Suella Braverman out on a limb

[Lt Kije]

Odd that the Prime Minister refuses to say if Suella Braverman speech to the American Right wing was right, it looks like to me, he's hanger out to dry, after the backlash!!!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66948132

[Observer II]

Braverman is another false prophet preparing for the Tory Leadership,   there are ways and means of resolving the migrant issue  that require political strength and conviction, which you won't find in BBC reports.   

[Lt Kije]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:13 PM, Observer II said:

Braverman is another false prophet preparing for the Tory Leadership,   there are ways and means of resolving the migrant issue  that require political strength and conviction, which you won't find in BBC reports.   

What ways and means OBS, ????

[Observer II]

I've run through them in various posts on here, but the primary one is simple, just turn their  boats back at sea.    

[Lt Kije]

On 9/30/2023 at 5:17 PM, Observer II said:

I've run through them in various posts on here, but the primary one is simple, just turn their  boats back at sea.    

Is that legal, under international Law???

Please list your other ones 

[Observer II]

Legal ?  International Law ?   There you go, creating obstacles to our National self interest.   

[Confused52]

2 hours ago, Lt Kije said:

Is that legal, under international Law???

Actually it is. The reason it is not done is the unions claim that their members could be sued for acting on behalf of the state and endangering life if it went wrong. There is no intrinsic difference if they are towed to the UK or France in terms of what is done, the U turn would not be sharp. So no actual increase in risk to life since the handover is exactly mid channel so equal distance either way. Rescuing people who put their own lives in danger always includes a risk of failure but the lawyers and unions etc distort the truth for their own ends. Oh and the French don't want them back anyway.

[Lt Kije]

29 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

Actually it is. The reason it is not done is the unions claim that their members could be sued for acting on behalf of the state and endangering life if it went wrong. There is no intrinsic difference if they are towed to the UK or France in terms of what is done, the U turn would not be sharp. So no actual increase in risk to life since the handover is exactly mid channel so equal distance either way. Rescuing people who put their own lives in danger always includes a risk of failure but the lawyers and unions etc distort the truth for their own ends. Oh and the French don't want them back anyway.

When officials turn back boats, they risk breaching the rights and obligations enshrined in international human rights law. The exercising of these rights is not affected by any potential migration offences that may have been committed.

 

The UN disagree as well

From the UN

The report concluded that pushbacks were becoming widespread and had a serious negative impact on the human rights of migrants

[Observer II]

Well they can take it up with an HR lawyers back in France.    😄

[Confused52]

44 minutes ago, Lt Kije said:

When officials turn back boats, they risk breaching the rights and obligations enshrined in international human rights law. The exercising of these rights is not affected by any potential migration offences that may have been committed.

 

The UN disagree as well

From the UN

The report concluded that pushbacks were becoming widespread and had a serious negative impact on the human rights of migrants

I didn't say they were affected by prior offences, I said "Rescuing people who put their own lives in danger always includes a risk of failure".

Which report from the UN was that then? I suspect it was this: "Report on means to address the human rights impact of pushbacks of migrants on land and at sea* Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Felipe González Morales". This is the opinion of an appointed advocate and no more than that.

 

[Lt Kije]

1 minute ago, Observer II said:

Well they can take it up with an HR lawyers back in France.    😄

Is that all you have??????

 

You really don't know much about our treaties and international law 

[Lt Kije]

3 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

I didn't say they were affected by prior offences, I said "Rescuing people who put their own lives in danger always includes a risk of failure".

Which report from the UN was that then? I suspect it was this: "Report on means to address the human rights impact of pushbacks of migrants on land and at sea* Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Felipe González Morales". This is the opinion of an appointed advocate and no more than that.

 

He said it in a UN report so not his opinion, and the official UN report

[Observer II]

Your getting quite boring now Kije, guess I'll have to cancel you !  😑

[Lt Kije]

Just now, Observer II said:

Your getting quite boring now Kije, guess I'll have to cancel you !  😑

Why can't you cope, with people questioning your opinion😉

Are you incapable of backing up what you say, I didn't think you were that shallow, oh well

[Observer II]

You people are outside my interest group, so need to be turned off.   😉

[Confused52]

20 minutes ago, Lt Kije said:

He said it in a UN report so not his opinion, and the official UN report

The document A/HRC/47/30 was an annual report from the Special Rapporteur. There was no resulting resolution or decision recorded in the minutes. It was his opinion based on his years work. The results of the meeting are here: 47th session of the Human Rights Council: Resolutions, decisions and President’s statements | OHCHR

[Lt Kije]

On 10/3/2023 at 11:27 PM, Confused52 said:

The document A/HRC/47/30 was an annual report from the Special Rapporteur. There was no resulting resolution or decision recorded in the minutes. It was his opinion based on his years work. The results of the meeting are here: 47th session of the Human Rights Council: Resolutions, decisions and President’s statements | OHCHR

Of course, there was no UN resolution, it would have never passed, America would not have let it!!!!, it is a UN report, not opinoin

[Confused52]

1 hour ago, Lt Kije said:

Of course, there was no UN resolution, it would have never passed, America would not have let it!!!!, it is a UN report, not opinoin

You are as bad as obs. For it to be a UN report it has to be endorsed by a resolution of a UN body. Since it it was a rapporteurs report it would have been quite proper to include that he was fed up of only getting cornflakes for breakfast each day. Something does not become true solely because you want it to be so. The US does not have a veto in the Human Rights Council which would have been the approving UN body.

[Lt Kije]

55 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

You are as bad as obs. For it to be a UN report it has to be endorsed by a resolution of a UN body. Since it it was a rapporteurs report it would have been quite proper to include that he was fed up of only getting cornflakes for breakfast each day. Something does not become true solely because you want it to be so. The US does not have a veto in the Human Rights Council which would have been the approving UN body.

It was a Un report, which makes it an official report commissioned by the UN.

We both know that it would never have got to a vote, as America would have vetoed it, as it protects Israel, the few that have got through Israel ignores, with no action from the UN for doing so