Film, Media & TV1 min ago
That's The Way The Money Goes, Pop Goes The W...inter Fuel Allowance.
'British taxpayers are funding arts, infrastructure and tech projects in regions wealthier than parts of the UK, a damning new study has revealed.
As part of the Government's overseas aid budget, diverted through universities and 'Quangos', Britons are shelling out for projects like an all-female traditional opera in Shanghai, a rural crafts exhibition in Shenzhen in southern China, and a temporary cycle lane in Mexico City.',
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not all the ODA is spent abroad. In 2023 28% of foreign aid budget was spent in the UK on the refugees. The Tories had kept their pledge to reduce spending on foreign aid (including the monies spent on refugees in the UK) to 0.7% of gross national income and exceeded this target by reducing it to 0.5%.
The new Labour government has pledged to increase foreign aid over the next three years to tackle the small boats crisis. They haven't said how they will achieve that.
One of the reasons why less and less sensible people of either left or right persuasion participate in these threads is because the threads are largely dominated by people of more extreme persuasion (from both sides, but more recently right) who are totally convinced they are correct often based on bigotry or paying too much attention to biased media.
Victor Orban has stopped illegal migration into Hungary.
He has said, quite rightly imo, entering Hungary without proper authorisation is not only illegal it is a criminal act and anyone doing so shall be treated as criminals.
He's also erected barbed wire fencing along the borders and anyone crossing it is phyically dragged back to the other side again.
But then Orban is a tough guy, & they're a bit thin on the ground.
Perseverer, depending on the observer's levels of bigotry, they might be right for non-bigoted reasons
christ what insight for an ABer - this is properly known as 'cognitive bias' or er prejudice ( not on AB surely?)
1) of which there is a lot on the internet so I wont cite anything
2)leads to misdiagnosis, and miscarrriages of justice ( 1974 Birmingham bombers a good example)
“OG, I have explained exactly why they are not illegal immigrants at that point. The law states they are not.”
I’ve think I’ve done this once or twice on here previously, barry.
Article 31 of the UN Convention says this:
“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
It is quite clear that Article 31 makes an excpetion for those coming directly from a place where they are under threat (as defined by the Convention). By implication, it suggests that those who do not arrive directly from such a place cannot take advantage of that exception. Thus they continue to be illegal immigrants and so can have penalties imposed on them.
For some reason, this distinction has been progressively ignored by the UN and instead of re-drafting the Article and getting agreement from the signatories, it has just become a “given” that people can roam across borders until they reach the destination of their choice.
All people arriving without leave have arrived illegally (as would I if I travelled to a country with entry requirements – such as a passport and/or a visa - with which I did not comply). But the Convention provides an exception from penalty for those who have come directly from a place of danger and who immediately apply for asylum.
People arriving from France have not come “…directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened.” Furthermore they can show no good cause (as required by A31) for their illegal entry. They have come from a safe country where asylum was available to them. In fact they have almost certainly passed through a number of other safe countries along the way without hindrance, but that is courtesy of the ridiculous Schengen Agreement, which is another topic entirely. They simply didn’t like it in any of those countries and would prefer to be here instead.
The purpose of the asylum system is to provide temporary safe haven for those under threat. It is not to allow people who, being dissatisfied with conditions where they live, want to “make a new life” elsewhere. If we could get that basic definition understood and action taken to prevent such illegal movement, the issue would be easier to solve.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.