Oh Jimmy Jimmy

morqthana · 2 Mar 2026

King Billy said:
Because it's factual?
Or because it's in contradiction to your opinion, and you don't have the intellect to discuss it?

Or both? They aren't mutually exclusive.

morqthana · 2 Mar 2026

Elsa TLC said:
I genuinely believe you both mean harm to this country. In saying that I think your genuinely dangerous.

Such beliefs are deranged.

Elsa TLC · 2 Mar 2026

morqthana said:
Such beliefs are deranged.

How would you know?

securespark · 2 Mar 2026

Koolpc said:
So, the illegal immigrants arriving here, illegally via boats are not illegal immigrants? Lol...you are so lefty woke mixed up!!!

They're not here illegally!

I'm sure this has been explained before.

Irregular Arrival: Entering a country without prior authorization (e.g., small boat crossings) is often termed "illegal" by governments, but international law (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention) stipulates that refugees should not be penalized for irregular entry to seek asylum.
- Legal Right: Everyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Highway Man · 2 Mar 2026

securespark said:
They're not here illegally!

I'm sure this has been explained before.

Irregular Arrival:Entering a country without prior authorization (e.g., small boat crossings) is often termed "illegal" by governments, but international law (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention) stipulates that refugees should not be penalized for irregular entry to seek asylum.

Legal Right: Everyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

and this all depends if they have tried to claim assylum anywhere else.

motorbiking · 2 Mar 2026

securespark said:
They're not here illegally!

I'm sure this has been explained before.

Irregular Arrival: Entering a country without prior authorization (e.g., small boat crossings) is often termed "illegal" by governments, but international law (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention) stipulates that refugees should not be penalized for irregular entry to seek asylum.

Legal Right: Everyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Not sure where that came from but it ignores the fact that the convention does not dictate to a state who they should and should not deem qualifies.

Perfectly legal to make an application inadmissible due to method of entry.

warey4life · 2 Mar 2026

Koolpc said:
Lol, you would!

So what do you think woke actually means then?

warey4life · 2 Mar 2026

Elsa TLC said:
Are you awake?

Yes.

JohnD · 2 Mar 2026

Highway Man said:
and this all depends if they have tried to claim assylum anywhere else.

You are confusing what the law is, and what you would like it to be.

Try not to believe what the Deform sources tell you.

King Billy · 3 Mar 2026

Elsa TLC said:
I genuinely believe you both mean harm to this country. In saying that I think your genuinely dangerous.

From today I will block you and King Billy until hes born again. Then Ill block him again.

Be careful,walking down the street, that poster might jump out and scare you.

There could be some malignant force hiding in that picture.

King Billy · 3 Mar 2026

morqthana said:
Such beliefs are deranged.

Even deranged people are allowed to hold deranged beliefs.
They're even allowed to express them, and to illustrate just how deranged they are.

King Billy · 3 Mar 2026

Highway Man said:
and this all depends if they have tried to claim assylum anywhere else.

Total nonsense as usual from the usual nonsense generator.

Asylum seekers can legally apply for asylum in multiple countries, as the 1951 Refugee Convention does not require them to claim protection in the first safe country they reach. While individuals can physically file claims in several nations, they generally cannot be granted refugee status in more than one.

Does HWM never get tired of being wrong?

King Billy · 3 Mar 2026

motorbiking said:
Not sure where that came from but it ignores the fact that the convention does not dictate to a state who they should and should not deem qualifies.

The UN charter dictates that posted by Securespark.
Your comment is a typical Strawman. He, and it, does not discuss whether the country should or shouldn't grant asylum to any applicants.
The country can decide the qualifying criteria and if it's ben met.

motorbiking said:
Perfectly legal to make an application inadmissible due to method of entry.

Under domestic law, yes, but the UN Charter does not, and is not changed by domestic law. Any signatory to the UN charter is bound by that UN Charter. UK is a signatory, and is therefore bound by that charter, irrespective of any domestic law.
The UN Charter overrides and negates any contradictory doemstic law.

King Billy · 3 Mar 2026

Dec27 said:
odds is basically a terrorist; stirring up hate and getting away with it.

Block the sausages mate.

Dec27 is a troll making false and unprovable accusations, which demonstrates his lack of sincerity and integrity.

morqthana · 3 Mar 2026

Elsa TLC said:
How would you know?

Because there's nothing in what either of them write to indicate that they mean harm to this country and are genuinely dangerous.

Oh Jimmy Jimmy

Similar threads