The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian
and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the >al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza
On 12/02/2025 in message <m13m8pFbtgnU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian >>and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the >>al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza
Can I ask one question on this?
Is there actually a country/state called Palestine that is recognised by:
1) The UK government.
2) The UN.
I am told on a daily basis on Facebook that there is not and NEVER has
been a country called Palestine.
From a pragmatic point of view, something that three quarters ofthe countries of the world recognise as a country, is a country.
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
quotes
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian
and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza (they have subsequently moved to
the Nuseirat refugee camp). The first and second appellants are husband
and wife and have resided in Gaza since the summer of 1994. They are the parents of the remaining four appellants who were, at the time of the
judge's decision, aged 18, 17, 8, and 7. The sponsor left Gaza and came
to United Kingdom in the summer of 2007 and has resided here ever since.
He is now a British citizen.
Following the attacks of 7 October 2023 and during the ensuing conflict,
the appellants' home was destroyed by an airstrike and they were
displaced. On 25 January 2024, the appellants submitted the collective application for entry clearance (said to constitute the claim),
accompanied by representations. The applications were made using the
Ukraine Family Scheme form, although the representations acknowledged
that they could not qualify under this route, or any other provisions of
the Immigration Rules ("the Rules"), but had chosen this form in
accordance with the respondent's policy with regard to applications for
entry clearance outside the Rules.
The respondent concluded (unsurprisingly) that the requirements of the Ukraine Family Scheme were not met. Further, the respondent was not
satisfied that there were compelling, compassionate circumstances
justifying granting leave outside of the Rules. The decision noted the absence of any resettlement route for Palestinians and ultimately
concluded that refusal of the application was not disproportionate. The decision purported to deny a right of appeal to the appellants on the
basis that there had been no human rights claim.
Weighing in the appellants' favour, the judge took account of the
following:
(a) The appellants were living in a situation which was "extremely
and "unjustifiably" harsh and in which their lives are threatened daily
by indiscriminate and lethal attacks...":
(b) It was "clearly" in the children's best interests to escape from
Gaza, a place where their lives were "at risk on a daily basis, and
where they are living in extremely dangerous and insecure circumstances
in a tent...". Leaving Gaza was "plainly a vastly better option for
them" than remaining there
The fifth and sixth appellants are now aged 7 and 9. They are young
children and in our judgment it is reasonable to infer that they have
been less able to withstand what has been happening to them since
October 2023 than would children approaching adulthood (not that that occurrence establishes some form of emotional and/or psychological
"bright line").
The two children are at a high risk of death or serious injury on a
daily basis. They are living in conditions which are extreme and, on any view, unjustifiably harsh. It is difficult to conceive of a situation
more contrary to their best interests than the one they are currently experiencing.
Having addressed all of the considerations identified by the parties as
being relevant to the proportionality exercise and attributing varying degrees of weight to each, we conclude that the respondent's refusal of
the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of
these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants' interests and those of the public. On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the considerations weighing on the appellants' side of the scales
demonstrates a very strong claim indeed. Put another way, there are very compelling or exceptional circumstances.
On 12/02/2025 01:33 PM, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the
conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan
population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
quotes
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian
and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the
al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza (they have subsequently moved to
the Nuseirat refugee camp). The first and second appellants are husband
and wife and have resided in Gaza since the summer of 1994. They are the
parents of the remaining four appellants who were, at the time of the
judge's decision, aged 18, 17, 8, and 7. The sponsor left Gaza and came
to United Kingdom in the summer of 2007 and has resided here ever since.
He is now a British citizen.
Following the attacks of 7 October 2023 and during the ensuing conflict,
the appellants' home was destroyed by an airstrike and they were
displaced. On 25 January 2024, the appellants submitted the collective
application for entry clearance (said to constitute the claim),
accompanied by representations. The applications were made using the
Ukraine Family Scheme form, although the representations acknowledged
that they could not qualify under this route, or any other provisions of
the Immigration Rules ("the Rules"), but had chosen this form in
accordance with the respondent's policy with regard to applications for
entry clearance outside the Rules.
The respondent concluded (unsurprisingly) that the requirements of the
Ukraine Family Scheme were not met. Further, the respondent was not
satisfied that there were compelling, compassionate circumstances
justifying granting leave outside of the Rules. The decision noted the
absence of any resettlement route for Palestinians and ultimately
concluded that refusal of the application was not disproportionate. The
decision purported to deny a right of appeal to the appellants on the
basis that there had been no human rights claim.
Weighing in the appellants' favour, the judge took account of the
following:
(a) The appellants were living in a situation which was "extremely
and "unjustifiably" harsh and in which their lives are threatened daily
by indiscriminate and lethal attacks...":
(b) It was "clearly" in the children's best interests to escape from
Gaza, a place where their lives were "at risk on a daily basis, and
where they are living in extremely dangerous and insecure circumstances
in a tent...". Leaving Gaza was "plainly a vastly better option for
them" than remaining there
The fifth and sixth appellants are now aged 7 and 9. They are young
children and in our judgment it is reasonable to infer that they have
been less able to withstand what has been happening to them since
October 2023 than would children approaching adulthood (not that that
occurrence establishes some form of emotional and/or psychological
"bright line").
The two children are at a high risk of death or serious injury on a
daily basis. They are living in conditions which are extreme and, on any
view, unjustifiably harsh. It is difficult to conceive of a situation
more contrary to their best interests than the one they are currently
experiencing.
Having addressed all of the considerations identified by the parties as
being relevant to the proportionality exercise and attributing varying
degrees of weight to each, we conclude that the respondent's refusal of
the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of
these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants' interests and
those of the public. On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the
considerations weighing on the appellants' side of the scales
demonstrates a very strong claim indeed. Put another way, there are very
compelling or exceptional circumstances.
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than
any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than
any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be
admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say Gazans are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks a little less clear.
On 12/02/2025 01:33 PM, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the
conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan
population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
quotes
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian
and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the
al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza (they have subsequently moved to
the Nuseirat refugee camp). The first and second appellants are husband
and wife and have resided in Gaza since the summer of 1994. They are the
parents of the remaining four appellants who were, at the time of the
judge's decision, aged 18, 17, 8, and 7. The sponsor left Gaza and came
to United Kingdom in the summer of 2007 and has resided here ever since.
He is now a British citizen.
Following the attacks of 7 October 2023 and during the ensuing conflict,
the appellants' home was destroyed by an airstrike and they were
displaced. On 25 January 2024, the appellants submitted the collective
application for entry clearance (said to constitute the claim),
accompanied by representations. The applications were made using the
Ukraine Family Scheme form, although the representations acknowledged
that they could not qualify under this route, or any other provisions of
the Immigration Rules ("the Rules"), but had chosen this form in
accordance with the respondent's policy with regard to applications for
entry clearance outside the Rules.
The respondent concluded (unsurprisingly) that the requirements of the
Ukraine Family Scheme were not met. Further, the respondent was not
satisfied that there were compelling, compassionate circumstances
justifying granting leave outside of the Rules. The decision noted the
absence of any resettlement route for Palestinians and ultimately
concluded that refusal of the application was not disproportionate. The
decision purported to deny a right of appeal to the appellants on the
basis that there had been no human rights claim.
Weighing in the appellants' favour, the judge took account of the
following:
(a) The appellants were living in a situation which was "extremely
and "unjustifiably" harsh and in which their lives are threatened daily
by indiscriminate and lethal attacks...":
(b) It was "clearly" in the children's best interests to escape from
Gaza, a place where their lives were "at risk on a daily basis, and
where they are living in extremely dangerous and insecure circumstances
in a tent...". Leaving Gaza was "plainly a vastly better option for
them" than remaining there
The fifth and sixth appellants are now aged 7 and 9. They are young
children and in our judgment it is reasonable to infer that they have
been less able to withstand what has been happening to them since
October 2023 than would children approaching adulthood (not that that
occurrence establishes some form of emotional and/or psychological
"bright line").
The two children are at a high risk of death or serious injury on a
daily basis. They are living in conditions which are extreme and, on any
view, unjustifiably harsh. It is difficult to conceive of a situation
more contrary to their best interests than the one they are currently
experiencing.
Having addressed all of the considerations identified by the parties as
being relevant to the proportionality exercise and attributing varying
degrees of weight to each, we conclude that the respondent's refusal of
the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of
these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants' interests and
those of the public. On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the
considerations weighing on the appellants' side of the scales
demonstrates a very strong claim indeed. Put another way, there are very
compelling or exceptional circumstances.
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than
any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket
money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than
any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be
admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket
money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say
Gazans
are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks a little
less
clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which is
based on factual considerations?
On 12/02/2025 17:27, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than >>>> any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be >>>> admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket
money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say
Gazans are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks
a little less clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which
is based on factual considerations?
You imply that when ordinary civilians are repeatedly bombed, their
homes destroyed, their families buried under rubble, this isn't
"persecution" but rather "any old risks or dangers".
I suppose it then becomes a question of semantics.
If people are
determined to kill you and your family just because you live in an area
from which you are not allowed to escape, I'd call that persecution.
It's not like having to endure a thunderstorm or a monsoon.
Why did the UK have a special scheme for giving sanctuary and asylum to
the women and children from Ukraine? They are at much the same risk of
sudden death or dismemberment. Is the only difference that their
persecutor is Russia, whom we hate, rather than Israel, whose arse our government chooses to lick?
On 12/02/2025 05:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:27, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than >>>>> any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be >>>>> admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket >>>>> money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the >>>>> actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say
Gazans are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks
a little less clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which
is based on factual considerations?
You imply that when ordinary civilians are repeatedly bombed, their
homes destroyed, their families buried under rubble, this isn't
"persecution" but rather "any old risks or dangers".
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not simply
"at risk".
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool
during World War 2 and had to move elsewhere.
But that was not "persecution" by Germany in the same way as certain
other people certainly *were* being persecuted. It would be an absolute
abuse of language to call it that.
I suppose it then becomes a question of semantics.
Only if "semantics" means that law is understood and operated in
accordance with how it is worded.
It is not semantic to insist on the correct meaning of words in a
statute, regulation, treaty or convention. If you don't do that, some of
it would be meaningless and could be stretched to fit pourposes for
which it was never intended.
If people are
determined to kill you and your family just because you live in an area
from which you are not allowed to escape, I'd call that persecution.
You might, in certain limited particular circumstances, and given the looseness of what you say, even be right.
But if you are simply speaking of Blitz-type bombardment, you'd be wrong.
It's not like having to endure a thunderstorm or a monsoon.
Why not?
Why did the UK have a special scheme for giving sanctuary and asylum to
the women and children from Ukraine? They are at much the same risk of
sudden death or dismemberment. Is the only difference that their
persecutor is Russia, whom we hate, rather than Israel, whose arse our
government chooses to lick?
The scheme was enacted by Parliament. Parliament can do that kind of
thing if it sees fit and particularly when it is supported by the public.
If the situation had met the normal refugee convention conditions, it wouldn't have been necessary to legislate. But it didn't, so it was (if Parliament's purposes were to be achieved).
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not simply "at risk".
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool during World War 2
and had to move elsewhere.
But that was not "persecution" by Germany in the same way as certain other people
certainly *were* being persecuted. It would be an absolute abuse of language to call it
that.
I suppose it then becomes a question of semantics.
Only if "semantics" means that law is understood and operated in accordance with how it
is worded.
It is not semantic to insist on the correct meaning of words in a statute, regulation,
treaty or convention. If you don't do that, some of it would be meaningless and could
be stretched to fit pourposes for which it was never intended.
If people are
determined to kill you and your family just because you live in an area
from which you are not allowed to escape, I'd call that persecution.
You might, in certain limited particular circumstances, and given the looseness of what
you say, even be right.
But if you are simply speaking of Blitz-type bombardment, you'd be wrong.
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than
any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be
admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say Gazans >> are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks a little less >> clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which is
based on factual considerations?
On 12/02/2025 in message <m13m8pFbtgnU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian >>and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the >>al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza
Can I ask one question on this?
Is there actually a country/state called Palestine that is recognised by:
1) The UK government.
2) The UN.
On 12 Feb 2025 at 17:27:36 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than >>>> any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be >>>> admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say Gazans >>> are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks a little less >>> clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
'You' as a colloquial substitute for 'one' is hardly rare.
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which is
based on factual considerations?
Well if Gaza is not part of Israel what is it? It is certainly not a separate country, or part of any other country. It's just a group of stateless people being more or less gradually exterminated.
Well if Gaza is not part of Israel what is it? It is certainly not a separate country, or part of any other country. It's just a group of stateless people being more or less gradually exterminated.
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family
from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Gaza/Palestine <> Ukraine.
(Though all the special treatment given to Ukrainians seemed to assume
that the war there would be over in a few months. Maybe the lawyers/
civil servants forgot to write that in.)
On 12/02/2025 05:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:27, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than >>>>> any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be >>>>> admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket >>>>> money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the >>>>> actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say
Gazans are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks
a little less clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which
is based on factual considerations?
You imply that when ordinary civilians are repeatedly bombed, their
homes destroyed, their families buried under rubble, this isn't
"persecution" but rather "any old risks or dangers".
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not simply
"at risk".
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool
during World War 2 and had to move elsewhere.
But that was not "persecution" by Germany in the same way as certain
other people certainly *were* being persecuted. It would be an absolute
abuse of language to call it that.
I suppose it then becomes a question of semantics.
Only if "semantics" means that law is understood and operated in
accordance with how it is worded.
It is not semantic to insist on the correct meaning of words in a
statute, regulation, treaty or convention. If you don't do that, some of
it would be meaningless and could be stretched to fit pourposes for
which it was never intended.
If people are
determined to kill you and your family just because you live in an area
from which you are not allowed to escape, I'd call that persecution.
You might, in certain limited particular circumstances, and given the looseness of what you say, even be right.
But if you are simply speaking of Blitz-type bombardment, you'd be wrong.
It's not like having to endure a thunderstorm or a monsoon.
Why not?
Why did the UK have a special scheme for giving sanctuary and asylum to
the women and children from Ukraine? They are at much the same risk of
sudden death or dismemberment. Is the only difference that their
persecutor is Russia, whom we hate, rather than Israel, whose arse our
government chooses to lick?
The scheme was enacted by Parliament. Parliament can do that kind of
thing if it sees fit and particularly when it is supported by the public.
If the situation had met the normal refugee convention conditions, it wouldn't have been necessary to legislate. But it didn't, so it was (if Parliament's purposes were to be achieved).
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
Well if Gaza is not part of Israel what is it? It is certainly not a separate
country, or part of any other country. It's just a group of stateless people >> being more or less gradually exterminated.
Yes, Hamas has a lot to answer for, and apart from a token-gesture ICC warrant no-one outside the conflict zone is doing much about it.
On 12 Feb 2025 14:43:40 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 in message <m13m8pFbtgnU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian >>>and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the >>>al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza
Can I ask one question on this?
Is there actually a country/state called Palestine that is recognised by:
1) The UK government.
2) The UN.
That's kind of irrelevant, really. The description is "Palestinian", not >"citizen of Palestine". There's no sovereign state of Wales, or Bavaria,
but
that doesn't stop someone being Welsh, or Bavarian.
Mark
On 12/02/2025 20:37, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
Well if Gaza is not part of Israel what is it? It is certainly not a separate
country, or part of any other country. It's just a group of stateless people
being more or less gradually exterminated.
Yes, Hamas has a lot to answer for, and apart from a token-gesture ICC
warrant no-one outside the conflict zone is doing much about it.
Anyone who might have received an arrest warrant has been targeted and killed. Some might call it summary execution.
On 12/02/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 01:33 PM, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the
conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan
population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
quotes
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are Palestinian >>> and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the
al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza (they have subsequently moved to
the Nuseirat refugee camp). The first and second appellants are husband
and wife and have resided in Gaza since the summer of 1994. They are the >>> parents of the remaining four appellants who were, at the time of the
judge's decision, aged 18, 17, 8, and 7. The sponsor left Gaza and came
to United Kingdom in the summer of 2007 and has resided here ever since. >>> He is now a British citizen.
Following the attacks of 7 October 2023 and during the ensuing conflict, >>> the appellants' home was destroyed by an airstrike and they were
displaced. On 25 January 2024, the appellants submitted the collective
application for entry clearance (said to constitute the claim),
accompanied by representations. The applications were made using the
Ukraine Family Scheme form, although the representations acknowledged
that they could not qualify under this route, or any other provisions of >>> the Immigration Rules ("the Rules"), but had chosen this form in
accordance with the respondent's policy with regard to applications for
entry clearance outside the Rules.
The respondent concluded (unsurprisingly) that the requirements of the
Ukraine Family Scheme were not met. Further, the respondent was not
satisfied that there were compelling, compassionate circumstances
justifying granting leave outside of the Rules. The decision noted the
absence of any resettlement route for Palestinians and ultimately
concluded that refusal of the application was not disproportionate. The
decision purported to deny a right of appeal to the appellants on the
basis that there had been no human rights claim.
Weighing in the appellants' favour, the judge took account of the
following:
(a) The appellants were living in a situation which was "extremely
and "unjustifiably" harsh and in which their lives are threatened daily
by indiscriminate and lethal attacks...":
(b) It was "clearly" in the children's best interests to escape from
Gaza, a place where their lives were "at risk on a daily basis, and
where they are living in extremely dangerous and insecure circumstances
in a tent...". Leaving Gaza was "plainly a vastly better option for
them" than remaining there
The fifth and sixth appellants are now aged 7 and 9. They are young
children and in our judgment it is reasonable to infer that they have
been less able to withstand what has been happening to them since
October 2023 than would children approaching adulthood (not that that
occurrence establishes some form of emotional and/or psychological
"bright line").
The two children are at a high risk of death or serious injury on a
daily basis. They are living in conditions which are extreme and, on any >>> view, unjustifiably harsh. It is difficult to conceive of a situation
more contrary to their best interests than the one they are currently
experiencing.
Having addressed all of the considerations identified by the parties as
being relevant to the proportionality exercise and attributing varying
degrees of weight to each, we conclude that the respondent's refusal of
the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of
these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants' interests and >>> those of the public. On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the
considerations weighing on the appellants' side of the scales
demonstrates a very strong claim indeed. Put another way, there are very >>> compelling or exceptional circumstances.
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than
any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be
admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket
money".
Why not?
And all the more appropriate that a country supporting the ethnic
cleansing in Gazza and sending arms to Israel should take those refugees.
Hey, even Israel would condone such acts if it means Israel and the US
can have their Riviera.
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
Ok, so who should enforce those conventions? I can assure you that
despite the arrest warrant Netanyahu will never be prosecuted.
On 12/02/2025 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 05:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:27, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather
than any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the >>>>>> entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee
and be admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid >>>>>> "pocket money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the >>>>>> actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say >>>>> Gazans are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks
a little less clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which
is based on factual considerations?
You imply that when ordinary civilians are repeatedly bombed, their
homes destroyed, their families buried under rubble, this isn't
"persecution" but rather "any old risks or dangers".
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not
simply "at risk".
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool
during World War 2 and had to move elsewhere.
But that was not "persecution" by Germany in the same way as certain
other people certainly *were* being persecuted. It would be an
absolute abuse of language to call it that.
I suppose it then becomes a question of semantics.
Only if "semantics" means that law is understood and operated in
accordance with how it is worded.
It is not semantic to insist on the correct meaning of words in a
statute, regulation, treaty or convention. If you don't do that, some
of it would be meaningless and could be stretched to fit pourposes for
which it was never intended.
The only mention of "persecution" in the judgment is:
"This was not a case in which a single family unit had been separated
by, for example, a fear of persecution".
It's a human rights claim, an Article 8 claim. I can't claim to be an
expert in this area of law, but there is some relevant guidance here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-11-asylum
An “application for asylum” (or an “asylum application”) is a claim by a
person to be recognised as a refugee under the Refugee Convention on the basis that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations
under the Refugee Convention for them to be removed from or required to
leave the United Kingdom, and which is recorded as valid or a claim
deemed to be an application for asylum in accordance with paragraph 327EC.
unquote
So what does the Refugee Convention say?
A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or
unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
unquote
On that basis, if you were living through the London Blitz and were
bombed out of your home, left homeless, having to make your way to
another city, you would arguably be a refugee but you wouldn't be
entitled to the protection of the Convention because you would not be unwilling to return to your country of origin.
Can it be said that Parliament didn't give permission to our courts to consider Article 8 claims? I don't think so. I have found this paragraph
in the very lengthy rules:
Where the Secretary of State is considering an application for asylum
and/or a claim for humanitarian protection under this Part, she will
consider any Article 8 elements of that claim in line with the
provisions of Appendix FM (family life) and, for applications made
before 20 June 2022, in line with paragraphs 276ADE(1) to 276DH (private life) or, for applications made on or after 20 June 2022, Appendix
Private Life (private life) of these Rules which are relevant to those elements unless the person is someone to whom Part 13 of these Rules
applies.
unquote.
I don't know whether "this Part" is the relevant part, but it is clear
from the court judgment that both sides accepted that Article 8 was
engaged. If Starmer is claiming to be incredulous that Article 8 was involved, then as a human rights lawyer he's being dishonest in order to
make political capital out of the situation.
If people are
determined to kill you and your family just because you live in an area
from which you are not allowed to escape, I'd call that persecution.
You might, in certain limited particular circumstances, and given the
looseness of what you say, even be right.
But if you are simply speaking of Blitz-type bombardment, you'd be wrong.
It's not like having to endure a thunderstorm or a monsoon.
Why not?
Those are not man-made events. It would be wrong to grant asylum to
those who live in parts of the world where there are floods or
earthquakes or volcanoes, obviously.
Why did the UK have a special scheme for giving sanctuary and asylum to
the women and children from Ukraine? They are at much the same risk of
sudden death or dismemberment. Is the only difference that their
persecutor is Russia, whom we hate, rather than Israel, whose arse our
government chooses to lick?
The scheme was enacted by Parliament. Parliament can do that kind of
thing if it sees fit and particularly when it is supported by the public.
If the situation had met the normal refugee convention conditions, it
wouldn't have been necessary to legislate. But it didn't, so it was
(if Parliament's purposes were to be achieved).
I think you are suggesting that the civilians in Ukraine, bombed by the RUssians, sometimes rounded up and killed or raped, aren't actually
entitled to be refugees if they want to flee to another country.
I don't
think that can be right. I think what Parliament did was to fast-track
those refugees by setting up the Homes For Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme.
To qualify, they had to find a sponsor. In the case under discussion,
the family from Gaza also had a sponsor.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m146hoFemqeU1@mid.individual.net...
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not simply "at risk".
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool during World War 2
and had to move elsewhere.
No doubt mainly because you happened to live in what was Britain's main convoy
port in World War 2.
Something, no doubt the Letting Agents forgot to mention.
You have said before that some your forebears hailed from Ireland. Who like many Irish people perhaps moved to the NE of England especially, as a
result of lack of opportunities relative deprivation if not outright persecution
at the hands of their landlords, or the Westminster Govt, back home
But that was not "persecution" by Germany in the same way as certain other people
certainly *were* being persecuted. It would be an absolute abuse of language to call it
that.
I suppose it then becomes a question of semantics.
Only if "semantics" means that law is understood and operated in accordance with how it
is worded.
It is not semantic to insist on the correct meaning of words in a statute, regulation,
treaty or convention. If you don't do that, some of it would be meaningless and could
be stretched to fit pourposes for which it was never intended.
If people are
determined to kill you and your family just because you live in an area
from which you are not allowed to escape, I'd call that persecution.
You might, in certain limited particular circumstances, and given the looseness of what
you say, even be right.
But if you are simply speaking of Blitz-type bombardment, you'd be wrong.
So more like the treatment of the indigenous Irish people up until the middle of the
19th century perhaps ?
So where is the Gazan's Liverpool ?
On 12/02/2025 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 05:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:27, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather
than any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the >>>>>> entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee
and be admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid >>>>>> "pocket money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the >>>>>> actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say >>>>> Gazans are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks
a little less clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which
is based on factual considerations?
You imply that when ordinary civilians are repeatedly bombed, their
homes destroyed, their families buried under rubble, this isn't
"persecution" but rather "any old risks or dangers".
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It seems to be the policy of Israel to ethnically cleanse the occupied
Gaza territory and convert it into a Riviera. I thought you knew?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not
simply "at risk".
The risk has passed and is now progressed into persecution and ethnic cleansing.
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool
during World War 2 and had to move elsewhere.
So why not show empathy with Gazans? Or do you think your family
deserved to be bombed and made homeless. I genuinely don't understand
why you think there's a difference?
On 12 Feb 2025 at 17:27:36 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 04:20 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than >>>> any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be >>>> admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket money".
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
If, however, you say Gaza is effectively part of Israel, and you say Gazans >>> are at risk of persecution by their own government, it looks a little less >>> clear.
I have never said any such thing (and even if I had, it wouldn't make
any difference), so why do you (effectively) accuse me of it?
'You' as a colloquial substitute for 'one' is hardly rare.
Having got that straight out of the way, do you have an answer which is
based on factual considerations?
Well if Gaza is not part of Israel what is it? It is certainly not a separate country, or part of any other country. It's just a group of stateless people being more or less gradually exterminated.
On 12/02/2025 in message <cp1qqjlcu3pk1cnh73p7ion9o9bh2hsg4a@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 12 Feb 2025 14:43:40 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 in message <m13m8pFbtgnU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are
Palestinian
and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the
al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza
Can I ask one question on this?
Is there actually a country/state called Palestine that is recognised
by:
1) The UK government.
2) The UN.
That's kind of irrelevant, really. The description is "Palestinian", not
"citizen of Palestine". There's no sovereign state of Wales, or
Bavaria, but
that doesn't stop someone being Welsh, or Bavarian.
Mark
It's relevant to why I asked the question which was "I am told on a
daily basis on Facebook that there is not and NEVER has been a country
called Palestine."
It is also relevant legally to some extent I imagine, whether or not a
person is stateless.
Be interesting to know if the UN recognises Wales as a country and I
would have thought "Bavarian" was more akin to "Yorkshireman" than
"English since Bavaria is a state in Germany.
On 12/02/2025 17:22, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family
from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Gaza/Palestine <> Ukraine.
Agreed.
Ukraine: 57,500 killed in a population of 40 Million = 0.14%
Gaza: 48,222 to 61,709 dead in a population of 2.1 million = 2.3% to 2.9%
Yes, they don't compare. We should be supporting Gazans perhaps and not Ukrainians?
(Though all the special treatment given to Ukrainians seemed to assume
that the war there would be over in a few months. Maybe the lawyers/
civil servants forgot to write that in.)
A price to pay when Zelenskyy threatens to join NATO.
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 20:37, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
Well if Gaza is not part of Israel what is it? It is certainly not a separate
country, or part of any other country. It's just a group of stateless people
being more or less gradually exterminated.
Yes, Hamas has a lot to answer for, and apart from a token-gesture ICC
warrant no-one outside the conflict zone is doing much about it.
Anyone who might have received an arrest warrant has been targeted and
killed. Some might call it summary execution.
Well, someone is organising the hostage-release Hamas shows, complete with multi-lingual preprinted backdrop to the staged exhibition.
On 12/02/2025 04:27 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/02/2025 01:33 PM, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from >>>> Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by >>>> the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status? >>>> Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the >>>> conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan >>>> population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
quotes
The following matters are not in dispute. The appellants are
Palestinian
and were at the time of the hearing before the judge residing in the
al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" in Gaza (they have subsequently moved to >>>> the Nuseirat refugee camp). The first and second appellants are husband >>>> and wife and have resided in Gaza since the summer of 1994. They are
the
parents of the remaining four appellants who were, at the time of the
judge's decision, aged 18, 17, 8, and 7. The sponsor left Gaza and came >>>> to United Kingdom in the summer of 2007 and has resided here ever
since.
He is now a British citizen.
Following the attacks of 7 October 2023 and during the ensuing
conflict,
the appellants' home was destroyed by an airstrike and they were
displaced. On 25 January 2024, the appellants submitted the collective >>>> application for entry clearance (said to constitute the claim),
accompanied by representations. The applications were made using the
Ukraine Family Scheme form, although the representations acknowledged
that they could not qualify under this route, or any other
provisions of
the Immigration Rules ("the Rules"), but had chosen this form in
accordance with the respondent's policy with regard to applications for >>>> entry clearance outside the Rules.
The respondent concluded (unsurprisingly) that the requirements of the >>>> Ukraine Family Scheme were not met. Further, the respondent was not
satisfied that there were compelling, compassionate circumstances
justifying granting leave outside of the Rules. The decision noted the >>>> absence of any resettlement route for Palestinians and ultimately
concluded that refusal of the application was not disproportionate. The >>>> decision purported to deny a right of appeal to the appellants on the
basis that there had been no human rights claim.
Weighing in the appellants' favour, the judge took account of the
following:
(a) The appellants were living in a situation which was "extremely >>>> and "unjustifiably" harsh and in which their lives are threatened daily >>>> by indiscriminate and lethal attacks...":
(b) It was "clearly" in the children's best interests to escape from >>>> Gaza, a place where their lives were "at risk on a daily basis, and
where they are living in extremely dangerous and insecure circumstances >>>> in a tent...". Leaving Gaza was "plainly a vastly better option for
them" than remaining there
The fifth and sixth appellants are now aged 7 and 9. They are young
children and in our judgment it is reasonable to infer that they have
been less able to withstand what has been happening to them since
October 2023 than would children approaching adulthood (not that that
occurrence establishes some form of emotional and/or psychological
"bright line").
The two children are at a high risk of death or serious injury on a
daily basis. They are living in conditions which are extreme and, on
any
view, unjustifiably harsh. It is difficult to conceive of a situation
more contrary to their best interests than the one they are currently
experiencing.
Having addressed all of the considerations identified by the parties as >>>> being relevant to the proportionality exercise and attributing varying >>>> degrees of weight to each, we conclude that the respondent's refusal of >>>> the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of >>>> these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants' interests
and
those of the public. On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the >>>> considerations weighing on the appellants' side of the scales
demonstrates a very strong claim indeed. Put another way, there are
very
compelling or exceptional circumstances.
Aren't the refugee "conventions" centred upon persecution, rather than
any old risks or dangers?
It simply *cannot* be the case that when a war is being waged, the
entire populations of the countries at war are entitled to flee and be
admitted to other states and also to be housed, fed and paid "pocket
money".
Why not?
You are not even trying to be semi-serious.
And all the more appropriate that a country supporting the ethnic
cleansing in Gazza and sending arms to Israel should take those refugees.
Ah... the old, old, story.
Hey, even Israel would condone such acts if it means Israel and the US
can have their Riviera.
Risk to civilians is supposed to be covered by the conventions on the
actual waging of war.
Ok, so who should enforce those conventions? I can assure you that
despite the arrest warrant Netanyahu will never be prosecuted.
That cannot switch the situation such that an entire nation, bar none,
are entitled to migrate to wherever they like.
On 12/02/2025 22:25, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 20:37, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
Well if Gaza is not part of Israel what is it? It is certainly not a separate
country, or part of any other country. It's just a group of stateless people
being more or less gradually exterminated.
Yes, Hamas has a lot to answer for, and apart from a token-gesture ICC >>>> warrant no-one outside the conflict zone is doing much about it.
Anyone who might have received an arrest warrant has been targeted and
killed. Some might call it summary execution.
Well, someone is organising the hostage-release Hamas shows, complete with >> multi-lingual preprinted backdrop to the staged exhibition.
The Hamas atrocities on 7th October 2023 cannot be forgiven, ever. Those responsible must be brought to justice.
However, it is surely preferable to negotiate the release of hostages
with people who claim to be Hamas, rather than with isolated groups of terrorists who compete with each other for supremacy.
On 12/02/2025 08:35 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m146hoFemqeU1@mid.individual.net...
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not simply "at risk".
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool during World War
2
and had to move elsewhere.
No doubt mainly because you happened to live in what was Britain's main convoy
port in World War 2.
I wasn't there are the time. I wasn't anywhere. Bith of my parents survied the Blitz,
as teenagers.
Something, no doubt the Letting Agents forgot to mention.
[Whatever that means.]
You have said before that some your forebears hailed from Ireland. Who like >> many Irish people perhaps moved to the NE of England especially, as a
result of lack of opportunities relative deprivation if not outright persecution
at the hands of their landlords, or the Westminster Govt, back home
Ireland was PART of the UNITED Kingdom when my grandparents (one side) and great-great-grandparents (other side) moved to England. They were not immigrants.
They were certainly not refugees.
They simply moved house from one part of the UK to another, as they were entitled to
(and, as it happens, as I have done since then. Notions of "persecution" are totally
irrelevant.
[Incidentally, citizens of Ireland the (reduced) United Kingdom are *still* entitled to
move from one state to the other without let of hindrance, no passport required.
Nothing to do with the AEU, the UN, the ECHR or anything else of that kind.]
Why?
Does it matter?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 08:35 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
And do you know why? Do you even want to know why?
It's because "persecution" has a meaning and that meaning is not simply "at risk".
My family (both sides) were bombed out of their houses in Liverpool during World War
2 and had to move elsewhere.
No doubt mainly because you happened to live in what was Britain's main convoy
port in World War 2.
I wasn't there are the time. I wasn't anywhere. Bith of my parents survied the Blitz,
as teenagers.
Indeed.
But *you* chose to mention Liverpool
But only so as to introduce an element of sentimental moral equivalence between your family's being bombed out, and the fate of the inhabitants
in Gaza.
When the only reason your family was bombed out was because they lived
in what was Britain's main convoy port in World War 2. Most goods and personnel from both the US and Canada came through Liverpool. So
it was a natural target for the Luftwaffe.
Whereas the same can't be said of Gaza
So your citing of Liverpool and the fate of your family is totally irrelevant.
Something, no doubt the Letting Agents forgot to mention.
[Whatever that means.]
Well obviously in wartime people living in bombed out areas
would much prefer to be living somewhere else. Only having to
travel 50 miles each way to work each day, without any transport...
O.K forget it,
You have said before that some your forebears hailed from Ireland. Who like >>> many Irish people perhaps moved to the NE of England especially, as a
result of lack of opportunities relative deprivation if not outright persecution
at the hands of their landlords, or the Westminster Govt, back home
Ireland was PART of the UNITED Kingdom when my grandparents (one side) and >> great-great-grandparents (other side) moved to England. They were not immigrants.
They were certainly not refugees.
Who said they were ?
And why mention the fact they were Irish at all ?
I was merely alluding to the fact that the activities of the landlords
during the "Land War" in Ireland, evicting tenants and destroying
their cottages so as to prevent them moving back in - as cattle and
sheep were move profitable than people - often using battering rams
etc. were somewhat reminiscent of the activities of the IDF.
Pictures here https://www.bernards.cz/news/post-famine-eviction-photographs-show-how-merciless-british-landlords-were/
context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_War
But then of course I was forgetting, that most if not all of the people actually engaged in this, policemen etc. or standing around watching
will have been Irish too.
And so quite possibly when all the job opportunities dried up in evicting peasants those people too, will have sought jobs elsewhere.
They simply moved house from one part of the UK to another, as they were entitled to
(and, as it happens, as I have done since then. Notions of "persecution" are totally
irrelevant.
Peasants being evicted from their homes would doubtless have been entitled
to feel persecuted. Those evicting them on behalf of absentee landlords, perhaps less so
[Incidentally, citizens of Ireland the (reduced) United Kingdom are *still* entitled to
move from one state to the other without let of hindrance, no passport required.
Nothing to do with the AEU, the UN, the ECHR or anything else of that kind.]
The only real question remaining then, why you ever bothered to mention
your Irish roots at all.
Given as they are so clearly irrelevant to almost everything
<snip>
>> So where is the Gazan's Liverpool ?
Why?
Does it matter?
For them ? Yes I'd imagine.
The only real question remaining then, why you ever bothered to mention
your Irish roots at all.
I didn't. You did. See above.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m16qorFrm79U1@mid.individual.net...
The only real question remaining then, why you ever bothered to mention
your Irish roots at all.
I didn't. You did. See above.
I'm talking about "ever" !
I still can't see wht possible difference it would make to
any of the argumewnts you have ever put forward whether your
grandparents etc in fact hailed from Poland, Latvia, Spain,
France, Greenland, Glasgow etc etc.
However as you did happen to mention at one point that they
came from Ireland, even if for no discernable reason, I
thought the treatment of Irish peasants might be a good
example of persecution, somewhat closer to home
Althougk clearly, being associated with peasants, even Irish
peasants might not always be welcome.
On 14/02/2025 01:38 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m16qorFrm79U1@mid.individual.net...
The only real question remaining then, why you ever bothered to mention >>>> your Irish roots at all.
I didn't. You did. See above.
I'm talking about "ever" !
I know.
IOW, for the purposes of this thread, irrelevant. As irrelevant as it is possible to
be.
I still can't see wht possible difference it would make to
any of the argumewnts you have ever put forward whether your
grandparents etc in fact hailed from Poland, Latvia, Spain,
France, Greenland, Glasgow etc etc.
In that case, one marvels at your mention of their being Irish. I certainly didn't cite
it in this thread, since it would not have been relevant..
However as you did happen to mention at one point that they
came from Ireland, even if for no discernable reason, I
thought the treatment of Irish peasants might be a good
example of persecution, somewhat closer to home
Althougk clearly, being associated with peasants, even Irish
peasants might not always be welcome.
[Whatever that is meant to mean.]
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a judge's ruling in an immigration case".
Badenoch has the excuse that she is not a lawyer and is, moreover, an ignorant moron. But Starmer? He's a KC and a human rights lawyer. And
he's doing that thing that crowd-pleasing politicians do, telling the
nation that the judges got it wrong and that he's going to fix it.
Rather like Trump.
Maybe Starmer is one of the worst PMs we've ever had. It's early days so
far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp47mpxgno
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family
from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made
by the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since
the conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and
5 biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the
Gazan population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
Latest.
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a judge's ruling in an immigration case".
Badenoch has the excuse that she is not a lawyer and is, moreover, an ignorant moron. But Starmer? He's a KC and a human rights lawyer. And
he's doing that thing that crowd-pleasing politicians do, telling the
nation that the judges got it wrong and that he's going to fix it.
Rather like Trump.
Maybe Starmer is one of the worst PMs we've ever had. It's early days so
far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp47mpxgno
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the
conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan
population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
Latest.
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a judge's ruling in an immigration case".
Badenoch has the excuse that she is not a lawyer and is, moreover, an ignorant moron. But Starmer? He's a KC and a human rights lawyer. And
he's doing that thing that crowd-pleasing politicians do, telling the
nation that the judges got it wrong and that he's going to fix it.
Rather like Trump.
Maybe Starmer is one of the worst PMs we've ever had. It's early days so
far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp47mpxgno
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the
conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan
population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
Latest.
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a judge's ruling in an immigration case".
Badenoch has the excuse that she is not a lawyer and is, moreover, an ignorant moron. But Starmer? He's a KC and a human rights lawyer. And
he's doing that thing that crowd-pleasing politicians do, telling the
nation that the judges got it wrong and that he's going to fix it.
Rather like Trump.
Maybe Starmer is one of the worst PMs we've ever had. It's early days so
far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp47mpxgno
On 19/02/2025 09:23, The Todal wrote:
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family
from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made
by the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum
status? Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with
all the victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A
Ministerial answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many
entry clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved
since the conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination
requests and 5 biometric excusal requests. These were just a little
more than those referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing
the best we can on what we have, the figures appear very small in the
context of the Gazan population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
Latest.
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply
troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over
a judge's ruling in an immigration case".
Badenoch has the excuse that she is not a lawyer and is, moreover, an
ignorant moron. But Starmer? He's a KC and a human rights lawyer. And
he's doing that thing that crowd-pleasing politicians do, telling the
nation that the judges got it wrong and that he's going to fix it.
Rather like Trump.
Maybe Starmer is one of the worst PMs we've ever had. It's early days
so far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp47mpxgno
It's not clear to me whether the criticism is because the judge applied
the law wrongly or because the law itself is defective.
Politicians must be free to criticise on either basis if the facts fit, though they can't do anything about the former except appeal. The
latter lies at the government's door to do something about.
What no-one should allow is legal decisions to be made in the courts on
a political basis rather than a legal one based on what the law actually
is.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 09:23:17 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from
Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by
the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Could this be the case that they were talking about? Is it really a
scandal that these refugees might have a valid claim to asylum status?
Will the public be fearful of a "floodgates" scenario with all the
victims of Israeli bombing being entitled to asylum? "A Ministerial
answer given on 2 December 2024 to a question on how many entry
clearance applications from Gazan residents had been approved since the
conflict began gave figures of 143 pre-determination requests and 5
biometric excusal requests. These were just a little more than those
referred to at [31] of the judge's decision. Doing the best we can on
what we have, the figures appear very small in the context of the Gazan
population as a whole".
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024005295.html
Latest.
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply
troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a
judge's ruling in an immigration case".
Badenoch has the excuse that she is not a lawyer and is, moreover, an
ignorant moron. But Starmer? He's a KC and a human rights lawyer. And
he's doing that thing that crowd-pleasing politicians do, telling the
nation that the judges got it wrong and that he's going to fix it.
Rather like Trump.
Maybe Starmer is one of the worst PMs we've ever had. It's early days so
far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp47mpxgno
I'm glad you said "one of the worst", given the last government has a
pretty strong lead on places one and two. But I agree Starmer is a
strong contender for third place.
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family
from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made
by the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
On 19/02/2025 09:23, The Todal wrote:
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family
from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The
law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made
by the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Surely the issue is whether we have a "democracy" (rule by the people)
or a "kritarchy" (rule by lawyers or judges).
I don't think that judges can be trusted to restrict their activities to
the interpretation of laws passed by parliament; of course, you may
disagree if the judge's opinion in a particular case corresponds to your politics.
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply >troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a >judge's ruling in an immigration case".
On 19/02/2025 12:16, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 09:23, The Todal wrote:
On 12/02/2025 13:33, The Todal wrote:
From the Guardian:
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family
from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal.
The law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not
made by the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on
trying to close this “loophole”.
unquote
Surely the issue is whether we have a "democracy" (rule by the people)
or a "kritarchy" (rule by lawyers or judges).
I don't think that judges can be trusted to restrict their activities
to the interpretation of laws passed by parliament; of course, you may
disagree if the judge's opinion in a particular case corresponds to
your politics.
I think if you read the judgments rather than an incompetent
journalist's interpretation of any given judgment, you will not find a
single instance of a judge applying "politics" to bend the law.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the poorest pensioners by orders of
magnitude more money than the WFP. So you are technically totally mistaken.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron'
triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the
poorest pensioners by orders of magnitude more money than the WFP. So
you are technically totally mistaken.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:23:17 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply
troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a
judge's ruling in an immigration case".
I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup, caused mainly by people using words in slightly different meanings. Both Starmer and Badenoch said that
the decision was wrong. But there are a number of different ways in which it could be wrong, and saying that it was wrong doesn't necessarily imply lack of respect for the judiciary.
I don't think either Starmer or Badenoch were suggesting that the judge in this case had deliberately gone against the law and made a political, rather than legal, decision. I'm sure there are people who have made that suggestion, but my viewing of the PMQs exchange doesn't give me the impression that either of them meant that.
Badenoch's original question aasked if the government was planning to
appeal, and, if so, on what points of law. The implication of that question is that the decision was mistaken, rather than mendacious. Jusdges do sometimes err in their interpretation of the law. That's precisely why we've got an appeal system. And politicians are perfectly entitled to suggest that a judge may have erred, and that a decision can, and should, be taken to appeal. I recall many politicians (correctly, as it later transpired) suggesting that the initial "Twitter joke trial" verdict was wrong, and that an appeal should be lodged. Was that disrespectful of the judiciary? I would say that it wasn't. But if it wasn't, then neither was this.
On the other hand, you can also use "wrong" in a moral, rather than legal, sense. That is, in this case, you can suggest that the reason the judge was obliged to make this decision, undesirable though it may be, was because the law is faulty and the outcome stipulated by that faulty law was one that the non-binary passenger on the Peckham Borisbus would consider perverse. Making that statement is even less a criticism of the judiciary, and it, too, is an opinion that every politician is fully entitled to hold. Indeed, Starmer's response about "closing that loophole" appears to be precisely this. I
really don't see how he can be meaningfully criticised for suggesting that the law needs to be amended. Even judges, sometimes, conclude that the law
is an ass.
On 19/02/2025 14:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:23:17 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
"The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she was "deeply
troubled" by comments made by Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch over a
judge's ruling in an immigration case".
I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup, caused mainly by people using >> words in slightly different meanings. Both Starmer and Badenoch said that
the decision was wrong. But there are a number of different ways in which it >> could be wrong, and saying that it was wrong doesn't necessarily imply lack >> of respect for the judiciary.
If as seems likely the judge's decision was entirely in accordance with
law and statute, it is quite meaningless to say that he was "wrong"
without implying that he somehow defied Parliament.
I don't think either Starmer or Badenoch were suggesting that the judge in >> this case had deliberately gone against the law and made a political, rather >> than legal, decision. I'm sure there are people who have made that
suggestion, but my viewing of the PMQs exchange doesn't give me the
impression that either of them meant that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdx0yn6v7lo
My impression greatly differs from yours. And so does Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr's impression.
Starmer says "I do not agree with the decision. She's right, it's the
wrong decision". That is plainly a criticism of the court and the
judge. It would be more honest to say that if the law is deficient we
may have to devise an amendment to the law. He goes on to say that the
Home Secretary is looking at the "legal loophole that we need to close"
when actually it is a matter of opinion whether there is a loophole and whether the existing law is a good one.
And then you have: [quote]
A Home Office spokesperson said: "We have been clear that we do not
agree with this judgment and we twice vigorously contested this case.
"As the prime minister has said, Article 8, the right to a family life, should be interpreted much more narrowly. It is for the government and Parliament to decide who should be covered by the UK's safe and legal
routes.
[unquote]
The clear implication is that the judge got it wrong and somehow usurped
the government and Parliament.
Badenoch's original question aasked if the government was planning to
appeal, and, if so, on what points of law. The implication of that question >> is that the decision was mistaken, rather than mendacious. Jusdges do
sometimes err in their interpretation of the law. That's precisely why we've >> got an appeal system. And politicians are perfectly entitled to suggest that >> a judge may have erred, and that a decision can, and should, be taken to
appeal. I recall many politicians (correctly, as it later transpired)
suggesting that the initial "Twitter joke trial" verdict was wrong, and that >> an appeal should be lodged. Was that disrespectful of the judiciary? I would >> say that it wasn't. But if it wasn't, then neither was this.
On the other hand, you can also use "wrong" in a moral, rather than legal, >> sense. That is, in this case, you can suggest that the reason the judge was >> obliged to make this decision, undesirable though it may be, was because the >> law is faulty and the outcome stipulated by that faulty law was one that the >> non-binary passenger on the Peckham Borisbus would consider perverse. Making >> that statement is even less a criticism of the judiciary, and it, too, is an >> opinion that every politician is fully entitled to hold. Indeed, Starmer's >> response about "closing that loophole" appears to be precisely this. I
really don't see how he can be meaningfully criticised for suggesting that >> the law needs to be amended. Even judges, sometimes, conclude that the law >> is an ass.
The phrase about the law being an ass is a quote from Mr Pickwick, a fictional character.
There are cases where the judge says that he reaches his decision
reluctantly because the law has been badly drafted by those fuckwits (he won't use that word of course) in Parliament. Such a case was when a
judge ruled that the Metropolitan Police were not able to dismiss a misbehaving police officer. But the Gaza refugee case is clearly not
such a case. Even if the government pursues an appeal and wins, it is
not a major scandal. It relates to one small family that is or is not entitled to join its sponsor in the UK. It isn't morally right or wrong.
It isn't a political decision.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the poorest pensioners by orders of
magnitude more money than the WFP. So you are technically totally mistaken.
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron'
triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the
poorest pensioners by orders of magnitude more money than the WFP. So
you are technically totally mistaken.
Also I can't help laughing at the idea that "cutting payments to
pensioners" is literally the worst thing a government can do, as
opposed to, say, causing massive damage to the economy or attacking
the rule of law, which are relatively unimportant.
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally
futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' triple lock
for a
period. This cut payments to all including the poorest pensioners by
orders of
magnitude more money than the WFP. So you are technically totally
mistaken.
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those
of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron'
triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the
poorest pensioners by orders of magnitude more money than the WFP.
So you are technically totally mistaken.
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those
of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
On 19/02/2025 05:38 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson, >>>>>> and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron'
triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the
poorest pensioners by orders of magnitude more money than the WFP.
So you are technically totally mistaken.
[To: RH:]
In fact, the £200 WFA equates to £3.85 a week and the £300 WFA (over 80 rate) is the equivalent of £5.77 a week.
Do you insist that the pension and Pension Credit increases that year
were £3.85 or £5.77 lower than they would have been had the rise in
average earnings been taken into account?
[To Fdx:]
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those
of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
It's magnanimous of you to allow pesnioners to live at the Pension
Credit level.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
There was and is always the issue of means-tested additions to pensions (previously National Assistance, Supplementary Benefit/Pension, Income Support and latterly Pension Credit).
For part of that period (from 1982 until the introduction and roll-out
of Universal Credit / Pension Credit), Housing Benefit was available for
rent liabilities and the main benefits listed above could be augmented
for mortgage interest (which was not covered by Housing Benefit).
Oh, and amounts for rates, community charge and council tax, whether
within the main benefit or as a standalone.
There was and is always the issue of means-tested additions to pensions >>(previously National Assistance, Supplementary Benefit/Pension, Income >>Support and latterly Pension Credit).
For part of that period (from 1982 until the introduction and roll-out of >>Universal Credit / Pension Credit), Housing Benefit was available for
rent liabilities and the main benefits listed above could be augmented
for mortgage interest (which was not covered by Housing Benefit).
Oh, and amounts for rates, community charge and council tax, whether
within the main benefit or as a standalone.
I don't think it's reasonable that pensioners should be obliged to rely on >means tested benefits to afford to live. Maybe the NI contributions should >have been a lot more.
On 19/02/2025 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 19/02/2025 05:38 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson, >>>>>>> and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron'
triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the
poorest pensioners by orders of magnitude more money than the WFP.
So you are technically totally mistaken.
[To: RH:]
In fact, the £200 WFA equates to £3.85 a week and the £300 WFA (over
80 rate) is the equivalent of £5.77 a week.
Do you insist that the pension and Pension Credit increases that year
were £3.85 or £5.77 lower than they would have been had the rise in
average earnings been taken into account?
[To Fdx:]
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those >>>> of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
It's magnanimous of you to allow pesnioners to live at the Pension
Credit level.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
There was and is always the issue of means-tested additions to
pensions (previously National Assistance, Supplementary
Benefit/Pension, Income Support and latterly Pension Credit).
For part of that period (from 1982 until the introduction and roll-out
of Universal Credit / Pension Credit), Housing Benefit was available
for rent liabilities and the main benefits listed above could be
augmented for mortgage interest (which was not covered by Housing
Benefit).
Oh, and amounts for rates, community charge and council tax, whether
within the main benefit or as a standalone.
I don't think it's reasonable that pensioners should be obliged to rely
on means tested benefits to afford to live. Maybe the NI contributions
should have been a lot more.
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson,
and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally
futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' triple lock
for a
period. This cut payments to all including the poorest pensioners by
orders of
magnitude more money than the WFP. So you are technically totally
mistaken.
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those
of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
On 19/02/2025 17:38, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson, >>>>>> and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally
futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' triple lock
for a
period. This cut payments to all including the poorest pensioners by
orders of
magnitude more money than the WFP. So you are technically totally
mistaken.
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those
of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
Pensioners on just their OAP and Pension Credit will get housing
benefit. I know of a pensioner of limited means paying £500 per month
for their mortgage.
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off
than owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for the fabric of their accommodation and its upkeep.
On 20 Feb 2025 at 19:56:33 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 17:38, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson, >>>>>>> and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally
futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' triple lock >>>>> for a
period. This cut payments to all including the poorest pensioners by >>>>> orders of
magnitude more money than the WFP. So you are technically totally
mistaken.
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those >>>> of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
Pensioners on just their OAP and Pension Credit will get housing
benefit. I know of a pensioner of limited means paying £500 per month
for their mortgage.
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off
than owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for the
fabric of their accommodation and its upkeep.
Unless of course their income is just above the pension credit level.
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off than >owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for the fabric
of their accommodation and its upkeep.
On 20/02/2025 in message <vp81dh$2vufs$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off
than owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for
the fabric of their accommodation and its upkeep.
That depends on the terms of the lease. If the landlord doesn't recover
such costs under the lease then who pays them?
On 21/02/2025 08:59 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/02/2025 in message <vp81dh$2vufs$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off
than owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for
the fabric of their accommodation and its upkeep.
That depends on the terms of the lease. If the landlord doesn't recover
such costs under the lease then who pays them?
Surely the term "lease" is one that applies mainly to what is thought of
as owner-occupied property (purpose-built flats, maisonettes, etc)?
But you are right as to recovery of costs. There is ultimately no-one
from whom the costs - all the costs - of providing rented accommodation
may be recovered except the tenant(s).
They are customers of the business and all businesses derive all their
income from customers.
On 21 Feb 2025 at 10:51:33 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2025 08:59 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off
than owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for
the fabric of their accommodation and its upkeep.
That depends on the terms of the lease. If the landlord doesn't recover
such costs under the lease then who pays them?
Surely the term "lease" is one that applies mainly to what is thought of
as owner-occupied property (purpose-built flats, maisonettes, etc)?
But you are right as to recovery of costs. There is ultimately no-one
from whom the costs - all the costs - of providing rented accommodation
may be recovered except the tenant(s).
They are customers of the business and all businesses derive all their
income from customers.
The overall result is that the state pays maintenance for the tenant but not the owner-occupier. This is theoretically fair, as the owner-occupier has a valuable asset which the state is not responsible for funding. But it does leave the owner-occupier with a significant cash flow problem. Perhaps those who are going to inherit the asset should fund maintenance? If no one is going
to inherit it, the owner might as well use an equity release scheme?
On 20 Feb 2025 at 19:56:33 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 17:38, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:29:17 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson, >>>>>>> and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is
generally
futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' triple lock >>>>> for a
period. This cut payments to all including the poorest pensioners by >>>>> orders of
magnitude more money than the WFP. So you are technically totally
mistaken.
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those >>>> of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
Pensioners on just their OAP and Pension Credit will get housing
benefit. I know of a pensioner of limited means paying £500 per month
for their mortgage.
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off
than owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for the
fabric of their accommodation and its upkeep.
Unless of course their income is just above the pension credit level.
On 20/02/2025 21:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 17:38, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:16 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
... Starmer is a strong contender...
That's a pretty startling opinion. Which of Cameron, May, Johnson, >>>>>>>> and Truss do you think he may be worse than?
All of them, of course.
None of them ever cut payments to pensioners for a start.
I don't usually indulge in party politics in this country, as it is >>>>>> generally futile. But ISTR the last government suspending Cameron' >>>>>> triple lock for a period. This cut payments to all including the
poorest pensioners by orders of magnitude more money than the WFP. >>>>>> So you are technically totally mistaken.
The triple lock is unaffordable. The richest group in society is those >>>>> of pensionable age and the least likely group to have dependents.
Pension credit made up for any shortfall.
I can assure you pensions always went up, they never suffered a cut.
Living on the standard pension is "unaffordable" as it doesn't allow
anything for housing, unless you already own your dwelling outright.
Pensioners on just their OAP and Pension Credit will get housing
benefit. I know of a pensioner of limited means paying £500 per month
for their mortgage.
I can assure you many in rented accommodation will be far better off
than owning their own home. For one the tenant isn't responsible for the >>> fabric of their accommodation and its upkeep.
Unless of course their income is just above the pension credit level.
...or almost no savings. The standard state pension is supposed to be
for the population as a whole, not just the poor.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 71:54:39 |
| Calls: | 9,819 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,678 |