Sooner or later, and, now it has happened

[PaulB]

I don't mind playing games with you pal.

Funny. You're only half-cocked.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

With all the shoot created by this populist government, it's nice to occasionally hear some good news where refugees are concerned.

An Aberdeen woman has given a home to an Afghani family who had to leave their home country or be killed.
It's a wonderful act of kindness, borne from sense of humanity and empathy.

The 'kind heart' who gave an Afghan family a new home - BBC News

BBC Reporter:"We kept in touch with Burhan as he risked his life and the lives of his wife Narcis, a gynaecologist, and son Sepehr to leave Afghanistan.​

They endured the chaos at the airport and managed to get onto an RAF flight the day before a suicide bomb at Kabul airport."​

​

(It's worth remembering, however, that there are over 300 such people still hiding from the Taliban in Afghanistan, waiting for government of this country that they served to evacuate them safely.)

 

[Tanis8472]

I'll say it as no-one else will.
There are certain members on here who I would call daffodils. I've never used that word online before but if the cap fits ........

You know who you are, deal with it.
Ive had a few too many but who gives a fark.

I'm sick of them..

 

[icowden]

There are certain members on here who I would call daffodils. I've never used that word online before but if the cap fits ........

Well you are going to have to explain which version of "daffodil" you are going with. I'm not sure that there are that many of our female membership who dine at Angelo's and Maxies, or who are indeed Broadway Babies.

 

[Tanis8472]

Starts with a c ends with a t. Hth

 

[icowden]

Well that took a bit of research. I have now learned that the word c**t is replaced by the word daffodil by the swear filter!

 

[mudsticks]

Well that took a bit of research. I have now learned that the word c**t is replaced by the word daffodil by the swear filter!

I never really understood that...

What's the connection, re daffodils??

Plus I've long had a problem with our pretty blameless lady parts being conflated with awful people..



It doesn't seem fair.

Aside from giving mutual pleasure , and birthing new life , what did they do wrong ??

 

[Xipe Totec]

I never really understood that...

What's the connection, re daffodils??

Plus I've long had a problem with our pretty blameless lady parts being conflated with awful people..



It doesn't seem fair.

Aside from giving mutual pleasure , and birthing new life , what did they do wrong ??

As my lovely partner has been known to respond to that particular term - "You say that like it's a bad thing!"

 

[mudsticks]

As my lovely partner has been known to respond to that particular term - "You say that like it's a bad thing!"

Exactly.

PersonalIy prefer the more gender neutral @rshol.

If we're going to go for body parts at all.

Although in truth, they're pretty vital orifices too ...

 

[Ian H]

Let's just make it all purpose: "You Sir/Madame, are an orifice!"

 

[Tanis8472]

Apologies, it's a word I detest in that use.
I wouldn't ordinarily use it.
I was also a wee bit Brahms and Liszt.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Welcome news from the Court of Appeal that will have Ms Patel spitting feathers. Stand by for some anti-judiciary reaction from the UK government, possibly via the gutter press.

Court of Appeal finds Channel boat crossings by asylum seekers not illegal as convictions quashed.

Asylum seekers who are intercepted while crossing the English Channel in small boats have not broken the law, the Court of Appeal has found.​

​

Judges quashed the convictions of three men who were wrongly jailed for “assisting unlawful immigration” for steering dinghies, after finding they had not committed the offence.​

​

A fourth man who appealed against his conviction will face a retrial, and at least seven other convictions and two pending trials are under consideration.​

​

A ruling delivered on Tuesday said the law had been “misunderstood” by the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and that a legal “heresy” developed making asylum seekers believe they had no defence to the charge.​

​

Lord Justice Edis, Mrs Justice May and Sir Nicholas Blake said that asylum seekers who are intercepted by authorities in the Channel, or who are taken into immigration detention after reaching a port, have not legally entered the UK.​

​

“As the law presently stands, an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the United Kingdom in order to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully,” the judgment added.​

​

“Even though an asylum seeker has no valid passport or identity document, or prior permission to enter the United Kingdom, this does not make his arrival at the port a breach of an immigration law.”​

​

The ruling said that “a heresy about the law had been adopted by those who were investigating these cases [Border Force], and passed on to those who prosecuted them, and then further passed on to those who were defending them and finally affected the way the judges at the Canterbury Crown Court approached these prosecutions.”​

​

The case raises significant questions for the Home Office, which labelled the men and others convicted of the offence “people smugglers” and has declared small boat crossings illegal.​

​

The judgment said the “true requirements of the law … was not alive in the minds of the Border Force officers” dealing with the cases, and that erroneous “notices of liability to detention” were being given to asylum seekers arriving by boat.​

​

They stated that recipients may be deported, adding: “You are specifically considered an illegal entrant to the UK as you were encountered in a private vehicle namely a RHIB which had recently arrived in the UK from France. You could not produce any travel document or provide any evidence of your lawful basis to be in the UK and have therefore entered the UK in breach of the Immigration Act 1971.”​

​

Judges noted that the government is attempting to change the law to mean that asylum seekers can be prosecuted for “arrival”, rather than “entry”, to Britain but said they were dealing with the current law.​

 

[qigong chimp]

The relief we will feel when decency prevails.

 

[BoldonLad]

Welcome news from the Court of Appeal that will have Ms Patel spitting feathers. Stand by for some anti-judiciary reaction from the UK government, possibly via the gutter press.

Court of Appeal finds Channel boat crossings by asylum seekers not illegal as convictions quashed.

Asylum seekers who are intercepted while crossing the English Channel in small boats have not broken the law, the Court of Appeal has found.​

​

Judges quashed the convictions of three men who were wrongly jailed for “assisting unlawful immigration” for steering dinghies, after finding they had not committed the offence.​

​

A fourth man who appealed against his conviction will face a retrial, and at least seven other convictions and two pending trials are under consideration.​

​

A ruling delivered on Tuesday said the law had been “misunderstood” by the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and that a legal “heresy” developed making asylum seekers believe they had no defence to the charge.​

​

Lord Justice Edis, Mrs Justice May and Sir Nicholas Blake said that asylum seekers who are intercepted by authorities in the Channel, or who are taken into immigration detention after reaching a port, have not legally entered the UK.​

​

“As the law presently stands, an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the United Kingdom in order to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully,” the judgment added.​

​

“Even though an asylum seeker has no valid passport or identity document, or prior permission to enter the United Kingdom, this does not make his arrival at the port a breach of an immigration law.”​

​

The ruling said that “a heresy about the law had been adopted by those who were investigating these cases [Border Force], and passed on to those who prosecuted them, and then further passed on to those who were defending them and finally affected the way the judges at the Canterbury Crown Court approached these prosecutions.”​

​

The case raises significant questions for the Home Office, which labelled the men and others convicted of the offence “people smugglers” and has declared small boat crossings illegal.​

​

The judgment said the “true requirements of the law … was not alive in the minds of the Border Force officers” dealing with the cases, and that erroneous “notices of liability to detention” were being given to asylum seekers arriving by boat.​

​

They stated that recipients may be deported, adding: “You are specifically considered an illegal entrant to the UK as you were encountered in a private vehicle namely a RHIB which had recently arrived in the UK from France. You could not produce any travel document or provide any evidence of your lawful basis to be in the UK and have therefore entered the UK in breach of the Immigration Act 1971.”​

​

Judges noted that the government is attempting to change the law to mean that asylum seekers can be prosecuted for “arrival”, rather than “entry”, to Britain but said they were dealing with the current law.​

Sounds like some-one got their wording wrong when drafting the existing law. Who would have thought it?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Sounds like some-one got their wording wrong when drafting the existing law.

Well the Home Secretary is planning to change the law so that asylum seekers will be prosecuted for 'arrival' instead of 'entry'. Given that the only way to be considered for asylum in the UK is to apply while physically within its confines, this means they will make it illegal for people to seek asylum here at all.

That is plainly unjust and should be resisted.