BBC had a refugee on the news this morning

TheBlueHorse

Conrad wrote: »

Those that bang on about universal HR's and the rest always imply that were we to break the law, Britain would pay some sort of heavy price and yet the French even under Hollande routinely deport Roma camps and nothing happens aside from some standard ticking off rhetoric by the EU. God I'd love us Brits to have that sort of no nonsense approach.


Try claiming benefits in France as a Brit, 10 x harder than people find claiming here thanks to the British law abiding / HR's sensibility

I bet the forms are in French as well - not a million other languages.

kabayiri

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

I bet the forms are in French as well - not a million other languages.

For National Census we *only* supported a hundred or so languages, and 30 via the primary telephony system.

The one that got me was the ability to order literature for "Ulster Scots".

I didn't realise Ulster Scots could not understand English?

The PC brigade have been squishing away money on this sort of idealistic nonsense for years.

It's lucky translation costs are cheap. Just the odd £44 per hour around here for Polish (if you commit to a minimum spend of course).

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

The UN document is simply a fairly arbitrary set of rules with some international legality but no particular moral standing.

The free movement of people is not feasible, would lead to massive problems and has no moral authority whatsoever

so let rejoice that it isn't an international standard.

You just ignored what I said and just made the point you wanted to make anyway:o

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

You just ignored what I said and just made the point you wanted to make anyway:o

sorry I didn't answer your specific point.

the answer is no, I don't think god will strike you dead.

any more than the UN definition of human rights or any sensible moral definition, requires freedom of movement

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

sorry I didn't answer your specific point.

the answer is no, I don't think god will strike you dead.

any more than the UN definition of human rights or any sensible moral definition, requires freedom of movement

Apology accepted. Now I'd go out and get some fresh air and reflect on how much you have achieved in your 33400 posts;)

TheBlueHorse

kabayiri wrote: »

For National Census we *only* supported a hundred or so languages, and 30 via the primary telephony system.

The one that got me was the ability to order literature for "Ulster Scots".

I didn't realise Ulster Scots could not understand English?

The PC brigade have been squishing away money on this sort of idealistic nonsense for years.

It's lucky translation costs are cheap. Just the odd £44 per hour around here for Polish (if you commit to a minimum spend of course).

Madness.
This is what drains the country of resources!! Idiot lefties.

Aberdeenangarse

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

and they showed his journey, from Sudan, via Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and then boat to Greece.

So, how did he get from the safety of Greece to the UK? Surely he was safe in Greece (or Turkey, or even Jordan). Then he was safe in the other umpteen countries he went through to get here.

The question is:

1. Why did he wait to get here, and not claim asylum elsewhere and;

2. why did the BBC not ask him?

Perhaps they want him to host a Travel show ?

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Article 13 UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights which we are signed up to. Of course for the benefit of the pedants I accept there are rules within this but that's what lawyers are for and I was just talking general principles. Do you think God will strike me down dead for not being precise enough;)

As already noted, Article 13(1) of the UN Decleration goes like this;

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

It's only one sentence. There are no 'rules within this'. It says what it says.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

As already noted, Article 13(1) of the UN Decleration goes like this;

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

It's only one sentence. There are no 'rules within this'. It says what it says.

But part 2 says 'everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country' and that has made the declaration open to interpretation.

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

But part 2 says 'everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country' and that has made the declaration open to interpretation.

That's pretty clear as well. What it doesn't do is say that anyone has the right to enter any country which appears to be what you think it suggests.