Politics Today

[tavyred]

Given the undeniable disasters that your "entryist" vote has done to our country I trust that you will be asking for your money back? Or at least demand that it's now donated to more deserving causes.
(The Lib Dems could probably do with a little bung in W Devon to help oust the stentorian Sir G. Go to them and you'll almost have collected the full political set (allegedly).

How did my vote in the Tory leadership campaign help cause undeniable disasters to the country?

 

[tavyred]

Oh please Spoonz, don't confuse the Tavistock ex-Tory with more inconvenient facts. He'll only veer off yet again on some other irellevant quasi-political tangent to try and deflect the conversation (again).

What like the sort of deflection you used to cover your history of casual misogyny by claiming that you calling a woman a “witch” was negated simply because of the existence of male witches?

 

[tavyred]

The Eurozone enters a recession.

 

[Grecian2K]

What like the sort of deflection you used to cover your history of casual misogyny by claiming that you calling a woman a “witch” was negated simply because of the existence of male witches?

Ermmm. I didn't "claim" it. It was amply demonstrated by an entirely independent jury of my peers.
But, hey ho. Keep throwing out your libellous lies if it keeps you happy. Stick and stones etc etc.

 

[Spoonz Red E]

….and what about the relatively new phenomenon perpetuated by those not actually seeking to escape conflict but instead using it to move to richer countries for economic reasons?

The 1951 convention (or 1967 protocol) does not offer protection to those who move for economic reasons so I'm unsure why this is your target for revisiting.

The situation with our current government wilfully trashing the process system and fretting about dinghies does not mean there isn't an an internationally agreed and long standing asylum process to determine those who merit refugee status.

This from the UN Refugee Agency:
[Q] Who is a refugee?

[A] Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.

Also ...
[Q] How are refugees and economic migrants different?

[A] An economic migrant normally leaves a country voluntarily to seek a better life. Should he or she elect to return home they would continue to receive the protection of their government. Refugees flee because of the threat of persecution and cannot return safely to their homes in the circumstances then prevailing.

But better to bugger about with long established human rights recognition borne out of a recognition of tragic events than to offer possible cover to 'chancers' eh?

Is basic humanity somehow different now?
Are we in unique times?

Some context from over 120 years ago.

"It has been estimated that some 2.7 million Jews migrated west from eastern Europe between 1881 and 1914. Many were seeking work or a better standard of living. Others sought to avoid compulsory military service or persecution. The assassination of the Russian czar in 1881 was followed by a series of campaigns (pogroms) against Jews in the Russian empire: Jews were forbidden from settling on or owning land outside towns or moving between villages, and restrictions were placed on their entering higher education or the professions."

The National Archives | Exhibitions | 1901 Census | Events

 

[tavyred]

Ermmm. I didn't "claim" it. It was amply demonstrated by an entirely independent jury of my peers.
But, hey ho. Keep throwing out your libellous lies if it keeps you happy. Stick and stones etc etc.

Well you’re right to claim that you weren’t clever enough yourself to dream up a cover for your casual misogyny and from memory Rosey had to bail you out with tales of Wiccan or some such.
You know there is a specific problem when you refer to a woman as a witch, and not being able to admit that says a lot about you.

 

[Grecian2K]

Well you’re right to claim that you weren’t clever enough yourself to dream up a cover for your casual misogyny and from memory Rosey had to bail you out with tales of Wiccan or some such.
You know there is a specific problem when you refer to a woman as a witch, and not being able to admit that says a lot about you.

And you're certainly not clever enough to realise when you have been well and truly bested - and from memory - I don't even know "Rosey". It was an entirely unasked for clarification.
And, do you know, that there is also a more specific problem when you keep referring to the female deputy leader of His Majesties Opposition as a "gobshyte" and not being able to admit that it says even more about you (and your own "casual misogyny")

 

[arthur]

….and what about the relatively new phenomenon perpetuated by those not actually seeking to escape conflict but instead using it to move to richer countries for economic reasons?

Here is some evidence for you to ponder (not from the Guardian). I realise that the chances of such evidence causing you to stop and think before repeating this tired old trope of yours are approximately zero, but I am, as you know, an eternal optimist

How many people do we grant protection to?

www.gov.uk

.

 

[tavyred]

The 1951 convention (nor 1967 protocol) does not offer protection to to those who move for economic reasons so I'm unsure why this is your target for revisiting.

The problem as well you know is that the asylum convention as it currently stands is being hopelessly abused by economic migrants (mostly young men) arriving in Europe and forcing countries like the U.K. to consider their obviously nefarious claims.
Ironically the people inhabiting various refugee camps who are probably more deserving of an asylum claim are being ignored because there’s too many of them and public opinion wouldn’t be there to accept them.
A UN charter that doesn’t reflect our 21st century situation is useless and needs to change.

 

[tavyred]

And you're certainly not clever enough to realise when you have been well and truly bested - and from memory - I don't even know "Rosey". It was an entirely unasked for clarification.
And, do you know, that there is also a more specific problem when you keep referring to the female deputy leader of His Majesties Opposition as a "gobshyte" and not being able to admit that it says even more about you (and your own "casual misogyny")

You don’t need to know a poster personally to latch on to his unsolicited cover story G2K, and calling someone a Gobsh1te is OK because it doesn’t reference anyones gender.
Here to help!