The Conservatives said any asylum seekers breaking UK law should be deported and Reform said the publication showed the government “knows that they are a menace”.
By that law any law anyone is subject to proves they are a menace…
Like, you tell people the law, so that if they break it they can’t try to claim ignorance as a defense.
In the US military part of every orientation for every group that shows up to a base, is age of consent laws in that state and how the military says it’s 18.
That’s not because the US military thinks everyone is pedos, it’s because a lot of people come from states with shockingly low age of consent laws, and telling everyone that laws vary state to state takes away the “no one told me” excuse which is an even worse look.
Some 18 year old fresh out of Boot who didn’t have anyone blinking eyes at their 16 year old GF 3 months ago, needs to be on the same page that they crossed a threshold into adulthood and will be held to that standard.
Refugees tend to come from places with less civil rights, they need to understand what rights others and themselves have in their new home. Otherwise they’ll never have a chance to meet the new societialne expectations
The last paragraph makes a great point, a lot of people are coming from places where certain rights and such are not to be expected, unlike places like here in the UK where we have more protections than people may initially assume (if they were from an area with poor sources of information, perhaps).
I mean, people tend to forget that raping your wife was legal in the UK until 1991, that was not that long ago (I was a child when this became illegal). Many refugees are claiming asylum against horrific situations, where this information on what is illegal now may provide some relief.
I mean, people tend to forget that raping your wife was legal in the UK until 1991
It’s only illegal in NYC, because Rudy Ghoulani wasn’t subtle when he used it as Trump’s legal defense for raping and beating one of his wives after his hair transplant hurt too much…
If either of those asshats were capable of doing anything low key, it wouldn’t have gotten the public attention and legal changes it did.
It’s kind of like how I constantly have to attend bribery is illegal courses at work. I’m not an idiot, I know bribery is illegal, that’s why it’s so lucrative. I remember doing the course last year as well but just in case anyone forgot we have to do another one this year because it turns out it’s still illegal.
Not that this has any effect on the likelihood of me accepting a bribe, as I said I’m not an idiot.
Applying logic to such statements is misguided. The Tories don’t want to resolve this situation, and probably aren’t willing to do what would be required to actually follow through on such “logic”. That would mean removing asylum seekers without assessing them which is only legal under the refugee convention if you’re removing them to a safe country. The Tories aren’t willing to make Britain an international pariah, so that means a return to something like the Rwanda scheme. Maybe they’ll try that again but it went so badly the first time.
The conversation about refugees suffers massively because the media let politicians get away with this pattern of saying things that carry certain implications and not bringing attention to those implications.
By that law any law anyone is subject to proves they are a menace…
Like, you tell people the law, so that if they break it they can’t try to claim ignorance as a defense.
In the US military part of every orientation for every group that shows up to a base, is age of consent laws in that state and how the military says it’s 18.
That’s not because the US military thinks everyone is pedos, it’s because a lot of people come from states with shockingly low age of consent laws, and telling everyone that laws vary state to state takes away the “no one told me” excuse which is an even worse look.
Some 18 year old fresh out of Boot who didn’t have anyone blinking eyes at their 16 year old GF 3 months ago, needs to be on the same page that they crossed a threshold into adulthood and will be held to that standard.
Refugees tend to come from places with less civil rights, they need to understand what rights others and themselves have in their new home. Otherwise they’ll never have a chance to meet the new societialne expectations
The last paragraph makes a great point, a lot of people are coming from places where certain rights and such are not to be expected, unlike places like here in the UK where we have more protections than people may initially assume (if they were from an area with poor sources of information, perhaps).
I mean, people tend to forget that raping your wife was legal in the UK until 1991, that was not that long ago (I was a child when this became illegal). Many refugees are claiming asylum against horrific situations, where this information on what is illegal now may provide some relief.
It’s only illegal in NYC, because Rudy Ghoulani wasn’t subtle when he used it as Trump’s legal defense for raping and beating one of his wives after his hair transplant hurt too much…
If either of those asshats were capable of doing anything low key, it wouldn’t have gotten the public attention and legal changes it did.
Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence, anyway.
You’re viewing this as “can I prosecute”…
I’m viewing it as “how do we stop crimes from happening”
It’s kind of like how I constantly have to attend bribery is illegal courses at work. I’m not an idiot, I know bribery is illegal, that’s why it’s so lucrative. I remember doing the course last year as well but just in case anyone forgot we have to do another one this year because it turns out it’s still illegal.
Not that this has any effect on the likelihood of me accepting a bribe, as I said I’m not an idiot.
Applying logic to such statements is misguided. The Tories don’t want to resolve this situation, and probably aren’t willing to do what would be required to actually follow through on such “logic”. That would mean removing asylum seekers without assessing them which is only legal under the refugee convention if you’re removing them to a safe country. The Tories aren’t willing to make Britain an international pariah, so that means a return to something like the Rwanda scheme. Maybe they’ll try that again but it went so badly the first time.
The conversation about refugees suffers massively because the media let politicians get away with this pattern of saying things that carry certain implications and not bringing attention to those implications.