My British Values. (You can't just hi-ack them Leavers)

not a controversial post trisher, that would at least have been interesting

As you say Callistemon, there was precious little to talk about.

You didn't miss much trisher

Greymar may have more details though

Me too trisher

Why do I always miss the controversial comments? And by the time I read them they've been deleted and I can only imagine what they said!

I would most definitely shag you Mike. I'll be in touch, so to speak.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

S*d off Mike and stop wasting our time ???

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

POGS you quoted your self Now whether or not you believe what the individuals who are mentioned in Hansard are saying that is up to you to decide but if something is said and is untrue then they can and will be held accountable for what they say plus the fact there is no anonymity
They may be named but they are under the protection of Parliamentary Privilege and so no action can be taken and there is no accountability. I don't see how I am twisting what you say, simply correcting your misunderstanding. However if you can prove I am wrong I am willing to offer an apology.

trisher

'POGS your belief that the things MPs say in parliament must be true is rather sweet but completely inaccurate'
----

Stop your ruddy patronising I am not a child!

Read the posts not interpret what you think I believe, twisting what I said.

POGS your belief that the things MPs say in parliament must be true is rather sweet but completely inaccurate. In fact a Bill to stop them telling lies failed in 2007 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elected_Representatives_(Prohibition_of_Deception)_Bill_2006–07
As I said Hansard only reports what is said not if what is said is accurate.
And I prefer to believe the UNICEF figures on unaccompanied child refugees rather than any government minister who inflates figures by presenting the total number of children accompanied and unaccompanied. The government hasn't done well on child refugees and things will undoubtedly become worse now.

trisher

It was a falsehood on your part, not acceptable, to say my post was not about child refugees and my post was irrelevant ! End of, it was clear for all to see.

I fully understand irony and I do not see where I was being ironic.

I said in my post :-

"Now whether or not you believe what the individuals who are mentioned in Hansard are saying that is up to you to decide but if something is said and is untrue then they can and will be held accountable for what they say plus the fact there is no anonymity."

The fact remains trisher I prefer to post from respected sources such as Hansard or non anonymous sites unlike some posters such as yourself who at times post links to the words and opinions from sources they do not know from whom/where/why the material originated.

POGS when I referred to irony I was alluding to my post
But hey it's in Hansard so it must be true musn't it.
Because although Hansard acurately reports what is said in Parliament there is no onus on any MP to say things which are true- so Hansard only reports what is said not necessarily the truth ( takes deep breath) That's irony!
As for what was said. The discussion was about unccompanied children the figures presented 41000 included all children not just unaccompanied. It's how MPs work. They fudge information.
Chestnut Thanks for your advice. I shall refrain from trying anything ironic in the future. The explanation takes too much effort!

trisher

' This discussion is about child refugees and not adults so your entire post is irrelevant.'
----

What the. hell do you think my post re Hansard was about if not Child Refugees?

What/where have I been ' ironic' or shown I do not understand ' irony'?

I find irony is rarely translatable on these threads trisher and remainers are just as easily confused when I've tried it. Better to stick to words which mean what they say.

POGS You don't seem o understand irony. Of course Hansard is a true account of what is said in parliament. Unfortunately there is no requirement on MPs to tell the truth. So what is in Hansard is always questionable. Especially as little is done if MPs are found to have lied.
Nevertheless, outside of elections and parliamentary oaths, politicians are pretty much free to bend the truth as they please. The MP’s Code of Conduct contains just a single sentence under the heading of ‘honesty,’ and that refers to the declaration of conflicts of interest. The House of Lords Code of Conduct has only seven words: ‘Holders of public office should be truthful.’ What’s more, on the rare occasions an MP is found to be in breach of these codes, the consequences are so half-hearted that they can hardly be classed as punishments. Misbehaving politicians can be asked ‘to apologise to the House’ (not the public) or suspended from parliament for a short time, although they may still be paid their full salary while suspended.
This discussion is about child refugees and not adults so your entire post is irrelevant.

trisher

Your post 10.14

Your point is a valid one but it does not take into account the DUBLIN 111 agreement that says an asylum request by a third country national should present themselves for asylum in the first European country that person arrives in. It is no secret that is usually Greece, Spain, Italy and of course Germany invited 1 million refugees into it's country. It is common knowledge asylum seekers/refugees/illegal immigrants are bypassing the system, ignoring the DUBLIN 111 agreement to travel through Europe to get to other countries of which the UK is the hardest to get to geographically.

It should be of no surprise therefore countries geographically closest to where asylum seekers /refugees find the journey safest/closest will be at the top of the table.

As for your attempt to belittle Hansard by saying :-

" But hey it's in Hansard so it must be true musn't it."

The answer is ' Yes' if it is in Hansard it is a factual account of what was said in Parliament unlike the sources you and others favour which are at times not accountable, could be a fat man in a chair sat at home eating a curry, a St Petersburg Bot factory, click bait or a another.

Now whether or not you believe what the individuals who are mentioned in Hansard are saying that is up to you to decide but if something is said and is untrue then they can and will be held accountable for what they say plus the fact there is no anonymity.

That is in opposition to the links some posters prefer to use to anonymous political sites or Facebook /twitter accounts to lord knows who, may even be to ' cloned ' accounts under well known names.

So yes Hansard is an invaluable / factual tool for reporting from the horses mouth as opposed to reading guff from what ' may be' Information from the ass end of who knows where/why/who.

It has always happened and there have been some campaigns to try to reverse the harsh decisions, some successful others not.

I've read it. Unfortunately knowing the way that deportation of asylum seekers is going at the moment and particularly what is happening to children who are here, but thrown out once they reach 18, I have very little faith in what this government is up to. Certainly for 2019 his claim that the UK is the third country for the numbers of children is inaccurate. UNICEF says
Similar to previous years, Germany remained the top destination for refugee and migrant children, registering 39% of all child asylum applications between January and June 2019 (36,590 children). Other countries that recorded large numbers of child asylum seekers include France (11,560 children, 12%), Spain (10,120 children, 11%), Greece (9,314 children, 10%), and the United Kingdom (4,780 children, 5%). Greece remains the country with the highest number of first-time applicants relative to its population, while Spain has marked the sharpest increase in child asylum claims over the first six months of 2019 (double compared to the same period in 2018)
Which puts us at 4th and behind Greece one of the poorest countries in the EU. But hey it's in Hansard so it must be true musn't it.
Them Leavers are being led up the garden path but us wifies are keeping an eye on Boris and his buddies.

Urmstongran

Thank you for reading it!

I love the British Isles, I love the big cities, small towns, villages and the great open spaces, the coastlines, the beauty: rugged moors and the patchwork of the farms on hillsides. Most of the people I meet face to face, from all backgrounds, are kind and friendly and would go out of their way to help someone in need. But as a small island we have always been dependent on other places for wealth and success.. hence the empire! We have not ever been self sufficient or really done anything independently e.g. WW1 & WW2 were not just 'our' wars.
The worry that the EU Parliament was controlling UK was never really true ..we voluntarily signed up to it and had our fair share of democratic representation.

However we have now left this EU group that has helped to strengthen this area of the world between East & West 'Big Powers'. We don't really know what it will mean for us as the government has not yet worked out the details . We do know that US has an eye on new markets for them... China too but we have lost some other important industry, directly because we were leaving the EU, & that is devastating some communities. I hope very much that my misgiving prove unfounded.. but a move too far to the right never ends well and we are a long way from centre ground at the moment.

It is fair to say that extreme views have grown in the Brexit hiatus and there has been an increase in racist abuse and assaults ..most recently that awful notice in a block of flats demanding people speak English and making threats now we have left EU! This is because the rhetoric, used by politicians supporting Leave, kept on promoting a nationalistic agenda.. this is the climate that allows this insidious Little Englander mentality & hatred of 'others' to grow. I am NOT saying that everyone who voted to leave the EU thinks like that but the leading Leave politicians have been slow to decry these attitudes.

But it is done ..so all is good.

Thank you POGS it’s good to have a measured, fact based post. Made for interesting reading.

Hansard 22/02/2020. Extracts

Stephen Barclay

I turn to Lords amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord Dubs. Although the Government humbly disagree with the amendment, we recognise his sincerity about and dedication to this issue and the constructive scrutiny that he has provided on behalf of vulnerable children. The amendment would remove the provision that amends the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to require the Government to report on their policy on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

I can only say again, as I did in our previous debates, that the Government’s policy is unchanged. Delivering on it will not require legislation. The Government have a proud record on supporting the most vulnerable children. The UK has granted protection to more than 41,000 children since the start of 2010. In 2018, the UK received ​more than 3,000 asylum applications from unaccompanied children, and the UK deals with 15% of all claims in the EU, making us the country with the third highest intake in Europe. Indeed, in the year ending September 2019 the intake rose to more than 3,500.

Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Share
I am pleased that the policy has not changed, but why is the Secretary of State changing the legislation?

Steve Barclay
Share
The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts the passage that I am just coming to.

As hon. Members will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the European Commission on 22 October on this very issue. The amendment in no way affects our commitment to seek an agreement with the EU. Primary legislation cannot deliver the best outcomes for these children, as it cannot guarantee that we will reach an agreement. That is why this is ultimately a matter that must be negotiated with the EU. The Government are committed to seeking the best possible outcome in those negotiations.

Christine Jardine
Share
Over the past three and a half years, there have been many arguments and debates about European citizens’ rights and their protection. Refugee children are among the most vulnerable in the world—surely none of us, regardless of the side of the argument we were on, wants their safety or the possibility of their being reunited with their families to be undermined in any way. Why, then, are the Government so determined to take such provision out of the Bill rather than going with the amendment, which would offer a guarantee and reassure everyone in the House?

Steve Barclay
Share
For the reasons that I have alluded to; this is an issue that the Home Secretary is addressing.

Several hon. Members rose—
Share
Steve Barclay
Share
I give way to the previous Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—I am conscious that that election is still to come.

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Share
The Secretary of State has still given no reason. Why take the provision out of the 2018 Act? It is in previous legislation. There are loads of things in legislation through the decades that the Government say they disagree with, but amendments are not needed because they have said they disagree, and they do not remove those things from the statute book. That is what makes us suspect that he wants to remove it, because for some reason he thinks that it will restrict what he wants to do, and in the end, therefore, he will betray the commitments that have been made to the most vulnerable children. If not, he should keep the provision in the Act.

Steve Barclay
Share
Let me address that head-on: the reason is that the purpose of the legislation is to implement in domestic law the international agreement that we have reached. That is what the withdrawal agreement Bill is doing and that is why we do not support the amendment. What drives the right hon. Lady’s concern is whether the protections will be in place for unaccompanied children. I draw her attention again to the Government’s record as one of the three best countries in the EU. ​The figures show that this country has the third highest intake and deals with 15% of all claims in the EU. That is the policy that the Government and the Prime Minister are committed to, and it is reflected in the Home Secretary’s approach.
--

It is obviously only my opinion and take on the matter but I think it is more to do with ' procedure' and ' legislation' required now we have exited from the European Union rather than how some like to assume the government being b*****s turning their back on child asylum seekers being reunited with their families.

I could be wrong but I am trying to give an informative post rather than a politically partisan one or making accusations about those voted in opposition to me in the EU Referendum and voted Leave as I hold no sway with the abuse directed toward them for holding/having their own opinion to which we are ALL entitled.

"democracy " that'll be why Scottish MP's were stopped from voting on an NHS bill this evening that has consequences for our NHS .It was declared to be EVEL ...couldn't make up this democracy you love .Especially when it locks over 5 million of us out of the process and has done for centuries !!