Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
george.m

What Offends Me And/or Gets On My .....

Recommended Posts

On 3/4/2021 at 4:32 PM, steve roberts said:

In Ripon there is a supermarket named "Booths" (I think that it's a very small franchise with a few stores in North Yorkshire) Their policy is not to play music and it's such a pleasurable experience (as food shopping goes) and even the staff appear to appreciate the tranquil ambience it affords.

 Interestingly I was reading about the new till-less Amazon Fresh store in Ealing last week and they are now tied up in the supermarket business with Booths.  Looks like a smart move for Booths, and you can now order their products online from Amazon. So get shopping Steve.  Wish we had a Booths in our area. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Only skimmed the headlines,  but Harry what have you done!!!!

Royal  - gone

Celebrity  - complete 

Kerching, kerching.$$$$

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Shameful...

Image

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Blupanther said:

Shameful...

Image

While agreeing with the sentiment I guess they’re not illegal if they’re claiming asylum until their application has been heard?

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, DC2 said:

While agreeing with the sentiment I guess they’re not illegal if they’re claiming asylum until their application has been heard?

Under asylum law you are required to seek asylum in the first safe country you reach

Therefore anyone not doing so is an illegal

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

Under asylum law you are required to seek asylum in the first safe country you reach

Therefore anyone not doing so is an illegal

This is a myth. There is UK case law which allows refugees an element of choice as to where they claim asylum.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MattK said:

This is a myth. There is UK case law which allows refugees an element of choice as to where they claim asylum.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html

31(1) The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

 

(a) “Coming directly 

17. The respondents accept that a literal construction of “directly” would contravene the clear purpose of the Article and they accordingly accept that this condition can be satisfied even if the refugee passes through intermediate countries on his way to the United Kingdom. But that is only so, they argue, provided that he could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection in any such intermediate country and this will not be the case unless he has actually needed, rather than merely desired, to come to the United Kingdom. In short it is the respondents’ contention that Article 31 allows the refugee no element of choice as to where he should claim asylum. He must claim it where first he may: only considerations of continuing safety would justify impunity for further travel.

 

18. For my part I would reject this argument. Rather I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s executive committee (ExCom), and the writings of well respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway and Dr Paul Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum. I conclude that any merely short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and that the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were fleeing.

 
47. For my part, however, I do not feel able to go this far. Much though I prefer the applicants’ proposed solution, it cannot I think be imposed upon the State as the only lawful way forward. Provided that the respondents henceforth recognise the true reach of Article 31 as we are declaring it to be, and put in place procedures to ensure that those entitled to its protection (i.e. travellers recognisable as refugees whether or not they have actually claimed asylum) are not prosecuted, at any rate to conviction, for offences committed in their quest for refugee status, I am inclined to conclude that, even without enacting a substantive defence under English law, the abuse of process jurisdiction is able to provide a sufficient safety net for those wrongly prosecuted
 
It is quite some weighty piece and impossible to have read and digested.  I have captured very small parts of the transcript  (and granted may have missed much whilst scanning through too)
 
The crux although stating some 'element of choice' does not suggest any asylum seeker has free choice. It is still very specific as to what is considered reasonable. This judgement is more around the protection from prosecution for false document offences for those seeking asylum rather than their right to seek asylum where they wish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Badge said:

Only skimmed the headlines,  but Harry what have you done!!!!

Royal  - gone

Celebrity  - complete 

Kerching, kerching.$$$$

:)

Image

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Badge said:

Only skimmed the headlines,  but Harry what have you done!!!!

Royal  - gone

Celebrity  - complete 

Kerching, kerching.$$$$

No doubt we'll be subjected to all the nonsense spouted on the BBC 6pm news!  :angry:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, steve roberts said:

No doubt we'll be subjected to all the nonsense spouted on the BBC 6pm news!  :angry:

...and so we had it! A full fifteen or so minutes of how Meghan and Harry suffered.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

...and so we had it! A full fifteen or so minutes of how Meghan and Harry suffered.

Suffering in their $14 million Montecito two up two down...:)

Image

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Blupanther said:

Suffering in their $14 million Montecito two up two down...:)

Image

Yeah, but I'd bet that when Harry and Wills were growing up and playing stuff,,, Harry never ever got to be player one! ;)

Edited by ruffdiamond
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Image

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post

The things reporters say "Rangers fans have suffered"....what from malaria, rabies, the flu?

Nurses do the job they do..."Its a vocation"

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Blupanther said:

Suffering in their $14 million Montecito two up two down...:)

Image

And yet its choosing not to have a 3rd child that will be part of saving the planet from climate change  :rolleyes:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy