This is the real cancel culture

[Notch7]

Asylum seekers have to prove persecution in their own country and must not have passed through a “safe third country “ which they have. So it’s illegal. France is not war torn.

Untrue.

Asylum seekers do not have to claim asylum in the first safe country.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Why are they not coming through the chunnel to claim asylum?

Surely that would be safer.

Oh no, perhaps they "have" to claim asylum if they use the chunnel but can disappear when arriving by boat, should they make it to shore without being caught??

It's absolutely obvious why they cannot just hop on a train, a ferry or a plane. The UK brought in the Carriers Act, about 1960 if I remember correctly.
It made the carriers responsible for ensuring that passengers had the correct paperwork to enter the UK. If the carrier carried anyone without the correct paperwork, they were responsible for accommodating them, taking them back to their point of departure, and liable to a hefty fine, from UK government.
So, in effect, the UK government created the gap in the market for people traffickers to operate. The demand has always been there, the UK just closed the only safe route for refugees to arrive in UK.
It would not only be safer, it would be cheaper and criminals would not have a market in which to operate. Other types of crime would also be reduced, e.g. abuse, imprisonment, sex trafficking, theft, murder, etc.

Of course, if the refugees did not have the correct paperwork to re-enter their point of departure, the carrier became responsible for all onward travel and accommodation of the refugees.

So the UK has been aware of the 'crisis' of the refugees since 1960. It has been aware that the only safe route for refugees to UK has been closed. It has been aware that the only route is via people traffickers/dingy etc since pre-1960.
It has been aware of the need to accommodate and process refugees since that time.
And in the last 60 years, and for that 60 years, it has failed to design and implement a process to defuse the 'crisis'.
Instead the UK government prefers to lay the blame on refugees, to encourage and allow social media to perpetrate hatred and incorrect rumours, and to create hostile environments.

Since 2015 there has been a slight decrease in refugee arrivals. Yet since then, the number of asylum seekers waiting for a decision has rocketed.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

He thinks every one is a racist

You'll get used to it, don't think there is many on here he hasn't accused of such

Have I accused you?
Why? When?

That'll be transam and sxturbo spreading spurious, disparaging and blatantly untrue rumours, then.
So although I have not accused sxturbo of being a racist, I can now confidently accuse him of being an egregious liar.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Updates to the Carriers Act:

1.2 When did the current provisions take effect?
Section 40 of the I&AA came into effect on 8th December 2002. It replaced the Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1987 (ICLA), which has now been repealed. However, carriers will continue to be liable under the ICLA for charges incurred in respect of persons who arrived without the required documents prior to 8th December 2002.
1.3 When is a charge incurred?
Section 40 of the I&AA provides for a charge (currently £2,000) to be imposed on the owners, agents or operators of a ship or aircraft where a person requiring leave to enter (i.e. not a British citizen or other national of the European Economic Area or Switzerland) arrives in the UK and fails to produce:
• a valid “immigration document” which satisfactorily establishes his identity and nationality or citizenship;
• and, if the individual requires a visa, a visa of the required kind.
1.4 What is expected of a carrier?
There is no requirement that a carrier should satisfy itself that the person will be acceptable to the UK authorities on arrival. That judgement can only be exercised by the immigration officer. However, carriers are expected to ensure that:
• a passport or other immigration document presented by the person is acceptable for entry into the UK;
etc
https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/257588/carriersliabilitychargingpr1.pdf​

 

[IT Minion]

Asylum seekers have to prove persecution in their own country and must not have passed through a “safe third country “ which they have. So it’s illegal. France is not war torn.

You're thinking of the Dublin agreements.

To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in

We took back control of our laws and...

The Government did not want to replicate the provisions of the Dublin Regulation.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/

We've chosen not to have the ability to return asylum seekers to Europe.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

There is a chap called Steve Laws who reports and films the migrants coming in to the south coast, the authorities are trying to get an injunction to stop him. he’s not breaking the law , the migrants are

https://network23.org/arc/2020/10/18/steve-laws-fascist/

 

[Captain Nemesis]

There is a chap called Steve Laws who reports and films the migrants coming in to the south coast, the authorities are trying to get an injunction to stop him.

Got any proof of the allegation re an injunction?

 

[Captain Nemesis]

There is a chap called Steve Laws ... he’s not breaking the law

He is if he steals boats.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

You're thinking of the Dublin agreements.

We've chosen not to have the ability to return asylum seekers to Europe.

I believe the Dublin agreement depended on refugees claiming asylum in an EU country, which prevented them from then claiming in another country, and they could be returned to the first country of application.
They were still free to pass through any EU country, without applying, to then apply in their country of choice.
If they didn't apply in an EU country, how would anyone know they were there?

Thus if a refugee arrived in UK by boat, the UK could have checked with other EU countries to see if a previous application had been made, if not UK were obliged to process the application as the first EU application.
Of course, as you rightly point out, UK decided unilaterally to exit that agreement.