Coach full of British schoolchildren 'ATTACKED by Calais refugees

[cressida]

It makes no difference. It is still breaking the law to enter the UK without a valid passport.

 

and they haven't claimed asylum in France as they are supposed to so why haven't the EU cracked down on this?

 

Isn't that a good enough reason to deport them?

[Quik]

Errr no because it provides them an exemption.

 

No it doesn't. Unless you think these people are Frenchmen fleeing the the French government.

[natjack]

That's so daft it doesn't warrant even a feeble attempt at humour.

maybe so, but do you mean the French don't hope that will happen, or that it wont happen, full stop?

 

Because that's what effectively happened at several borders, and why Merkel 'invited' the ravening horde into Germany. Because she knew she had very little chance of keeping them out without initiating all out military action against an unarmed, desperate rabble. And imagine how that would have played out to the rest of the Western world.

 

She's painted herself into a corner now. Damned whichever way she tries to jump. Snookered!

[lines]

Because only the gormless tars everyone with the same brush. By all means deport people who do not respect our laws.

 

They are trying to illegally enter the country, that's not just disrespecting the law but blatantly breaking it!

 

Also, by the time they get to Calais they are no longer refugees but rather immigrants, because of how many safe places they have travelled through to get there.

[999tigger]

They are trying to illegally enter the country, that's not just disrespecting the law but blatantly breaking it!

 

Also, by the time they get to Calais they are no longer refugees but rather immigrants, because of how many safe places they have travelled through to get there.

 

Clarification. When i said deportation, in my view that asylum seekers and refugees should be deported back to UN camps or their country of origin where they are convicted of a serious criminal offence resulting in a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.

 

As ive pointed out a zillion times already theres no rule dictating when a potential asylim seekers has to make their claim. When they cease to be asylum seekers, then they are liable to be deported.

[lines]

Clarification. When i said deportation, in my view that asylum seekers and refugees should be deported back to UN camps or their country of origin where they are convicted of a serious criminal offence resulting in a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.

 

As ive pointed out a zillion times already theres no rule dictating when a potential asylim seekers has to make their claim. When they cease to be asylum seekers, then they are liable to be deported.

 

The key word is "opportunity" to claim asylum. This article explains it clearly:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position

 

The immigration rules state, however, that the secretary of state will only remove an asylum seeker to a safe third country if there is clear evidence that the country concerned will admit the person. This will be so if the person has arrived in the UK via another safe country and had an opportunity at the border of or within that country to claim asylum. The mere fact that the person has passed through another country does not necessarily mean there was an opportunity to claim asylum; if an agent planned the journey and the person was hidden in a vehicle for the duration of it, for example, there is unlikely to have been any realistic opportunity for the person to approach the authorities.

 

and a paragraph or so later,

 

... responsibility lies with the last member state where the asylum seeker has lived continuously for a period of at least five months.

 

So if you are a genuine refugee your claim will not be rejected on the basis that you did not claim asylum in the first country you came to, but you may be passed from one country to another before your claim is determined and the effect of the 2004 act is that it is extremely difficult for an asylum seeker to challenge removal from the UK to a country deemed to be "safe" – particularly if the removal is pursuant to Dublin II.

 

 

 

 

The 1951 Refugee Convention: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2016 at 19:57 ----------

 

... theres no rule dictating ...

 

 

Just as in interview with Police, you don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence...

[999tigger]

The key word is "opportunity" to claim asylum. This article explains it clearly:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position

 

and a paragraph or so later,

 

 

The 1951 Refugee Convention: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2016 at 19:57 ----------

 

 

 

Just as in interview with Police, you don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence...

 

As ive pointed out theres nothing which says you have to claim asylum in any particular country. There are some rules designed by EU countries known as Dublin 1,2,3 which try to determine which country will deal with a claim. That system has virtually broken down because many EU countries are no longer applying them, inlcuding the UK itself which will not return people to Greece or Italy since 2011 due to ECHR Cases stating that returning them to either of the above would be illegal. Your article is old 2010 and predates the position some 5 years later.

[lines]

As ive pointed out theres nothing which says you have to claim asylum in any particular country. There are some rules designed by EU countries known as Dublin 1,2,3 which try to determine which country will deal with a claim. That system has virtually broken down because many EU countries are no longer applying them, inlcuding the UK itself which will not return people to Greece or Italy since 2011 due to ECHR Cases stating that returning them to either of the above would be illegal. Your article is old 2010 and predates the position some 5 years later.

 

Can you show me the up to date statues please...

[ECCOnoob]

Can we stop before this becomes another 5000 post long thread arguing the toss about the merits of Immigration Law by people who know nothing about the subject.

 

Yes the lowlife involved should be penalised for it. Yes of course is a shocking incident.

 

BUT, for god sake, can we stop the foamy mouthed daily mail faux anger here.

 

School bus was not "targeted attacked". It was caught up in an ongoing incident involving SOME migrants and police officers nearby Calais. It was unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

A window was broken. All children (although shaken) were unharmed. The bus was able to continue on its journey. The children have all returned back to the school in Scotland safely. The headteacher has commented that they all had a "fantastic" ski trip and the coach operator dealt with the incident efficiently.

 

End of story.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Seems these refugees are so in need of British hospitality they are prepared to attack school Children to get it.

 

Can someone tell me again the reasons why we need to welcome these people into the UK?

 

ref: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/633689/Calais-migrant-crisis-refugees-attack-British-school-coach-rocks-violence

 

 

Because the numpties persist in telling us that massive immigration is good for us. I still await for someone to tell me, how.

 

When the influx of immigrants alters the dynamics of a town, city or area then that's too many. Just my opinion of course.

 

Angel1.