General News

[Trav Le Bleu]

They'll be talking about the great @Dr The Singh / @Facecloth illegal entry debate for years to come.

 

And many may forget that it was wasn't sexual.

[Dr The Singh]

Just now, Trav Le Bleu said:

They'll be talking about the great @Dr The Singh / @Facecloth illegal entry debate for years to come.

 

And many may forget that it was wasn't sexual.

Not yet, I think were both me and @Facecloth at second base, i'm ready with the lube

[Jattdogg]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

They'll be talking about the great @Dr The Singh / @Facecloth illegal entry debate for years to come.

 

And many may forget that it was wasn't sexual.

Sounds like an adult movie name  to me.

[Jimothy]

4 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I'm too lazy to get off my arse.  You daft Clothie, I already stated this, peeps are illegal until they seek asylum, after that the legality is determined upon the conclusion of there application.  All you have stated is we don't put them to prison, or penalise them, which is right, we should treat them humanely.

Illegality ends at the start of the application not the conclusion. Which is why I don't understand the hang up on the means of arriving. I don't want them coming here that way because it's dangerous, but others like yourself seem to be hung up it being illegal initially. But seeing as that illegality ceases the moment they present themselves to the authorities, I'm not sure why it's such a big issue.

 

Personally I find everything else about this migrant situation much more worrying, the danger of the crossing, the slow processing, the needless cost of the hotels due to that, the poor conditions they live in, the discourse around these people and the terms used, which then grows into violence and intimidation, and as you mention before the relatively small number who go on the run (and then do actually become illegal immigrants) and potentially commit crimes an issue increased by the slow processing. The fact the initial act would be classed as illegal until the moment they present themselves to authorities shortly after arriving doesn't seem worth getting bothered about. 

 

Anyway this has gone on too long now, I know Mark hates drawn out debates so will probably leave it there.

[Dr The Singh]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Illegality ends at the start of the application not the conclusion. Which is why I don't understand the hang up on the means of arriving. I don't want them coming here that way because it's dangerous, but others like yourself seem to be hung up it being illegal initially. But seeing as that illegality ceases the moment they present themselves to the authorities, I'm not sure why it's such a big issue.

 

Personally I find everything else about this migrant situation much more worrying, the danger of the crossing, the slow processing, the needless cost of the hotels due to that, the poor conditions they live in, the discourse around these people and the terms used, which then grows into violence and intimidation, and as you mention before the relatively small number who go on the run (and then do actually become illegal immigrants) and potentially commit crimes an issue increased by the slow processing. The fact the initial act would be classed as illegal until the moment they present themselves to authorities shortly after arriving doesn't seem worth getting bothered about. 

 

Anyway this has gone on too long now, I know Mark hates drawn out debates so will probably leave it there.

So what happens to failed asylum seekers??????  Are they legal to remain???????

[Jimothy]

2 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

So what happens to failed asylum seekers??????  Are they legal to remain???????

No, they should be sent back to they country of origin. That's the whole point of the application. If you pass you are granted asylum, if you don't then you deported. But we can deport anyone if we don't process anyone's application. 

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

No, they should be sent back to they country of origin. That's the whole point of the application. If you pass you are granted asylum, if you don't then you deported. But we can deport anyone if we don't process anyone's application. 

So anybody without the legal documentation that ends up on our shores, has to 

a) Apply for asylum, it is not assumed or a pre-req

b)Asylum has to be granted?

c)Failed Asylum seekers are not legally allowed to remain

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, Dr The Singh said:

So anybody without the legal documentation that ends up on our shores, has to 

a) Apply for asylum, it is not assumed or a pre-req

b)Asylum has to be granted?

c)Failed Asylum seekers are not legally allowed to remain

Yeah so they arrive, apply for Asylum, wait for the decision. If granted they can stay, if not they should be sent back. If they don't apply at all they are breaking the law, if the apply and go on the run they are breaking the law and if they arent granted asylum but go on the run they are breaking the law. If they fail and are sat around waiting to be sent back, it's not really on them is it if we haven't deported them. And if they are granted asylum, the haven't broken any law at the end of it all. But at the end of the whole process, whatever the outcome, any crime these people are charged with will never be the manner in which they travelled to the UK.

[Dr The Singh]

So, we agree without legal documentation they are without legal grounds to come to UK?  We as part of many conventions and law etc allow anyone to apply for Asylum pmwithout prejudice.  During this judgement they are asylum seekers.

 

However, If they fail to apply/on the run or fail, what would we would call them????????  They are not asylum seekers, they havent been give asylum.  We agree they are now no longer legally allowed in this country and must be deported. They are migrants illegally in this country and must be deported?

 

So up until seeking and they apply and get asylum, everything before and after it is illegal, according to law.

 

 

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

So, we agree without legal documentation they are without legal grounds to come to UK?  We as part of many conventions and law etc allow anyone to apply for Asylum pmwithout prejudice.  During this judgement they are asylum seekers.

 

However, If they fail to apply/on the run or fail, what would we would call them????????  They are not asylum seekers, they havent been give asylum.  We agree they are now no longer legally allowed in this country and must be deported. They are migrants illegally in this country and must be deported?

 

So up until seeking and they apply and get asylum, everything before and after it is illegal, according to law.

 

 

But the very first thing they do is present to authorities to start the application. So even if you want to be pedantic and say until they do that, the crossing and short time before the application starts are technically a period in which the law is broken, what's the actually issue? The refugee law overrides any law previously stated about how you enter the country, so its not worth getting upset over.

 

So everyone who arrives in boats and claims asylum is an asylum seeker, no laws broken whilst that is in process. The very small percentage who don't apply, about 350 out 37000 in 2024 would of course be classed as illegal immigrants, as would those who go on the run after starting the application before its complete and also anyone going on the run after failing their application. Anyone waiting to be deport isn't illegal, because they are waiting on the failed process to be completed. And obviously anyone whos application is granted asylum becomes refugee.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Jattdogg said:

Sounds like an adult movie name  to me.

When ever I read one of @Dr The Singh's post I hear a "wah-wakka-wah-wah" suggestive guitar rift in my head and the inner monologue is voiced by Barry White.

 

Mmmmmmmmm, baybeh!

[Zear0]

6 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

 One was a drug lord in the punjab, and now is one of the biggest drug dealers and pimp in Birmingham. 

Not to lower the tone in this enjoyable back and forth, but does he do friends and family discount? Asking for a friend. 

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Not to lower the tone in this enjoyable back and forth, but does he do friends and family discount? Asking for a friend. 

pm me

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Not to lower the tone in this enjoyable back and forth, but does he do friends and family discount? Asking for a friend. 

By the way, his name is Happy Singh, how ironic

[foxy boxing]

Seeing how it's pride month why doesn't the British government hang pride flags all over Dover, it would be a great welcome and show how tolerant we all are to all the incoming migrants!.

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Seeing how it's pride month why doesn't the British government hang pride flags all over Dover, it would be a great welcome and show how tolerant we all are to all the incoming migrants!.

Add black lives matter flags, kick it out, etc, etc

[Dr The Singh]

4 hours ago, Facecloth said:

But the very first thing they do is present to authorities to start the application. So even if you want to be pedantic and say until they do that, the crossing and short time before the application starts are technically a period in which the law is broken, what's the actually issue? The refugee law overrides any law previously stated about how you enter the country, so its not worth getting upset over.

 

So everyone who arrives in boats and claims asylum is an asylum seeker, no laws broken whilst that is in process. The very small percentage who don't apply, about 350 out 37000 in 2024 would of course be classed as illegal immigrants, as would those who go on the run after starting the application before its complete and also anyone going on the run after failing their application. Anyone waiting to be deport isn't illegal, because they are waiting on the failed process to be completed. And obviously anyone whos application is granted asylum becomes refugee.

I agree faccie, the refugee bit is gash

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Seeing how it's pride month why doesn't the British government hang pride flags all over Dover, it would be a great welcome and show how tolerant we all are to all the incoming migrants!.

 

1 minute ago, Dr The Singh said:

Add black lives matter flags, kick it out, etc, etc

It would be easier if it was just the homegrown bigots to deal with, wouldn't it?

 

Unfortunately there seems to be quite a few of those about at the present time.

[Jimothy]

36 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I agree faccie, the refugee bit is gash

 

Is it? 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Not sure this is news but this was absolutely fascinating and I wasn't sure where else to put it: 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/unforgiving-places-jens-ludwig-book-review?utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=bluesky&mbid=social_bluesky&utm_brand=tny

 

I might try and get hold of this

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Not sure this is news but this was absolutely fascinating and I wasn't sure where else to put it: 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/unforgiving-places-jens-ludwig-book-review?utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=bluesky&mbid=social_bluesky&utm_brand=tny

 

I might try and get hold of this

An excellent article, which also explains why not having guns on your person or indeed readily available to grab reduces the gun related deaths stat so much.  Knives also kill, but getting up close and personal to someone, especially if they are running away is a lot harder imo.  

 

On the point of "informal social control" I was talking about this the other day with a friend - the benefit of a small cafe opening on the corner, of an arts & craft co-op market opening in an empty shop.  Suddenly people care about the area, there are people around and it becomes less scary to be there.  As a direct result crime drops and interactions - even ones which might have resulted in a violent crime in the past - become a few words and get ignored, or others step in.

[leicsmac]

Trump's press lackey not happy that the Beeb aren't being utterly sycophantic to them in the same way a lot of other areas of the media - American and otherwise - are, then. 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Trump's press lackey not happy that the Beeb aren't being utterly sycophantic to them in the same way a lot of other areas of the media - American and otherwise - are, then. 

Was it a nasty question?  I bet it was. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Was it a nasty question?  I bet it was. 

Nah, just throwing out a barb regarding the Beebs fact-checking and adjusting stories as new factual information comes in. 

 

Height of hypocrisy of course, seeing as this administration has a lot of form on both not bothering to fact check and then doubling down when they're shown to be wrong. 

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Nah, just throwing out a barb regarding the Beebs fact-checking and adjusting stories as new factual information comes in. 

 

Height of hypocrisy of course, seeing as this administration has a lot of form on both not bothering to fact check and then doubling down when they're shown to be wrong. 

The facts are wrong man, not the Trump!  Get new facts!