The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

Just spotted this, a bit old but spells out exactly why I hate bloody Europe!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rists.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What, like most people, lies about Europe?

Please do feel free to enlighten what will probably be the majority of the voting public (should we ever get a vote on Europe) to why anything anti-European or at least skeptical of its motives is a lie?

[Prufrock]

Not anything, just most of the things that come out of the mouths of the reactionary press and the reactionary branch of the Tories. 10% truth, 90& bullshit mingled in with rants about the EU and the ECHR all at once and shite about dictating and unelected.

Anyway, what you are on about, the right to freedom of movement within the EU is limited. You MUST, amongst other things, be able to prove either you, or the person on whom you are dependent (who is also an EU citizen) has the means to support you all. There are strict controls to prevent 'benefit tourism'. Anybody coming over here just to scab benefits does so due to inadequacies on the part of the UK government, not because of some central Brussels diktat.

Your Telegraph article refers to 'benefits' and to the EU commission threatening the UK govt with legal action. The action is not because they want us to let anybody in to piss about, but because they have their own set of Europe-wide rules on which benefits are defined as being universal to all EU residents of a country, and their own set of rules as to what counts as being a resident. These rules are similar, but not identical (which is a common EU theme whenever folk get on their high horse thinking we're being ordered about) to the ones we already have, but the EU love their standardisation.

Now onto the benefits in question. There some benefits all governments must provide for all EU nationals who live in their country. These include Child Benefits and Tax Credits, and various income based benefits. However, 'live' doesn't mean 'have an address', or 'be there', there is this test I mentioned above.

There is nothing suggesting polish dossers can come over here without a job and suddenly start claiming job seekers and housing benefits, as that article makes out. What it does mean is a Pole with means to support themself, ie a job lined up, is free to move here, and, after a certain length of time (I think two years) become eligible for certain rights such as child benefits. Hardly the same.

[William the White]

I'm sure your patient explanation has hit home with hoboh. Well 'sure' might be an exaggeration...

[Hoboh]

For the benefit of the pair of you;

http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/migra ... efits.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope that helps

[Worthy4England]

For the benefit of the pair of you;

http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/migra ... efits.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope that helps

What point are you making?

We need a certain amount of immigration, to support our "can't be arsed" population and pay tax to fund our "can't be arsed" population.

I'm all confused...

[Prufrock]

For the benefit of the pair of you;

http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/migra ... efits.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope that helps

Missed the bit where it says it's opening up the gates for anybody to come over piss about and get benefits. If you can't support yourself, the UK doesn't have to let you in.

[William the White]

For the benefit of the pair of you;

http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/migra ... efits.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope that helps

Missed the bit where it says it's opening up the gates for anybody to come over piss about and get benefits. If you can't support yourself, the UK doesn't have to let you in.

I believe they have to let you stay - if - and I kid you not - you have pet cat...

[Prufrock]

You're making that up!

[Hoboh]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

[Lord Kangana]

For the benefit of the pair of you;

http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/migra ... efits.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope that helps

What point are you making?

We need a certain amount of immigration, to support our "can't be arsed" population and pay tax to fund our "can't be arsed" population.

I'm all confused...

Actually its mostly because our indigenous population is too busy in both-working-fulltime-households to reproduce effectively enough to be able to wipe the arses of the baby boomers in a few years time.

[William the White]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

your source, please?

[Prufrock]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

More 10% fact mixed with 90% bull shit.

We've been through this, but since you can't be arsed reading beyond Nigel Farrage's twitter.....man in relationship for four years needs to prove he is in a 'relationship' (wink wink) with his boyfriend. Small part of evidence proving they were in a committed relationship as opposed to just room-mates is that they had a cat together, along with a load of other stuff. Judge made a joke about the cat suffering emotional trauma if it had to move to Bolivia, and deal with Bolivian mice (if you've lived over here in a proper relationship for two years or more that isn't itself enough to stay, you have to show you can't both move to your country- there were actually real reasons), feck* press decide this is man allowed to stay because he has a cat.

[Prufrock]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

your source, please?

Pick one, Mail, Express, Telegraph. My guess is the Telegraph going all tabloid and doing the whole 'we reported yesterday....'

[Hoboh]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

More 10% fact mixed with 90% bull shit.

We've been through this, but since you can't be arsed reading beyond Nigel Farrage's twitter.....man in relationship for four years needs to prove he is in a 'relationship' (wink wink) with his boyfriend. Small part of evidence proving they were in a committed relationship as opposed to just room-mates is that they had a cat together, along with a load of other stuff. Judge made a joke about the cat suffering emotional trauma if it had to move to Bolivia, and deal with Bolivian mice (if you've lived over here in a proper relationship for two years or more that isn't itself enough to stay, you have to show you can't both move to your country- there were actually real reasons), feck press decide this is man allowed to stay because he has a cat.

Actually he didn't you read it? He said the man not the cat could suffer trauma if parted from his lover and cat! fair to say the cat DID actually play a part on his judgement and lets not forget HMG lost their appeal case on incorrect technical details sod all to do with "Human rights" The first judge should be shot!

[Prufrock]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

More 10% fact mixed with 90% bull shit.

We've been through this, but since you can't be arsed reading beyond Nigel Farrage's twitter.....man in relationship for four years needs to prove he is in a 'relationship' (wink wink) with his boyfriend. Small part of evidence proving they were in a committed relationship as opposed to just room-mates is that they had a cat together, along with a load of other stuff. Judge made a joke about the cat suffering emotional trauma if it had to move to Bolivia, and deal with Bolivian mice (if you've lived over here in a proper relationship for two years or more that isn't itself enough to stay, you have to show you can't both move to your country- there were actually real reasons), feck press decide this is man allowed to stay because he has a cat.

Actually he didn't you read it? He said the man not the cat could suffer trauma if parted from his lover and cat! fair to say the cat DID actually play a part on his judgement and lets not forget HMG lost their appeal case on incorrect technical details sod all to do with "Human rights" The first judge should be shot!

Yes I read it, and yes nothing to do with human rights, so good start. There was nothing about the man suffering emotional trauma if separated from his cat. It was separated from his lover, the cat was only ever a small part of evidence in a wider body that this other man was in fact his lover. It was a Home Office directive they didn't apply properly, they rescinded it, but after this case, so obviously it couldn't apply retrospectively. The first judge had no option, nor did the appellate judge. The cat was irrelevant other than a tiny piece of evidence, and a joke which I've quoted elsewhere.

[Hoboh]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

More 10% fact mixed with 90% bull shit.

We've been through this, but since you can't be arsed reading beyond Nigel Farrage's twitter.....man in relationship for four years needs to prove he is in a 'relationship' (wink wink) with his boyfriend. Small part of evidence proving they were in a committed relationship as opposed to just room-mates is that they had a cat together, along with a load of other stuff. Judge made a joke about the cat suffering emotional trauma if it had to move to Bolivia, and deal with Bolivian mice (if you've lived over here in a proper relationship for two years or more that isn't itself enough to stay, you have to show you can't both move to your country- there were actually real reasons), feck press decide this is man allowed to stay because he has a cat.

Actually he didn't you read it? He said the man not the cat could suffer trauma if parted from his lover and cat! fair to say the cat DID actually play a part on his judgement and lets not forget HMG lost their appeal case on incorrect technical details sod all to do with "Human rights" The first judge should be shot!

Yes I read it, and yes nothing to do with human rights, so good start. There was nothing about the man suffering emotional trauma if separated from his cat. It was separated from his lover, the cat was only ever a small part of evidence in a wider body that this other man was in fact his lover. It was a Home Office directive they didn't apply properly, they rescinded it, but after this case, so obviously it couldn't apply retrospectively. The first judge had no option, nor did the appellate judge. The cat was irrelevant other than a tiny piece of evidence, and a joke which I've quoted elsewhere.

God Pru, sorry mate but are you thick? THE CAT WAS NOT A FECKIN' JOKE! "the cat" was introduced to the case by Avila's legal team. Now I'm sure that legal reps of people about to be slung out of the country (rightly IMHO he overstayed his visa granted to him to come and learn not find a soul mate) would take the time and trouble to make "a joke" of a cat in their submissions before a court? therefore the joint ownership of the cat in their opinion was important enough to be introduced to the case, so the cat played more than a minor role and was not a joke!

[Worthy4England]

I think that a cat should be used in cases of illegal immigration. It's only right and proper.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

More 10% fact mixed with 90% bull shit.

We've been through this, but since you can't be arsed reading beyond Nigel Farrage's twitter.....man in relationship for four years needs to prove he is in a 'relationship' (wink wink) with his boyfriend. Small part of evidence proving they were in a committed relationship as opposed to just room-mates is that they had a cat together, along with a load of other stuff. Judge made a joke about the cat suffering emotional trauma if it had to move to Bolivia, and deal with Bolivian mice (if you've lived over here in a proper relationship for two years or more that isn't itself enough to stay, you have to show you can't both move to your country- there were actually real reasons), feck press decide this is man allowed to stay because he has a cat.

Actually he didn't you read it? He said the man not the cat could suffer trauma if parted from his lover and cat! fair to say the cat DID actually play a part on his judgement and lets not forget HMG lost their appeal case on incorrect technical details sod all to do with "Human rights" The first judge should be shot!

Yes I read it, and yes nothing to do with human rights, so good start. There was nothing about the man suffering emotional trauma if separated from his cat. It was separated from his lover, the cat was only ever a small part of evidence in a wider body that this other man was in fact his lover. It was a Home Office directive they didn't apply properly, they rescinded it, but after this case, so obviously it couldn't apply retrospectively. The first judge had no option, nor did the appellate judge. The cat was irrelevant other than a tiny piece of evidence, and a joke which I've quoted elsewhere.

God Pru, sorry mate but are you thick? THE CAT WAS NOT A FECKIN' JOKE! "the cat" was introduced to the case by Avila's legal team. Now I'm sure that legal reps of people about to be slung out of the country (rightly IMHO he overstayed his visa granted to him to come and learn not find a soul mate) would take the time and trouble to make "a joke" of a cat in their submissions before a court? therefore the joint ownership of the cat in their opinion was important enough to be introduced to the case, so the cat played more than a minor role and was not a joke!

The co-ownership of the cat was used to establish that the relationship between the two PEOPLE was genuine.

A bit like you might say they have a "joint bank account" or share a "mortgage" etc etc etc.........

[Worthy4England]

The co-ownership of the cat was used to establish that the relationship between the two PEOPLE was genuine.

A bit like you might say they have a "joint bank account" or share a "mortgage" etc etc etc.........

Nothing like a joint bank account or a mortgage.

We have a dog. It's the wife's. Not mine, it proves nothing. Where's it's cat license, showing joint ownership?

It's a fecking CAT!

[Prufrock]

Ranzo Avila, who was at the centre of a row among senior Tories, overstayed his student visa but was allowed to stay in Britain after an immigration judge ruled in his favour in 2008. He concluded that the Bolivian’s right to family life would be breached because he was in an established relationship — reinforced by the fact that the couple had bought a cat.

The Daily Telegraph told yesterday how the cat did play a role in the case after the judge in the 2008 appeal suggested that separating him from the pet could cause “mental distress”. The man, now 36, had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.

Judge James Devittie said their joint ownership of a pet named Maya reinforced the quality of their family life and suggested that separating them could cause the man emotional trauma. Following an appeal by the Home Office, a second judge ruled that the main reason that the Bolivian could stay was because of a technical error by officials.

More 10% fact mixed with 90% bull shit.

We've been through this, but since you can't be arsed reading beyond Nigel Farrage's twitter.....man in relationship for four years needs to prove he is in a 'relationship' (wink wink) with his boyfriend. Small part of evidence proving they were in a committed relationship as opposed to just room-mates is that they had a cat together, along with a load of other stuff. Judge made a joke about the cat suffering emotional trauma if it had to move to Bolivia, and deal with Bolivian mice (if you've lived over here in a proper relationship for two years or more that isn't itself enough to stay, you have to show you can't both move to your country- there were actually real reasons), feck press decide this is man allowed to stay because he has a cat.

Actually he didn't you read it? He said the man not the cat could suffer trauma if parted from his lover and cat! fair to say the cat DID actually play a part on his judgement and lets not forget HMG lost their appeal case on incorrect technical details sod all to do with "Human rights" The first judge should be shot!

Yes I read it, and yes nothing to do with human rights, so good start. There was nothing about the man suffering emotional trauma if separated from his cat. It was separated from his lover, the cat was only ever a small part of evidence in a wider body that this other man was in fact his lover. It was a Home Office directive they didn't apply properly, they rescinded it, but after this case, so obviously it couldn't apply retrospectively. The first judge had no option, nor did the appellate judge. The cat was irrelevant other than a tiny piece of evidence, and a joke which I've quoted elsewhere.

God Pru, sorry mate but are you thick? THE CAT WAS NOT A FECKIN' JOKE! "the cat" was introduced to the case by Avila's legal team. Now I'm sure that legal reps of people about to be slung out of the country (rightly IMHO he overstayed his visa granted to him to come and learn not find a soul mate) would take the time and trouble to make "a joke" of a cat in their submissions before a court? therefore the joint ownership of the cat in their opinion was important enough to be introduced to the case, so the cat played more than a minor role and was not a joke!

Fook me. I'm going to try to say the say thing another, slightly different way, and see if we get there this time. The man in question was in a relationship with a man over here. Under a Home Office directive, that they later rescinded, but after they started proceedings against him, you were allowed to stay permanently if you were in a relationship with a British citizen for over two years. The man satisfied this condition, and so according to the home office's own rules, had to be allowed to stay. If you have an issue with that, then fine, but your complaint should be with the Home Office for having the rule, not with the judges who had no choice but to apply the home office's own rules.

Now, the cat. The man was in a relationship with another man, and so obviously they weren't married. To prove they were in fact in a relationship, and not just living together, they produced a wide range of evidence, one part, amongst other, much more crucial and persuasive evidence, was that they had a cat together. The case was never going to stand or fall on the fact they had a cat, but obviously their counsel threw in absolutely any little thing which would help show they were in fact in a proper relationship.

Up to this point, this case would probably never had hit the news. In such circumstances lawyers will throw in all the little pieces of evidence they can think of. In a theoretical case they might use the fact they had started a game of the Sims together as a family to show they were in a relationship. This person wouldn't, despite it undoubtedly being reported in the papers as such, be 'allowed to stay because he had a playstation'.

The reason we have all heard of the cat, is because the Judge in the appeal threw in a joke. I've quoted it elsewhere but it went something like 'I dismiss the appeal and allow the man to stay....and also, his cat will not have to suffer the trauma of getting used to bolivian mice'. This joke, and it is a joke Hoboh, no judge will let somebody stay here because their cat doesn't like Bolivia, as much as the Daily Mail would like people to believe so, was what was used as the basis for stories of 'human rights' (not applicable) allowing people to stay because they have a cat.

To stress the point (we thickos need to do this) there was never any mention of any emotional trauma at being separated from his cat, and this wasn't an argument for him to stay. Up until the judgement in the appeal, the only mention of the cat had been to show the relationship between the two men was not merely friendship. Counsel didn't introduce it as a joke, it was just a minor piece of evidence. The only reason anyone has heard of the cat, is because the judge cracked a joke about it. They do that. Mainly coz they can, and people have to laugh.