British Politics spam thread

please log in to view this image

 

please log in to view this image

 

please log in to view this image

 

He's a fanny

 

I had to zoom in to his avatar, as I wondered why he had an image of him next to a lookalike.

 

From yesterday

 

please log in to view this image

 

When you were 16, pretty much hitting puberty? **** off, she would have reached puberty years previously. Get her pumped.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/mar/08/charlotte-church-chris-moyles-kathy-burke

 

The problem is the word "refugees" much like the word "women" have completely lost any semblance of meaning.

 

Rewritten to fit someone’s narrative .

 

https://www.not606.com/threads/british-politics-spam-thread.399998/page-1044#post-16558103

DINGHIES IN THE CHANNEL – ILLEGAL ENTRANTS AND IMMIGRATION OFFENCES

Illegal entrants

The starting point is section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, which states that:
(1) Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, where a person is not a British citizen—
(a) he shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, this Act;

There are, broadly speaking, four categories of person (in addition to British citizens) who are exempt from the requirement for leave:

1. Commonwealth citizens who have a proven right of abode;
2. persons arriving from Ireland or another part of the common travel area, in circumstances where leave is not required;
3. persons exempt from control, such as diplomats, crew members and others;
4. EU, EEA and Swiss nationals; and
5. overseas prisoners entering the UK to give evidence in court or assist a criminal investigation.

Section 33(1) of the Act defines an illegal entrant as:

a person:
(a) unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws; or
(b) entering or seeking to enter to enter by means which include deception by another person,

and includes also a person who has entered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above.

It seems probable that those crossing the Channel have not obtained entry clearance and are seeking to land on a quiet beach rather than at a designated port. It follows that they probably are illegal entrants as defined in the Act.

Summary

It is likely that many of the people crossing the Channel in dinghies are illegal entrants, and some of them may commit one or more immigration offences. This may be so even if they are refugees, because of the UK government’s failure to align our domestic law with our obligations under Article 31 of the Convention. A person is entitled to the protection of Article 31 if they claim asylum in good faith within a short period of arriving in the UK. They are not deprived of that protection by having travelled through other safe countries on their way here.


In order to give effect to Article 31, the CPS will generally not prosecute a person who is entitled to its protection and who committed the offences “reasonably or necessarily in the course of flight from persecution or threatened persecution”. If such a prosecution is brought, the defendant will in some circumstances have a statutory defence, and in cases to which the statutory defence does not apply, the court may give effect to our obligations under international law by bringing the proceedings to a halt.

https://levinslaw.co.uk/dinghies-in-the-channel-illegal-entrants-and-immigration-offences/