foreigners.
8
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
Mate, I'd rather drop this one now, having read your missus's* predicament.
You know we're not going to agree, and arguing the toss over a subjective terminology will get us nowhere. So why keep opening that wound unnecessarily?
I wish you both the best in this troubled situation.
* You have surprised me though, I cannot be alone in thinking you are gay due to your name, surely?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)
Mate, I'd rather drop this one now, having read your missus's* predicament.
You know we're not going to agree, and arguing the toss over a subjective terminology will get us nowhere. So why keep opening that wound unnecessarily?
I wish you both the best in this troubled situation.
* You have surprised me though, I cannot be alone in thinking you are gay due to your name, surely?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)
2
10
In reply to Big Ger:
Listen, it's not the end of the world for us, We would have been very happy living in Scotland for the rest of our lives but we're not desperate either, I loved the people, the landscapes, the work (and the whisky !) , but we had some cash aside, both have European passports, have no kids so we're quite mobile anyway.
But not everybody is that lucky, for many the behaviour of the home office and I'll advised immigration rules means broken families, and children being separated from their parents.
> Mate, I'd rather drop this one now, having read your missus's* predicament. You know we're not going to agree, and arguing the toss over a subjective terminology will get us nowhere. So why keep opening that wound unnecessarily?I wish you both the best in this troubled situation.
Listen, it's not the end of the world for us, We would have been very happy living in Scotland for the rest of our lives but we're not desperate either, I loved the people, the landscapes, the work (and the whisky !) , but we had some cash aside, both have European passports, have no kids so we're quite mobile anyway.
But not everybody is that lucky, for many the behaviour of the home office and I'll advised immigration rules means broken families, and children being separated from their parents.
Post edited at 07:49
8
2
1
4
In reply to RomTheBear:
Whilst I express sympathy for the position you find yourself in, its not hard to do that.
I will put another view on the table. I have a very good friend ( long known climbing mate) who got married to a Thai. He knew from day one it would be difficult to get UK citizenship for her, and he just went about it methodically and was succesful.This was 15 years ago.
The hard reality is that it has always been difficult ( there have always been barriers)and nobody should believe that it is easy and that at a drop of a hat you get citizenship.
The world as a whole does not make citizenship of any country easy.
At least you have had the good fortune to be able to find a different solution.
Whilst I express sympathy for the position you find yourself in, its not hard to do that.
I will put another view on the table. I have a very good friend ( long known climbing mate) who got married to a Thai. He knew from day one it would be difficult to get UK citizenship for her, and he just went about it methodically and was succesful.This was 15 years ago.
The hard reality is that it has always been difficult ( there have always been barriers)and nobody should believe that it is easy and that at a drop of a hat you get citizenship.
The world as a whole does not make citizenship of any country easy.
At least you have had the good fortune to be able to find a different solution.
3
3
In reply to neilh:
Sorry mate, I know very well it is very difficult because I've been through it myself, and that's exactly why she had done everything methodically and by the book, all rubber stamped by expensive lawyers. Her application was 100% legal and correct there is zero doubt about this.
The problem is that the home office picks on administrative mistakes of their own making completely out the applicant's control, in order to reject as many application on grounds of dubious legality.
And it's not always been that difficult at all, If you thought it was hard 15 years ago it's now ten times worse. This ridiculous process for proving permanent residency (which btw is being investigated by the European Parliament because it is disproportionate and abusive) exists only since 2015.
The process for non-EU citizens is actually a lot easier so the comparison doesn't even stand scrutiny.
> Whilst I express sympathy for the position you find yourself in, its not hard to do that. I will put another view on the table. I have a very good friend ( long known climbing mate) who got married to a Thai. He knew from day one it would be difficult to get UK citizenship for her, and he just went about it methodically and was succesful.This was 15 years ago.The hard reality is that it has always been difficult ( there have always been barriers)and nobody should believe that it is easy and that at a drop of a hat you get citizenship.The world as a whole does not make citizenship of any country easy.At least you have had the good fortune to be able to find a different solution.
Sorry mate, I know very well it is very difficult because I've been through it myself, and that's exactly why she had done everything methodically and by the book, all rubber stamped by expensive lawyers. Her application was 100% legal and correct there is zero doubt about this.
The problem is that the home office picks on administrative mistakes of their own making completely out the applicant's control, in order to reject as many application on grounds of dubious legality.
And it's not always been that difficult at all, If you thought it was hard 15 years ago it's now ten times worse. This ridiculous process for proving permanent residency (which btw is being investigated by the European Parliament because it is disproportionate and abusive) exists only since 2015.
The process for non-EU citizens is actually a lot easier so the comparison doesn't even stand scrutiny.
Post edited at 10:35
3
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
I am not sure that for non-EU citizens it is any easier ( from some of the cases highlighted in the Guardian lately)!
I am not sure that for non-EU citizens it is any easier ( from some of the cases highlighted in the Guardian lately)!
1
In reply to neilh:
The ILR process, indeed already difficult (required prior you go for citizenship) is a walk in the park in comparison. But there as well the Home office will reject applications on dubious grounds at the most minute discrepancy in their records.
It's basically completely illegal and they pretty much always lose in the courts, and often end up paying huges damages, whenever they applicant is given a right of appeal. But they don't really care, at this point they just try to make people give up, their overarching goal is to get as many people out to meet the toxic net migration target. If they can't get them out legally then they'll just harass you until you give up. And this is not comparable to how it was 15 years ago. This attitude developed over the past 5 years.
Talk to an immigration lawyer or a judge if you don't believe me.
I have no problem with the criterion for citizenship being tough, in fact it could be tougher than it is now, no problem at all with that, but the problem here is that the Home Office doesn't treat applicant fairly and legally, and it is given more and more power to make arbitrary decision that can't be challenged in the courts.
The stupidity of this is that it ends up driving away people with talents and skills who have plenty of choices for relocation, whilst those who are desperate to stay end up overstaying.
> I am not sure that for non-EU citizens it is any easier ( from some of the cases highlighted in the Guardian lately)!
The ILR process, indeed already difficult (required prior you go for citizenship) is a walk in the park in comparison. But there as well the Home office will reject applications on dubious grounds at the most minute discrepancy in their records.
It's basically completely illegal and they pretty much always lose in the courts, and often end up paying huges damages, whenever they applicant is given a right of appeal. But they don't really care, at this point they just try to make people give up, their overarching goal is to get as many people out to meet the toxic net migration target. If they can't get them out legally then they'll just harass you until you give up. And this is not comparable to how it was 15 years ago. This attitude developed over the past 5 years.
Talk to an immigration lawyer or a judge if you don't believe me.
I have no problem with the criterion for citizenship being tough, in fact it could be tougher than it is now, no problem at all with that, but the problem here is that the Home Office doesn't treat applicant fairly and legally, and it is given more and more power to make arbitrary decision that can't be challenged in the courts.
The stupidity of this is that it ends up driving away people with talents and skills who have plenty of choices for relocation, whilst those who are desperate to stay end up overstaying.
Post edited at 11:06
1
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Are suggesting non eu applicants are being unfairly rejected to keep figures down because the EUs open door policy is making UK figures high in the first place.? Perhaps an EU quality over quantity approach would be fairer for EU and non EU?
From discussion on other threads relating to skogs partners UK application. The UK system and the Swedish application system are near identical. What differs are the UK various state agencies being stand alone with very few joint record keeping and no national ID system to tie it all together. A little big brother tracking you would show when where etc.. you were and is very easy to prove previous residency. Also publically open taxation records would resolve your UK hmrc problem too. But the UK didn't want any of that.
I agree the capable will move on.
Are suggesting non eu applicants are being unfairly rejected to keep figures down because the EUs open door policy is making UK figures high in the first place.? Perhaps an EU quality over quantity approach would be fairer for EU and non EU?
From discussion on other threads relating to skogs partners UK application. The UK system and the Swedish application system are near identical. What differs are the UK various state agencies being stand alone with very few joint record keeping and no national ID system to tie it all together. A little big brother tracking you would show when where etc.. you were and is very easy to prove previous residency. Also publically open taxation records would resolve your UK hmrc problem too. But the UK didn't want any of that.
I agree the capable will move on.
Post edited at 11:09
1
In reply to summo:
They are being unfairly rejected because the government has decided to go for that approach, nothing to do with the EU or even overall numbers. As the numbers show this has not worked at all.
Agree about the lack of centralised records. I am quite convinced that if the UK had a proper ID system a lot of the hysteria around immigration, EU or non EU, would not exists.
It's completely hypocritical as well because with the surveillance and data gathering power the home office and other agencies have in the UK, the big brother argument against it doesn't stand one second.
> Are suggesting non eu applicants are being unfairly rejected to keep figures down because the EUs open door policy is making UK figures high in the first place.?
They are being unfairly rejected because the government has decided to go for that approach, nothing to do with the EU or even overall numbers. As the numbers show this has not worked at all.
Agree about the lack of centralised records. I am quite convinced that if the UK had a proper ID system a lot of the hysteria around immigration, EU or non EU, would not exists.
It's completely hypocritical as well because with the surveillance and data gathering power the home office and other agencies have in the UK, the big brother argument against it doesn't stand one second.
Post edited at 11:29
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
I get what you are saying.
There are huge contradictions in govt policy on all this- you had Amber Rudd basically saying last week that we are still going to need about 1/4 million migrants a year for the economy. And yet the immigration " target" is 100k.
I get what you are saying.
There are huge contradictions in govt policy on all this- you had Amber Rudd basically saying last week that we are still going to need about 1/4 million migrants a year for the economy. And yet the immigration " target" is 100k.
1
In reply to neilh:
The problem with the immigration target it's that it's a NET immigration target. People coming in - people coming out. It's not enough to stop new people from coming in to meet the stupid target, they also need to kick people out.
> I get what you are saying.There are huge contradictions in govt policy on all this- you had Amber Rudd basically saying last week that we are still going to need about 1/4 million migrants a year for the economy. And yet the immigration " target" is 100k.
The problem with the immigration target it's that it's a NET immigration target. People coming in - people coming out. It's not enough to stop new people from coming in to meet the stupid target, they also need to kick people out.
Post edited at 11:34
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Why?
Are you uncomfortable being brought face to face with the human effects of banal, creeping xenophobia?
Instead you spout trite platitudes and a spineless 'ah let's leave it now'.
Luke
> Mate, I'd rather drop this one now, having read your missus's* predicament.
Why?
Are you uncomfortable being brought face to face with the human effects of banal, creeping xenophobia?
Instead you spout trite platitudes and a spineless 'ah let's leave it now'.
Luke
10
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
Or just a symptom of poor staff training and management, union driven so less than adequate workers aren't sacked, combined with work place pressures etc.. and nothing to do with government quotas or migration policy?
> They are being unfairly rejected because the government has decided to go for that approach, nothing to do with the EU or even overall numbers.
Or just a symptom of poor staff training and management, union driven so less than adequate workers aren't sacked, combined with work place pressures etc.. and nothing to do with government quotas or migration policy?
1
2
In reply to summo:
No, this has nothing to do with poor staff training or junior staff making a mistake in most cases (although it does happen regularly).
On the contrary, they go the extra mile to find any reasons they can to reject applications for PR and ILR, even when they know very well the rejection wouldn't stand one minute in a court of law.
That's the main problem with the home office, they basically have police powers now and they can act outside the law with near impunity.
One in a while, they get taken to court and they have to pay huge damages, when the cases go to court the judges have a good laugh. But they don't really care as this is offset by the number of people who have no right of appeal or just give up in desperation.
> Or just a symptom of poor staff training and management, union driven so less than adequate workers aren't sacked, combined with work place pressures etc.. and nothing to do with government quotas or migration policy?
No, this has nothing to do with poor staff training or junior staff making a mistake in most cases (although it does happen regularly).
On the contrary, they go the extra mile to find any reasons they can to reject applications for PR and ILR, even when they know very well the rejection wouldn't stand one minute in a court of law.
That's the main problem with the home office, they basically have police powers now and they can act outside the law with near impunity.
One in a while, they get taken to court and they have to pay huge damages, when the cases go to court the judges have a good laugh. But they don't really care as this is offset by the number of people who have no right of appeal or just give up in desperation.
Post edited at 16:14
2
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
piece in the economist this week about how Germany deals with the deportation issue. My vaguest recollection as I only quikly skimmed the article was that there were something like 150,000 in Germany waiting to be deported. Mindboggling.
piece in the economist this week about how Germany deals with the deportation issue. My vaguest recollection as I only quikly skimmed the article was that there were something like 150,000 in Germany waiting to be deported. Mindboggling.
In reply to neilh:
Not surprising given that they had almost a million asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers will be deported, it's quite a low rate in fact, relative to the UK. Given that they have about only three times as many deportation as the UK, but about 15 times more asylum applications.
> piece in the economist this week about how Germany deals with the deportation issue. My vaguest recollection as I only quikly skimmed the article was that there were something like 150,000 in Germany waiting to be deported. Mindboggling.
Not surprising given that they had almost a million asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers will be deported, it's quite a low rate in fact, relative to the UK. Given that they have about only three times as many deportation as the UK, but about 15 times more asylum applications.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
No because I have consideration for the person involved. I made a genuine offer. Me and Rom do not agree on much, we often reach a point of stalemate.
Mind you I have much more respect for him than someone who just jumps into a thread to post personal attacks.
> Why?Are you uncomfortable being brought face to face with the human effects of banal, creeping xenophobia?Instead you spout trite platitudes and a spineless 'ah let's leave it now'.Luke
No because I have consideration for the person involved. I made a genuine offer. Me and Rom do not agree on much, we often reach a point of stalemate.
Mind you I have much more respect for him than someone who just jumps into a thread to post personal attacks.
4
6
In reply to Big Ger:
Ah.
I find it sad and hypocritical that your consideration does not extend to the numerous other families being broken up because they 'have no right of appeal or just give up in desperation'.
It's not a personal attack, for goodness' sake. It's an 'attack', or more accurately a blunt comment on your somewhat reprehensible views.
Cheers.
> No because I have consideration for the person involved. I made a genuine offer. Me and Rom do not agree on much, we often reach a point of stalemate.
Ah.
I find it sad and hypocritical that your consideration does not extend to the numerous other families being broken up because they 'have no right of appeal or just give up in desperation'.
> post personal attacks.
It's not a personal attack, for goodness' sake. It's an 'attack', or more accurately a blunt comment on your somewhat reprehensible views.
Cheers.
Post edited at 19:41
9
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Who said it didn't?
But again, in the context of polite debate, it's unnecessary and unproductive, it adds nothing but rancorous ire to the proceeding. (I'm not say I haven't been guilty of this myself.)
> Ah. I find it sad and hypocritical that your consideration does not extend to the numerous other families being broken up because they 'have no right of appeal or just give up in desperation'.
Who said it didn't?
> It's not a personal attack, for goodness' sake. It's an 'attack', or more accurately a blunt comment on your somewhat reprehensible views. Cheers.
But again, in the context of polite debate, it's unnecessary and unproductive, it adds nothing but rancorous ire to the proceeding. (I'm not say I haven't been guilty of this myself.)
2
4
In reply to Big Ger:
Cheers for the comment in parentheses. It shows you're aware of a degree of hypocrisy and irony in your reply.
If you don't want 'rancorous ire', (and especially if you're going to leave the debate just when you've been confronted with a real, human story of unnecessary pain caused by a societal shift which seems to fill you with glee) you could simply consider keeping your insensitive and unpleasant views to yourself.
Cheers,
Luke
> But again, in the context of polite debate, it's unnecessary and unproductive, it adds nothing but rancorous ire to the proceeding. (I'm not say I haven't been guilty of this myself.)
Cheers for the comment in parentheses. It shows you're aware of a degree of hypocrisy and irony in your reply.
If you don't want 'rancorous ire', (and especially if you're going to leave the debate just when you've been confronted with a real, human story of unnecessary pain caused by a societal shift which seems to fill you with glee) you could simply consider keeping your insensitive and unpleasant views to yourself.
Cheers,
Luke
5
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Yed, and?
And so could you Luke. Irony much?
My contributions were on topic and added to the debate.
You claim my views are "insensitive and unpleasant" when your contributions have been nothing more playground level jibes, irony much?
Your attempt to stifle and censor views you do not like, is nothing less than fascist. Irony much?
You could also refrain from jumping into debates with nothing to add but personal attack, the hypocrisy in your reply is astonishing. Irony much?
> Cheers for the comment in parentheses. It shows you're aware of a degree of hypocrisy and irony in your reply.
Yed, and?
> If you don't want 'rancorous ire', (and especially if you're going to leave the debate just when you've been confronted with a real, human story of unnecessary pain caused by a societal shift which seems to fill you with glee) you could simply consider keeping your insensitive and unpleasant views to yourself.Cheers,Luke
And so could you Luke. Irony much?
My contributions were on topic and added to the debate.
You claim my views are "insensitive and unpleasant" when your contributions have been nothing more playground level jibes, irony much?
Your attempt to stifle and censor views you do not like, is nothing less than fascist. Irony much?
You could also refrain from jumping into debates with nothing to add but personal attack, the hypocrisy in your reply is astonishing. Irony much?
4
4
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Chooee wisely then;
According to the 2017 Best Countries Report, the top ten overall best countries to live in are:
1. Switzerland
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Sweden
7. United States
8. Australia
9. France
10. Norway
> It's almost enough to make me want to leave this increasingly shameful country.
Chooee wisely then;
According to the 2017 Best Countries Report, the top ten overall best countries to live in are:
1. Switzerland
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Sweden
7. United States
8. Australia
9. France
10. Norway
4
3
In reply to Big Ger:
No. They really didn’t. You made a series of insensitive, jarring comments on a subject. You were correctly called out for trolling, and responded in the same way you have towards me: by making a reverse accusation. This behaviour is a common logical fallacy, known as et tu quoque. It represents an attempt to take pressure off the accused, by flinging the accusation directly back.
Some thoughtful, intelligent people have tried – pretty gently I’d add – to show you how harsh, uncaring and downright crass your contributions can be. It took someone providing a personal example of genuine suffering to shock you away from your usual taunting responses. Suddenly the reality of the discussion became apparent: you had previously said
Once confronted with such a ‘serious’ personal example, you chose not to back up your convictions with logical argument, instead attempting to call an end to the debate at that point. The platitudes you uttered afterward served their purpose – platitudes are used to quell reasoning – helping to reduce the high levels of cognitive dissonance you were experiencing.
Your refusal to take on board my points and those of others critical of your views – simply to acknowledge and move forward in a positive manner – is sad and a bit troubling.
> My contributions… added to the debate.
No. They really didn’t. You made a series of insensitive, jarring comments on a subject. You were correctly called out for trolling, and responded in the same way you have towards me: by making a reverse accusation. This behaviour is a common logical fallacy, known as et tu quoque. It represents an attempt to take pressure off the accused, by flinging the accusation directly back.
Some thoughtful, intelligent people have tried – pretty gently I’d add – to show you how harsh, uncaring and downright crass your contributions can be. It took someone providing a personal example of genuine suffering to shock you away from your usual taunting responses. Suddenly the reality of the discussion became apparent: you had previously said
> And what is particularly 'serious" about this thread? What makes it say more "serious" than the discussions on campervans?
Once confronted with such a ‘serious’ personal example, you chose not to back up your convictions with logical argument, instead attempting to call an end to the debate at that point. The platitudes you uttered afterward served their purpose – platitudes are used to quell reasoning – helping to reduce the high levels of cognitive dissonance you were experiencing.
Your refusal to take on board my points and those of others critical of your views – simply to acknowledge and move forward in a positive manner – is sad and a bit troubling.
8
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
It's not a logical fallacy, it's called "debate". One person makes a point, another person disputes it. You should try it sometime, instead of whining on and on about how you don't like what I say.
It represents showing the faults with the other persons postings. (Not that you have made any on topic to debate.)
No they haven't, please quote where they have if you believe so. I LOVE the way that anyone who agrees with you is somehow "thoughtful, intelligent". Grow up.
Nope, it took Rom posting some personal issues to take the debate out of the abstract, and into the personal. When debating the abstract we do not need to take into account "feelings". As Rom brought personal issue in to the debate, that changed the context.
I did no such thing. As this was an issue which affected Rom's missus, I decided that arguing whether his case was specifically "persecution" or not was not really going to achieve much, and offered, kindly, to drop it.
The genuine offer I made, was not platitudinous, it was a gentlemanly thing to do. If Rom wishes to continue the debate on whether the UK Govt is "persecuting his wife", I'm happy to go ahead.
Your inability to debate, ruining of threads by over-emotionalising and personalisng, not to mention your off topic and whinging personal attacks, shows you up as an empty vessel.
The debate is on "The ugly face of xenophobia in Brexit Britain." You have added nothing to the debate, apart from your incessant whining about what I think.
I understand, you don't like my politics or positions, or way of posting. I get that I really do.
You don't need to tell me again, I get it,.
I accept that.
Now, would you ,like to join the debate, or are you just going to follow me about like a sad fanboy?
> No. They really didn’t. You made a series of insensitive, jarring comments on a subject. You were correctly called out for trolling, and responded in the same way you have towards me: by making a reverse accusation. This behaviour is a common logical fallacy, known as et tu quoque.
It's not a logical fallacy, it's called "debate". One person makes a point, another person disputes it. You should try it sometime, instead of whining on and on about how you don't like what I say.
> It represents an attempt to take pressure off the accused, by flinging the accusation directly back.
It represents showing the faults with the other persons postings. (Not that you have made any on topic to debate.)
> Some thoughtful, intelligent people have tried – pretty gently I’d add – to show you how harsh, uncaring and downright crass your contributions can be.
No they haven't, please quote where they have if you believe so. I LOVE the way that anyone who agrees with you is somehow "thoughtful, intelligent". Grow up.
> It took someone providing a personal example of genuine suffering to shock you away from your usual taunting responses.
Nope, it took Rom posting some personal issues to take the debate out of the abstract, and into the personal. When debating the abstract we do not need to take into account "feelings". As Rom brought personal issue in to the debate, that changed the context.
> Once confronted with such a ‘serious’ personal example, you chose not to back up your convictions with logical argument, instead attempting to call an end to the debate at that point.
I did no such thing. As this was an issue which affected Rom's missus, I decided that arguing whether his case was specifically "persecution" or not was not really going to achieve much, and offered, kindly, to drop it.
> The platitudes you uttered afterward served their purpose – platitudes are used to quell reasoning – helping to reduce the high levels of cognitive dissonance you were experiencing.
The genuine offer I made, was not platitudinous, it was a gentlemanly thing to do. If Rom wishes to continue the debate on whether the UK Govt is "persecuting his wife", I'm happy to go ahead.
> Your refusal to take on board my points and those of others critical of your views – simply to acknowledge and move forward in a positive manner – is sad and a bit troubling.
Your inability to debate, ruining of threads by over-emotionalising and personalisng, not to mention your off topic and whinging personal attacks, shows you up as an empty vessel.
The debate is on "The ugly face of xenophobia in Brexit Britain." You have added nothing to the debate, apart from your incessant whining about what I think.
I understand, you don't like my politics or positions, or way of posting. I get that I really do.
You don't need to tell me again, I get it,.
I accept that.
Now, would you ,like to join the debate, or are you just going to follow me about like a sad fanboy?
Post edited at 20:43
7
5
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
As someone who has had some ludicrous arguments with Rom over terminology I am going to weigh in here.
I disagree entirely with the sentiment of your post.
This thread could easily have turned into a 'classic' debate about whether something was bureaucratic incompetence/indifference or government persecution. 40 posts could fly backwards and forwards with no resolution over this significant distinction. Given where it was heading and the personal nature I think it entirely upfront and reasonable of BG to note this and suggest not getting in to it. Both views are on the threat, everyone can make their own mind up about which way they see it, the end. Not a good time for a never ending debate.
Also, just because someone has a view different to yours - or the majority view - it doesn't mean that they are trolling. Once you start labelling those you disagree with "trolls" you become part of the problem,
As someone who has had some ludicrous arguments with Rom over terminology I am going to weigh in here.
I disagree entirely with the sentiment of your post.
This thread could easily have turned into a 'classic' debate about whether something was bureaucratic incompetence/indifference or government persecution. 40 posts could fly backwards and forwards with no resolution over this significant distinction. Given where it was heading and the personal nature I think it entirely upfront and reasonable of BG to note this and suggest not getting in to it. Both views are on the threat, everyone can make their own mind up about which way they see it, the end. Not a good time for a never ending debate.
Also, just because someone has a view different to yours - or the majority view - it doesn't mean that they are trolling. Once you start labelling those you disagree with "trolls" you become part of the problem,
Post edited at 21:00
6
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Rom’s entire set of posts are just one example of someone trying to show you the real, human effects of the topic discussed. If you can’t see that, there’s something wrong.
This corroborates my point perfectly, and goes to the heart of the discomfort many people experience with your bizarre online persona. When discussing issues such as this, you could try to understand that there are real ‘feelings’ involved. It’s not abstract for everyone.
Your camper van quote, and the subsequent point you make above, illustrate the shallowness of your engagement with the emotional reality of the subject. In this issue, real families are being unnecessarily broken up, lives are being changed irrevocably. ‘Feelings’ are involved.
You genuinely offered to get the f*ck out of the debate when it got real. You genuinely uttered meaningless platitudes afterward.
You yourself provided an accepted definition of the term ‘persecution’: it absolutely applied to the situation he described. You failed to acknowledge that, and in your arrogance chose to refute his considered and reasonable assessment of his own situation.
Ad-hom. I recommend you take some instruction in critical thinking – it will help you to understand the flaws in the way you construct your arguments:
No. It’s not a method of debate. It’s a method of deflecting the argument. You might think you’re winning, but you’re simply failing to engage with the points made.
I’ve taken issue with your taunting posts on the topic, and your inability to engage with its emotional reality. As you know. Please stop trying to deflect. If you’re going to contribute by tossing thoughtless, inflammatory comments into the debate, then exit when you’re called into reality, you can expect to take some flak.
In reply to Wintertree:
Quite probably a mixture of both things, really. But it’s happening, and it’s undeniably unfair. Even if it is the former, it points to the onset of a passive attitude toward equality and human rights. This is only marginally less troubling than the assertion of active persecution (presumably to appease a vocal right-wing minority, how apposite).
It wasn’t me who originally called him out for this. But yes, what he was doing on the thread absolutely fits one accepted definition of trolling:
‘A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.’
Around the contributions Big Ger was making to the debate, were a series of snide, thoughtless, and combative comments. Such as:
Not offensive? Not provocative? In what way did these silly little comments add to the debate? The irony being that without these unpleasant interjections, Mr Ger’s arguments would in the main be strong, reasonable and considered. The presence of such comments however does offer a clear insight into his motivations and mindset.
Luke
> No they haven't, please quote where they have if you believe so.
Rom’s entire set of posts are just one example of someone trying to show you the real, human effects of the topic discussed. If you can’t see that, there’s something wrong.
> it took Rom posting some personal issues to take the debate out of the abstract, and into the personal. When debating the abstract we do not need to take into account "feelings".
This corroborates my point perfectly, and goes to the heart of the discomfort many people experience with your bizarre online persona. When discussing issues such as this, you could try to understand that there are real ‘feelings’ involved. It’s not abstract for everyone.
Your camper van quote, and the subsequent point you make above, illustrate the shallowness of your engagement with the emotional reality of the subject. In this issue, real families are being unnecessarily broken up, lives are being changed irrevocably. ‘Feelings’ are involved.
> The genuine offer I made, was not platitudinous, it was a gentlemanly thing to do.
You genuinely offered to get the f*ck out of the debate when it got real. You genuinely uttered meaningless platitudes afterward.
> If Rom wishes to continue the debate on whether the UK Govt is "persecuting his wife", I'm happy to go ahead.
You yourself provided an accepted definition of the term ‘persecution’: it absolutely applied to the situation he described. You failed to acknowledge that, and in your arrogance chose to refute his considered and reasonable assessment of his own situation.
> Your inability to debate, ruining of threads by over-emotionalising and personalisng, not to mention your off topic and whinging personal attacks, shows you up as an empty vessel.
Ad-hom. I recommend you take some instruction in critical thinking – it will help you to understand the flaws in the way you construct your arguments:
> It's not a logical fallacy, it's called "debate". One person makes a point, another person disputes it. You should try it sometime, instead of whining on and on about how you don't like what I say.
No. It’s not a method of debate. It’s a method of deflecting the argument. You might think you’re winning, but you’re simply failing to engage with the points made.
> (Not that you have made any on topic to debate.)
I’ve taken issue with your taunting posts on the topic, and your inability to engage with its emotional reality. As you know. Please stop trying to deflect. If you’re going to contribute by tossing thoughtless, inflammatory comments into the debate, then exit when you’re called into reality, you can expect to take some flak.
In reply to Wintertree:
> This thread could easily have turned into a 'classic' debate about whether something was bureaucratic incompetence/indifference or government persecution.
Quite probably a mixture of both things, really. But it’s happening, and it’s undeniably unfair. Even if it is the former, it points to the onset of a passive attitude toward equality and human rights. This is only marginally less troubling than the assertion of active persecution (presumably to appease a vocal right-wing minority, how apposite).
> Also, just because someone has a view different to yours - or the majority view - it doesn't mean that they are trolling. Once you start labelling those you disagree with "trolls" you become part of the problem,
It wasn’t me who originally called him out for this. But yes, what he was doing on the thread absolutely fits one accepted definition of trolling:
‘A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.’
Around the contributions Big Ger was making to the debate, were a series of snide, thoughtless, and combative comments. Such as:
> your self dislike.
> existential futility
> whimsical pipe dream
Not offensive? Not provocative? In what way did these silly little comments add to the debate? The irony being that without these unpleasant interjections, Mr Ger’s arguments would in the main be strong, reasonable and considered. The presence of such comments however does offer a clear insight into his motivations and mindset.
Luke
8
4
In reply to Big Ger:
OK I won't if you don't. Agreed?
No more daft comments like this then - for both of us.
True but every little can help. Did you make a donation yet? Surely time better spent than waffling on about it on here.
> You shouldn't troll then.
OK I won't if you don't. Agreed?
> And what is particularly 'serious" about this thread? What makes it say more "serious" than the discussions on campervans?
No more daft comments like this then - for both of us.
> This is only a small climbing related forum, not the house of Lords.
True but every little can help. Did you make a donation yet? Surely time better spent than waffling on about it on here.
2
3
2
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Seeing as you are intent in turning this thread from one on "The ugly face of xenophobia in Brexit Britain," to a discussion on me. Here we go;
I have two dogs, Jack Russell crosses. Brilliant, intelligent, faithful, little mutts.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wC0mD-qffGNWvz5etg_E-JZeVH8SOfkSX4zDqhsS-...
They have one big fault though, that's choughs, (Corcorax melanorhamphos.) Whenever I walk them, they are totally obedient, and will respond to all the usual commands, sit, stay, wait, go ahead, etc. Except when there are choughs in the trees.
I think its the call of the chough which winds them up, it's a harsh "CHIRRRKKK!!!" sound. When there are choughs about, my dogs will chase them into the trees, and bark and bark and bark fruitlessly at them. It's bloody annoying. The choughs flit from tree to tree, and my dogs chase them barking away like merry hell.
You can imagine the choughs thinking this hysterically funny; "Look at those stupid dogs, barking their little hearts out, what the hell do they think they're going to achieve? It just makes us chuckle and obviously annoys everyone else.You remind me a lot of my dogs in that respect.
I'll just ignore you now, your thread disruption will soon start to pee everyone else off too I should imagine
Go away, you silly obsessive little man.
Seeing as you are intent in turning this thread from one on "The ugly face of xenophobia in Brexit Britain," to a discussion on me. Here we go;
I have two dogs, Jack Russell crosses. Brilliant, intelligent, faithful, little mutts.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wC0mD-qffGNWvz5etg_E-JZeVH8SOfkSX4zDqhsS-...
They have one big fault though, that's choughs, (Corcorax melanorhamphos.) Whenever I walk them, they are totally obedient, and will respond to all the usual commands, sit, stay, wait, go ahead, etc. Except when there are choughs in the trees.
I think its the call of the chough which winds them up, it's a harsh "CHIRRRKKK!!!" sound. When there are choughs about, my dogs will chase them into the trees, and bark and bark and bark fruitlessly at them. It's bloody annoying. The choughs flit from tree to tree, and my dogs chase them barking away like merry hell.
You can imagine the choughs thinking this hysterically funny; "Look at those stupid dogs, barking their little hearts out, what the hell do they think they're going to achieve? It just makes us chuckle and obviously annoys everyone else.You remind me a lot of my dogs in that respect.
I'll just ignore you now, your thread disruption will soon start to pee everyone else off too I should imagine
Go away, you silly obsessive little man.
Post edited at 20:46
3
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...