Fascism Pays in the UK

[rainbow]

Home Office staff rewarded with gift vouchers for fighting off asylum cases

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... WEML6619I2

Knowing that one will not be treated fairly in the UK, means that I'll not be travelling there while the present Fascist Regime is in power.

[Clinton Huxley]

We can't let asylum seekers in, we've got to find room for 29 million Ruritanians and Bulgazians. I read it in the Daily Mail.

[colubridae]

Home Office staff rewarded with gift vouchers for fighting off asylum cases

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... WEML6619I2

Knowing that one will not be treated fairly in the UK, means that I'll not be travelling there while the present Fascist Regime is in power.

Gosh, what a shame. You will be missed.

[cronus]

Send em all back.

Haven't you seen 'Children of Men' and what a shithole this country most likely turns into on account of population density alone? no fascism required, that's last years war. The danger is feudalism of the medieval variety - no electricity, subsistence life for a few survivors of a first order civilization collapse.

[PsychoSerenity]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

[cronus]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

Fairness is a human hypothetical, a cultural conjecture of weak objective worth, a sound to be thrown around like a two year old's rattle....meanwhile in the real world....action is required because in a crisis which shut off food imports for a few months the UK couldn't feed itself.

[PsychoSerenity]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

Fairness is a human hypothetical, a cultural conjecture of weak objective worth, a sound to be thrown around like a two year old's rattle....meanwhile in the real world....action is required because in a crisis which shut off food imports for a few months the UK couldn't feed itself.

If your hypothetical crisis which shuts off food imports to the UK has any chance of happening, would it not be more prudent to focus on avoiding that problem or finding ways to mitigate it? Rather than sending a few thousand refugees back to face persecution or war? Because after a couple months of starving the remaining 60-odd million of us will only have had enough food to live for an extra minute without them.

[cronus]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

Fairness is a human hypothetical, a cultural conjecture of weak objective worth, a sound to be thrown around like a two year old's rattle....meanwhile in the real world....action is required because in a crisis which shut off food imports for a few months the UK couldn't feed itself.

If your hypothetical crisis which shuts off food imports to the UK has any chance of happening, would it not be more prudent to focus on avoiding that problem or finding ways to mitigate it? Rather than sending a few thousand refugees back to face persecution or war? Because after a couple months of starving the remaining 60-odd million of us will only have had enough food to live for an extra minute without them.

The nudge of sending a few back may persuade others to seek residence in Germany or somewhere? Since the hypothetical crisis might occur in twenty or thirty years time a small nudge now might mean the difference between 80 million and a 120 million....enough to determine a soft landing compared to a hard when the TSHTF. Don't underestimate the effects of minute changes over time.

[mistermack]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

What is the concept of appeal?
I thought the concept was to allow a review, on the grounds of legal technicalities not being properly followed, or striking new evidence being discovered.
People in the asylum industry seem to regard appeal as a natural right, if they don't like the verdict.
It shouldn't be. An appeal should be for exceptional cases.

Just out of interest, I wonder how often cases are appealed, when the decision is to GRANT asylum?

[Pappa]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

What is the concept of appeal?
I thought the concept was to allow a review, on the grounds of legal technicalities not being properly followed, or striking new evidence being discovered.
People in the asylum industry seem to regard appeal as a natural right, if they don't like the verdict.
It shouldn't be. An appeal should be for exceptional cases.

Just out of interest, I wonder how often cases are appealed, when the decision is to GRANT asylum?

Zero obviously. Otherwise the applicant wouldn't have bothered applying.

[mistermack]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

What is the concept of appeal?
I thought the concept was to allow a review, on the grounds of legal technicalities not being properly followed, or striking new evidence being discovered.
People in the asylum industry seem to regard appeal as a natural right, if they don't like the verdict.
It shouldn't be. An appeal should be for exceptional cases.

Just out of interest, I wonder how often cases are appealed, when the decision is to GRANT asylum?

Zero obviously. Otherwise the applicant wouldn't have bothered applying.

No, but presumably the Home Office has the same right to appeal the decision as the applicant, on the same grounds available to an applicant?
I'm no expert, but I didn't think it was that one-sided.

As far as I'm concerned, the benefit of the doubt should be against granting of asylum, if the seeker has not taken the shortest and easiest flight opportunity.
If you pass through half-a-dozen countries, and then try to get asylum in Britain, it should be for you to prove your case, beyond reasonable doubt.

[Seth]

Home Office staff rewarded with gift vouchers for fighting off asylum cases

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... WEML6619I2

Knowing that one will not be treated fairly in the UK, means that I'll not be travelling there while the present Fascist Regime is in power.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that the UK, or any other country, is under some obligation to take in the cast-offs of other nations.

Here's a suggestion: If you don't like the way things are where you live, then go fix it, don't run away and expect anybody else to assume the burden of caring for you.

[Seth]

Does rather undermine the concept of an appeal if there are incentivised targets that a certain percentage of cases should go one way. By all means incentivise fair and rigorous process but that should be regardless of the result of the judgement.

Fairness is a human hypothetical, a cultural conjecture of weak objective worth, a sound to be thrown around like a two year old's rattle....meanwhile in the real world....action is required because in a crisis which shut off food imports for a few months the UK couldn't feed itself.

If your hypothetical crisis which shuts off food imports to the UK has any chance of happening, would it not be more prudent to focus on avoiding that problem or finding ways to mitigate it? Rather than sending a few thousand refugees back to face persecution or war? Because after a couple months of starving the remaining 60-odd million of us will only have had enough food to live for an extra minute without them.

A few thousand here, a few thousand there and pretty soon you're talking about real numbers. That's what got the US twelve million illegal immigrants... ten or fifteen at a time.

Even the little Dutch kid knew enough to stick his finger in the leaking dike because of the inevitable consequences of not doing so.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...Even the little Dutch kid knew enough to stick his finger in the leaking dike because of the inevitable consequences of not doing so....

Will no-one think of the poor violated lesbians? Those Dutch kids have no right to put their fingers where they're not wanted...

[cronus]

The collapse in the productive capacity under the current global socio-economic paradigm cannot be averted without building for a larger collapse. This is obvious from all the large scale financial mismanagement, debt crisis and keeping interest rates at zero to avoid a hyper-inflationary runaway in every nation with a paper currency. I'm not saying there isn't going to be rebound, even a magnificent one at some point after collapse, but really you've your head in the sand if you think this isn't a ship on course for a iceberg. Getting people out from the UK increases their chances, and those left behind....come the day, and it won't be that long.