Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
In the media we hear that The home office through their lawyers are stating in the appeal court that the rights of the migrants (illegal) outweigh the rights of local people. What is happening to our country?
The migrant hotel appeal
- Thread starter Threepeaksphil
- Start date
Wizaard
Well-known member
Which media is that?
Chunkylad
Well-known member
Led by idiots Phil.
The whole hotel idea and mess was thought up by the Tories and put even more cash in the pockets of Serco who as you remember also did very well in Covid thanks to Boris et al.
Now Labour are in and they're both clueless and lacking in options. The processing 'camps' like the US have, should have been built 8 years ago along with those promised prisons. That what Labour needs now but the budget is skint and they're left doomed.
Edit: A mixture of idiots and plain corruption.
The whole hotel idea and mess was thought up by the Tories and put even more cash in the pockets of Serco who as you remember also did very well in Covid thanks to Boris et al.
Now Labour are in and they're both clueless and lacking in options. The processing 'camps' like the US have, should have been built 8 years ago along with those promised prisons. That what Labour needs now but the budget is skint and they're left doomed.
Edit: A mixture of idiots and plain corruption.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
Yet more money being thrown at illegal immigration on an appeal process.
Why don’t the Government just accept people don’t want these illegal immigrant hotels anywhere near them?
Let’s just hope they lose the appeal the verdict is expected later today if it goes against the local council protests will start once again.
Makes you wonder if the Government are happy with people on the streets protesting.
Last edited:
bollieboy
Well-known member
I would imagine the appeal will win and the council will be told that they must use the appropriate legislation to force the removal of the asylum seekers.
The council will then have to issue the appropriate enforcement notices and notice periods. They will still be able to force removal of the asylum seekers from the hotel but it will be done in accordance with law rather than a pretty odd court ruling.
The council will then have to issue the appropriate enforcement notices and notice periods. They will still be able to force removal of the asylum seekers from the hotel but it will be done in accordance with law rather than a pretty odd court ruling.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Please identify the media source for this.
bollieboy
Well-known member
The Daily Mail claiming it of course and it is purely speculation.
Gets the easily led frothing which is the obvious intention.
Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
Headline in the Times one of the world’s prominent and longest running paper, if it was wrong the home office would come out to deny it. Get in 
. !!
. !!Satriale's Pork Store
Well-known member
Oh the irony of it...
The UK's HOME Office putting the welfare of illegal immigrants before its own people.
You couldn't make it up....
Well actually you could with this shitshow of a Government!
The UK's HOME Office putting the welfare of illegal immigrants before its own people.
You couldn't make it up....
Well actually you could with this shitshow of a Government!
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Problem is, there's no way that would be compliant with HRA 1998 and the ECHR.
So what would you do with them, within the limits of the law, or would you change the law and leave the ECHR?
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Because the law says they have a right to be housed, and they've nowhere else to put them.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Right, having read the article in the Heil it is clear that what lawyers representing the Home Office have argued in the Appeal Court is that in the original judgment the Home Secretary was denied the opportunity to challenge Epping Forest Council's application to close the hotel. The Appeal Court has agreed that, as a clearly important and relevant party in the case, the Home Secretary should have allowed her right to challenge the application.
Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that this is clearly not the same thing as the Home Office declaring that the rights of migrants outweigh those of of local people. But then, a procedural point of law does not make for a shock, horror headline.
Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
So Wizzard do you agree with the home office that the illegal migrants interests come before local people?
bollieboy
Well-known member
Illegal immigrants will be deported by the Home Office.
bollieboy
Well-known member
It is wrong.
I have read the article in the Times and it takes a lot of twisting to turn the government position into that headline.
Wizaard
Well-known member
46 European countries signed up to the ECHR.
2 not. Russia and Belarus.
You want us to be with the latter. That figures.
Chunkylad
Well-known member
Home Office set to pull 'balloon-craft' job at migrant detention centre
Minister Seema Malhotra has called on the contractor to remove the jobs at the immigration removal centre.
www.bbc.co.uk
Today's ridiculous news......
More taxpayers money being wasted on pathetic schemes. How much time and thinking and money went into this ad even before it was placed? The people involved could have been processing applications or sourcing tents for a process centre that is clearly needed
20togo
Well-known member
Home Office set to pull 'balloon-craft' job at migrant detention centre
Minister Seema Malhotra has called on the contractor to remove the jobs at the immigration removal centre.
Today's ridiculous news......
More taxpayers money being wasted on pathetic schemes. How much time and thinking and money went into this ad even before it was placed? The people involved could have been processing applications or sourcing tents for a process centre that is clearly needed
yep, no doubt the lefties on here will defend it. They need to read the last two paras of that article and let it sink in. The country has a massive problem with immigration and it's not going away.
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
And do you agree with me at #12 that that is not what the body of the Mail article says.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Go on then, state explicitly what the "massive" problem is.
20togo
Well-known member
pretty obvious really. Read the last two paras. Maybe you'd be happy to release these violent "inmates" and drug users to roam free in this country. I wouldn't.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
So You'd expect the Government are now in the process of suing the Daily Mail then for lying?
20togo
Well-known member
What's your paper of choice? The Communist or Morning Star perhaps.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
So the law says we have a right to house people who have arrived in this country illegally?
The very same people we don’t know who they are or indeed where they’ve come from?
I’d check again Lost if I were you pal.
It’s the same reason most of them have been living in tents in Calais.
Chunkylad
Well-known member
Drug smuggler deported 3 times can STAY to avoid upsetting ‘family life’ — The Sun
The serial fraudster has been allowed to stay in the UK after fathering three children here A DRUG smuggler who was deported three times has won the right to stay in the UK after judges ruled it would upset his family life. Fraudster Oduola Toye snuck back into the country using fake names after...
apple.news
It's almost as if the courts are trying to stimulate a leave of the EHCR with rulings like this?
Even the most compassionate person would read this with dismay.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
Absolute fu*king joke.
Drug smuggler deported 3 times can STAY to avoid upsetting ‘family life’ — The Sun
The serial fraudster has been allowed to stay in the UK after fathering three children here A DRUG smuggler who was deported three times has won the right to stay in the UK after judges ruled it would upset his family life. Fraudster Oduola Toye snuck back into the country using fake names after...
It's almost as if the courts are trying to stimulate a leave of the EHCR with rulings like this?
Even the most compassionate person would read this with dismay.
It’s become the norm under this Government.
No other country would tolerate this shit.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
I think you're referring to a different article to the one at the hub of this thread. However, in relation to the request I made of you, fair enough.
Anyway, am I to take it from your post (above) that you perceive the "massive" problem around immigration to be that immigrants are violent drug users?
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
No Chunky, it's not the Courts that are trying to stimulate a wish among the public to leave the ECHR. On the contrary, it's Farage, his party and his acolytes in the right wing press that are endeavouring to paint the Courts like that so that they have the support of large swathes of the public when they come to removing the UK from the ECHR.Drug smuggler deported 3 times can STAY to avoid upsetting ‘family life’ — The Sun
The serial fraudster has been allowed to stay in the UK after fathering three children here A DRUG smuggler who was deported three times has won the right to stay in the UK after judges ruled it would upset his family life. Fraudster Oduola Toye snuck back into the country using fake names after...
It's almost as if the courts are trying to stimulate a leave of the EHCR with rulings like this?
Even the most compassionate person would read this with dismay.
bollieboy
Well-known member
Do you really think the government should sue every media organisation when it tells lies ? FFS
Do you actually believe the government submission says that 'illegal immigrant rights come before those of local people' ?
If you do then I know a couple of Nigerian princes who have got some good business opportunities for you.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
I'm serious, we have a duty to house them in "adequate and dignified" accomodation, there've been court cases about this, here's what you get if you google "migrant army camp court case":
AI Overview
Recent UK High Court cases have found the Home Secretary acted unlawfully and irrationally by housing asylum seekers in military barracks like Napier Barracks and the Wethersfield airbase due to inadequate and unsuitable accommodation, a breach of the public sector equality duty, and unlawful detention under COVID-19 rules. These rulings reinforced standards for adequate accommodation and resulted in the eventual closure of Napier Barracks and the ongoing legal challenges against other sites.
Key Court Cases and Findings
Recent UK High Court cases have found the Home Secretary acted unlawfully and irrationally by housing asylum seekers in military barracks like Napier Barracks and the Wethersfield airbase due to inadequate and unsuitable accommodation, a breach of the public sector equality duty, and unlawful detention under COVID-19 rules. These rulings reinforced standards for adequate accommodation and resulted in the eventual closure of Napier Barracks and the ongoing legal challenges against other sites.
Key Court Cases and Findings
- Napier Barracks (Kent)
- High Court Ruling (June 2021): Found that Napier Barracks provided inadequate, detention-like accommodation, which was unsuitable for asylum seekers and contributed to ill health. The court ruled the Home Secretary had acted unlawfully and irrationally in selecting people for the barracks.
- COVID-19 Outbreak: The court heard the government was warned about the inadequate facilities but failed to follow advice, leading to a major COVID-19 outbreak among residents.
- Closure: The Napier Barracks site was subsequently closed.
- Breach of Duty: The court found the government failed to take into account the claimants' experiences of torture, mental health conditions, and disabilities when placing them at the site.
- Ongoing Challenges: There are continued campaigns and reports highlighting the ongoing concerns at Wethersfield.
- Adequate Accommodation Standards:
The High Court judgments in these cases have significantly reinforced the standards of adequate and dignified accommodation for those seeking international protection in the UK. - Unlawful Detention:
The cases highlighted unlawful detention under purported COVID-19 rules at Napier Barracks.
- "Othering" Asylum Seekers:
Legal challenges also brought wider concerns about the practice of "othering" and warehousing asylum seekers in mass, remote, and unsafe accommodation sites.
As I said previously, all down to HRA 1998 and ECHR.
Edit:
For some reason the copy/paste has missed out quite a bit of content about other key cases, suggest you google it yourself.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
Oh come on with live in an era these days of suing people/organisations.
We as Blackpool fans know all too well the cost of saying things in public especially when it upsets others.
I standby what I said if the Day Mail are blatantly lying here then the Government should/will sue them why wouldn’t they?
In the meantime I wait with baited breath.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
So how do France and other countries get round it?
Like I said they come from living in tents to a life of living in 4 stars hotels plus many benefits so it’s a no brainer whey they all want to leave France behind.
Maybe if we adopted the same stance as France then 52,000 wouldn’t have crossed in just 12 months under this government?
Just a thought.
bollieboy
Well-known member
France have about 60 % more requests for asylum than the UK.
Asylum seekers in France are given accomodation in state housing and are given financial support per month ( which is slightly more generous than the UK.
Those living in tents in Calais/etc have not, in the main, applied for asylum.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Firstly, the migrants aren't claiming refugee status in France, they want to come here.
Secondly, they haven't tied themselves in knots with legislation like HRA, so they can treat any who do apply any way they like.
Thirdly, they're much less likely to grant refugee status than we are.
Fourthly, even if they do get refugee status, they're not going to allow them to bring the rest of their family over, which we will.
Fiftly, they don't have an activist judicial system that's willing to believe any and all cock and bull stories to find in the migrants favour.
Not 100% sure on this, but there may be other reasons as well.
Wizaard
Well-known member
We've got plenty of our own home grown druggies and psychopaths.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Why add any more?
Wizaard
Well-known member
Stop it with your facts. Stick with 'They're all coming here and living in luxury'.
Wizaard
Well-known member
The amount of drug addicts travelling all that way is miniscule. Yet another myth blown out of all proportion.
Spizz Tony
Well-known member
Who is Farige and the Daily Heil going to target once the Asylum seekers have been dealt with?
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Define good.
Satriale's Pork Store
Well-known member
Comparatively speaking, they are...
Free accommodation and associated benefits, allowing them to work tax-free for the likes of Deliveroo and Just Eat.
Halifax71
Well-known member
The original judge is getting a pasting.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Wizaard
Well-known member
So, are you a believer in British justice or not, or only when it suits?
Halifax71
Well-known member
I'm a firm believer that the ECHR is working against the will of Epping Council, the residents of Epping, and the wider British public.
The original judge didn't help as it was daft not to recognise the Home Sec as an interested party to the original hearing.
This will not serve labour well, as I said, another nail.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Why don't the remainder of the democratic nations of Europe look to remove themselves from the ECHR then, seeing as most have bigger issues with illegal immigration than we do?
Those pushing for it are using immigration as a smokescreen. The underlying reason is to weaken employment laws and remove hard won rights.
IMO.
I agree with you that it will be used against Labour, despite the use of hotels being a Tory policy and one Labour are working hard to close down.
The original High Court judge, Judge Eyre, has previously stood as a candidate for the “Nasty Party” on 4 different occasions!
Good to see that he is carrying on in the true traditions of the Tories! Useless and incompetent!