Some newspapers’ attitude to refugees is downright disgraceful and un-British

Friday 28th August. News came through of an horrific discovery in Austria. 71 refugees, including three children and one baby, were found dead in a lorry there. Adding to a very grim day, reports emerged that a boat packed with refugees had sunk off the coast of Libya, with 200 people feared dead.

One would have thought that such a double humanitarian disaster would have softened the heart of the most hardened Fleet Street editor.

Indeed, the Guardian’s front page the following day was sympathetic to the plight of the refugees. An article by Kate Connolly in Passau, Germany, was headlined:

Cold, dirty and hungry, at the mercy of traffickers and death, the Syrian refugees who cross Europe to reach a safe haven.

You would have thought that the Daily Express might want to reflect the news of the twin tragedies with some prominence. However, the news was tucked away on Page 5. “The seal that just wanted a cuddle” and “Chateau for the cost of a semi” stories got more prominence on pages 3 and 2 respectively.

But what appalls me is the story, and the headline, with which the Express, whose Editor is Hugh Whittow, choose for their front page on Saturday 29th August:

Inside: The pictures that prove…MIGRANTS SWARM TO BRITAIN

So, not only did the Daily Express not cover the double refugee tragedy with any great prominence, they went to the opposite extreme and chose the day after up to 271 refugees had been killed seeking a safe refuge to describe refugees using a word normally used for insects.

It is a disgrace, Hugh Whittow. What’s more it is completely un-British. We have a proud tradition of giving shelter to refugees, not least to Jews during the Second World War.

Daily Express1

* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

73 Comments

  • Andrew Whyte 31st Aug '15 - 11:22am

    Well at least Desmond’s porn channel Television X gave a warmer welcome to some foreigners; Czech Mate. Michelle B’s European Tour and Cirque du Sex all shown on the same evening as the controversial Calais Songs of Praise that caused the Express to froth at the mouth (source Private Eye)

  • Richard Whelan 31st Aug '15 - 11:33am

    It is my view that Tim can win on this in the same way that Charles Kennedy won on Iraq. All that needs to happen is that we put our consistent liberal policy on immigration out there and not be afraid to defend it against attacks from this type of media.

  • I notice that above the SWARM headline. Two “special offers” in conjunction with Lidl and WH Smith.

    Customers of Lidl and WH Smith might like to e-mail those companies and ask if they are happy for their brand to be so closely associated with such appalling headlines from Express Newspapers.

    Or those customers might just prefer to take their custom elsewhere.

  • Paul, Heart…Fleet St. editor?????? You really love oxymorons

  • And for those who do not know who Hugh Whittow is and are too young to remember Blackie the Donkey. —

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/08/hugh-whittow-profile-express

  • Tim certainly can win on this but he needs the media exposure to make his case. With newspapers like The Express using such unpleasant language to describe people seeking safety and a better life, it is going to be challenging to encourage other media outlets to do the opposite. The Guardian and the Independent are making some positive noises, as is the New Statesman, but the Labour leadership contest is dominating their headlines and very little of that contest is focussed on this issue. I’d be interested to hear different views on how best we can get our voice heard on this. Perhaps Tim should link up with a charity and some of our prominent members could spend some time working with them in Calais and elsewhere to get a clearer understanding of how we can help.

  • To win on this, Tim needs to be proposing something specific. At the moment he can’t win because he hasn’t made a proposal.

    Germany has 800,000 asylum applications and would like others to share the burden. The Daily Mail might want to suggest a risk of Britain “going halves” with Germany and accepting 400,000. That would terrify a lot of voters, and not only the racists.

    Objectively, Germany has an underpopulation problem whereas Britain is attracting a higher number of economic migrants. So Britain should certainly not “go halves” with Germany. Nor should Britain completely shut the door. Can Tim make a sensible proposal?

    How about simply saying that we should now take those of the 3000 people camped at Calais who qualify for asylum in Europe, then shut the camp and keep open the M20?

  • david thorpe 31st Aug '15 - 12:39pm

    KLiberal Democrats might gain some credibility on this issue if they srtarted with some basic research and used the correct term. A refugee is someone who has been granted refugee status, those highlighted in the media are asylum seekers, ie they intend to apply for refugee status-they havent been granted it yet, so are not refugees, if you cant get the basics right, why should I listen to you on anything else? Its particularly ironic given that your article sneers at others for using the wong terminology!

    Newe leader for the Lib Dems, no closer to credibility for the party.

  • david thorpe 31st Aug '15 - 12:40pm

    tim can ‘win’ if he comes up with a policy proposal, emotiing is somehting he is good at, and has done some of, and got some coverage of, but we need a policy-over to you Tim.

    The Indepdent have been very good on the migration issues for years, the [platfiorm is there, yhe just needs something to say,.

  • @ALEX LEWIS. I’M CERTAINLY UP FOR THAT. Let’s get Tim to act on it.

  • @Mick Taylor. Then let’s do it. I’m not entirely sure if this is a realistic prospect or if Tim reads this website on a regular basis, but if there is some way to make it happen then I’ll certainly give up some time to go to Calais with them!

  • David Evershed 31st Aug '15 - 1:07pm

    When Britain was threatened by Nazi Germany in World War II, the British people ould have all left and emigrated to the USA or South America.

    Instead, being British meant staying and fighting for freedom and against an evil regime.

    If those now emigrating to Europe from Africa and the Middle East were to adopt the British attitude they would stay in their countries and work for them to become better places to live.

  • David Evershed 31st Aug ’15 – 1:07pm……………….When Britain was threatened by Nazi Germany in World War II, the British people ould have all left and emigrated to the USA or South America……………..Instead, being British meant staying and fighting for freedom and against an evil regime…………….If those now emigrating to Europe from Africa and the Middle East were to adopt the British attitude they would stay in their countries and work for them to become better places to live……….

    A ‘slight difference’…The Nazis were not fighting in the streets of Britain….The most cursory look at WW2 footage would show the ‘swarms’ of refugees from the countries where that was happening…

  • As the saying goes: ‘if not us, who? and ‘if not now, when?, isn’t it about time that we, as a country, take note of this and become the ‘who’ and the time becomes ‘now’. Yes, as Lib Dems we are trying to do our part to change attitudes and to get action to begin but we cannot do it alone.

  • David Evershed 31st Aug '15 - 2:21pm

    expats
    “The Nazis were not fighting in the streets of Britain”

    The people in Britain’s industrialised cities who were being bombed would not agree. They stuck it out and helped defeat the Nazis rather than emigrating to the USA or elsewhere.

    People in the Middle east and Africa need to help their own countries become civilised rather than trying to emigrate. Europe can not take the populations of all those countries in the world with a worse standard of living without becoming chaotic itself.

  • David Evershed 31st Aug ’15 – 2:21pm…………expats“The Nazis were not fighting in the streets of Britain”…People in Britain’s industrialised cities who were being bombed would not agree. They stuck it out and helped defeat the Nazis rather than emigrating to the USA or elsewhere….

    Yes, all they had to do was wander down to the docks, get on a boat and ‘Bob’s your uncle’

  • david thorpe,

    I wish people on here would stop repeating the British Government’s self-serving definition of “refugee”

    Here is the dictionary definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/refugee Refugees are refugees.

    However because refugees may turn into asylum seekers, then governments have to have narrower definitions

    The UNHCR definition is here:

    http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

    The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

    This allows countries to send refugees back if the war or persecution they are fleeing disappears. But it does not say “you are only a refugee after you have applied for asylum and proved you are a refugee”

    Would you say to me “you are only British after you have shown me your passport”? There are circumstances where I have to prove I am British, but it is my birth and parentage that make me British, not being able to prove it.

  • Jayne mansfield 31st Aug '15 - 3:29pm

    @ David Thorpe,
    Rather than having an argument over which term is the most appropriate, why don’t we focus on why those wishing to flee cannot apply for asylum in the EU embassies of countries bordering Syria to which they flee.? This would mean that they didn’t have to cross into Europe by dangerous means in order to do so.

  • Richard Stallard 31st Aug '15 - 4:04pm

    @Jayne
    Because then they would have to wait for the decision in that country (which might take a long time).
    If they are still in danger in that country, then this does them no favours as they are still in danger.
    If they are not in danger in that country, then there is no need for them to apply for asylum in an EU country as they are already safe.

  • @Paul Walter
    “We have a proud tradition of giving shelter to refugees, not least to Jews during the Second World War.”

    Really? I don’t think we do really, 80,000 before the war started, 10,000 during the war years. Of those 30,000 were interned and 8,000 deported to other countries.

    http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206312.pdf

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices

  • @adrian sanders & John Tilley

    Re Lidl, there seems to be some sort of assumption that other European nations are some how more evolved than us mere Brits, yet they are also human and suffer from all the usual failings, try http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-being-tested-by-huge-refugee-influx-a-1045560.html for some history.

  • John Tilley 31st Aug '15 - 5:23pm

    adrian sanders 31st Aug ’15 – 12:59pm
    “No it’s not, all the staff speak English.”

    Watching Ch4 News last week I was struck by how many people picked out at random from the long line of Syrian families walking through Macedonia all spoke perfect English.
    The programme then switched to a Vox Pop in the UK (was it somewhere near Grimsby?). The two English men interviewed could hardly string two coherent sentences together and grunted stuff about people “taking our jobs”. Grimsby has of course been an area of high unemployment (very high in some particular wards) for more than 20 years. Whoever it was that “took their jobs” it was not refugees from Syria.

    The myth that allowing workers into your country causes unemployment is hard to sustain. Germany has repeatedly taken hundreds of thousands of refugees and “guest-workers” over the last 70 years and their economy has grown as a result creating jobs and opportunities for Germans as well as for new arrivals. I wonder if any of those English people talking about foreigners “taking our jobs” remember the TV series ‘Aufwiedersehn Pet’.

  • david thorpe 31st Aug '15 - 5:56pm

    the definition i used is that applied in international law-;people apply for asylum claiming refugee staus and if their case is valid are granted refugee stautus-i dont know about uk government definitions im not from the uk and in my cpuntry they apply international law and use my definition

  • Jayne mansfield 31st Aug '15 - 6:35pm

    @ Richard Stallard,
    The places that they are fleeing to initially are Turkey, Lebanon and Jordon, but the numbers are likely to destabilise those countries.

    As I Have mentioned before, the magnitude of this crisis requires a joint approach not only of EU countries but other countries around the world too.

    I think it ludicrous to put a number on the refugees any country wil be prepared to take, including the UK, if a person is a refugee then they need to be afforded safety until it is safe to return to their home land. every country needs to step up to the plate during this extraordinary time.

    By the way, may I point out that the murderers of the tragic soldier were brought up in devout Christian homes.. ALso, it was widely reported that his dignified mother asked that her son.s death was not used to used to ferment hatred because her son had friends from all backgrounds. If one really cared, one would honour her wishes.

  • The refugee crisis is a complex issue that will require a multi-tiered approach as was the case in the immediate aftermath of WWII

    Many of those reaching the shores of Europe appear to have been brought there by people smugglers. There are millions more from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and sub-Saharan Africa that cannot pay smugglers to get them across borders.

    UN logistical and humanitarian support for temporary refugee camps in bordering countries is the first essential foundation. Migrants that have reached Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt are ostensibly already clear of the war zones in Syria and Iraq and out of immediate danger.

    Two steps might usefully be taken. Firstly, the establishment of protected safe zones within Syria along the border with Turkey backed with Nato military support.and in conjunction with the coalition action to clear the Islamic state from Syria and Western Iraq. Secondly, the establishment of EU consulate offices in these zones to process asylum seekers applications,

    Russia and Iran might establish such zones along Syria’s border with Lebanon and the Gulf states along the border with Jordan. Perhaps even Israel might be persuaded to do something similar on the border with the Golan heights,

    Ultimately, the objective has to be to stabilise the security situation and bring about a situation where refugees feel able to safely return their homes.

    Resettlement centres would similarly need to be set-up on the Libyan coast or elsewhere in North Africa to process the application of African asylum seekers from Eritrea, Somalia, Nigeria etc. These centres could take migrants picked up in the Mediterranean or crossing illegally to Italian territory.

  • Richard Stallard 31st Aug '15 - 7:08pm

    “I wonder if any of those English people talking about foreigners “taking our jobs” remember the TV series ‘Aufwiedersehn Pet’.”

    I do indeed, John, and it would be an excellent model to follow:

    The guys were only allowed to work in Germany because of their qualification/skill in their particular trade. In order to do so, they had to apply for a work permit, which they were only granted because there was a shortage of German workers in that particular trade at that time.

    Then, if they broke the law (as Oz did on several occasions) they were in danger of their work permit being revoked and/or being thrown out of the country (which I think Wayne was in danger of in one episode).

    They were living in a site hut, had no health insurance and paid no NI so the German authorities didn’t have to pay for them if they fell ill, and If they didn’t work they got no money.

    It sounds like the perfect solution to our skill shortage. Well done for suggesting it!

  • Matthew Huntbach 31st Aug '15 - 7:55pm

    John Tilley

    Watching Ch4 News last week I was struck by how many people picked out at random from the long line of Syrian families walking through Macedonia all spoke perfect English.
    The programme then switched to a Vox Pop in the UK (was it somewhere near Grimsby?). The two English men interviewed could hardly string two coherent sentences together and grunted stuff about people “taking our jobs”.

    That puts the case against immigration perfectly.

    People at the lower end of the ability scale have every right to fear it for just the reason you give here.

    John, what do you propose doing with people who can “hardly string two coherent sentences together”? Write them off as a waste of space and look forward to them being replaced by high ability people, of whom there are millions in the world who would love to come here?

  • A Social Liberal 31st Aug '15 - 8:02pm

    Richard Stallard

    “The guys were only allowed to work in Germany because of their qualification/skill in their particular trade. In order to do so, they had to apply for a work permit, which they were only granted because there was a shortage of German workers in that particular trade at that time.”

    This was perhaps so in the series but the reality was somewhat different. I spent six years in Germany in the 1980s and during that time I have known (not in the biblical sense I might add) Turkish workers of all kinds, prostitutes from Australia, Canadian bar workers and Schnell Imbiss cooks from all over the world. At the time of the Auf Wiedersehen Pet series the Germans had a policy of not turning away any who wished to stay in their countries. Indeed many of my comrades married and settled down over there – something that is not possible over here !

  • JoeBourke – “Firstly, the establishment of protected safe zones within Syria along the border with Turkey backed with Nato military support.”

    Sounds a lot like: re-establish Kurdistan and use NATO (and the UN) to protect it’s borders; an action with greater legitimacy than that which established Israel…

  • Roland,

    the former Liberal Party, or at least Lloyd George, does have form in this regard. The treaty of Sevres, envisaged an autonomous Kurdish zone created from the ashes of the Ottoman empire. Constantinople and its surrounds was an international zone occupied by British and French troops for a few years after World War 1.

    The Kurds, however, threw their lot in with Ataturk, to eject an invading Greek force from Anatolia and re-establish Turkish sovereignty in Eastern Thrace. The Kurds never did get their own self-governing region, however.

    Lloyd George wanted to use British troops to hold Constantinople, but the French withdrew and the Tory backbenchers brought down the last Liberal Prime-Minister over the affair. The rest is history as they say.

  • kushal kumar 1st Sep '15 - 4:23am

    The European Union is reportedly slated to discuss the migrant-refugee issue which has cropped up with the influx of migrants into some of EU countries. Obviously, the questions are many and not easy to crack. How many a country is in a position to help and for how long when one does not know when conditions for such migrants to return to their home countries are likely to emerge. How it would be identified that the migrant is a genuine refugee. The problem has grown intense when most of host countries are face to face with another connected problem – global economic turmoil. In the light of these circumstances, this Vedic astrology writer has examined the issue applying Vedic astrology to find out answer to commonly asked question – when will the problem ease? This writer has been of the view that issue is likely to be intensely grave during May 2015 to October 2015 and graver during November 2015 to June 2016. If there is a compassion, hopefully after mid 2016, there might perhaps be a little hope of easing though mid 2017 seems to be correct stage. And in between, the issue seems to be seen as one of rare tragic tales of human history.

  • Neil Sandison 1st Sep '15 - 8:04am

    I don’t know why we are getting hot under the collar about the Daily Express its been acting like UKIPs house journal for some considerable time now. Unless they are taken to a press complaints body of some kind they will continue to write such stories .The problem is when that is then pick up by the TV channels and then reported as fact.

  • Richard Stallard 1st Sep '15 - 9:34am

    @jedibeeftrix
    To take what you say a little further –

    We, in tune with most first world countries, have a similar problem and to sustain the tax base you talk about means that most of the people you import have to pay tax.

    Therefore they have to have jobs in the tax-paying labour market and you can’t afford to have them on benefits or sick and needing treatment in hospital, working in the black economy, or sending money out of the country.

    Therefore you need to import fit and healthy, skilled workers who will be an asset and not a liability.

    Which means choosing the right people through selection prior to entry, not just importing anyone and everyone willy-nilly and hoping there are a few skilled workers amongst them. If you were choosing an employee for your company, you would invite applicants and choose the best one at interview. You wouldn’t just grab the first person you see on the street, irrespective of their skills/criminal record etc.

    Hence, we need to choose the best and only the best to fill identified gaps in the labour market, and not just accept anyone who happens to walk through the door.

  • Do you not think that anyone casually looking at your site and not reading the article may see that reprint of the front page as the LibDem view?

  • PS if you are calling people un British then what are British values? Equality for women and gays for example?

  • Jenny Barnes 1st Sep '15 - 10:23am

    david thorpe”A refugee is someone who has been granted refugee status”

    A remarkably bureaucratic way of looking at it. So you can only be a refugee if you jump through the proper bureaucratic hoops? Sounds a bit like the IDS definition of sick/ disabled. AFAIK a refugee is someone seeking refuge from war or natural disaster – it doesn’t need a certificate.

  • Jenny Barnes 1st Sep '15 - 10:26am

    PS definitions from Open Democracy:

    Put simply, the term ‘migrant’ refers to someone who moves, temporarily or permanently, from one place or country to another. A migrant is someone who moves freely.

    A ‘refugee’, on the other hand, is forced to move because of persecution, or they are displaced by war or humanitarian disaster or some other external and compelling factor. States are obliged to provide them with protection under international law.

    ‘Asylum seekers’ are people seeking protection from persecution who are awaiting a decision on an application for refugee status under international and national laws.

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 11:02am

    @ Jenny Barnes.
    Thank you.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 11:55am

    Jenny Barnes 1st Sep ’15 – 10:26am Jayne mansfield 1st Sep ’15 – 11:02am
    Every time a new thread is opned the preceding work is sidelined. Repeating it can bec ome tedious for writer and reader.
    “Migrant” is a vague term which cvan be used by journalists without being disproved. Part of the debate should be about areas of depopulation within the UK and areas of increasing population density. A quick look at the number of people in Scotland and the number in greater London over the past decade/s makes the point clearly.

    “‘Asylum seekers’ are people seeking protection from persecution who are awaiting a decision on an application for refugee status under international and national laws.” Looked at objectively this definition needs clarification, to put it mildly, but its use results from the misuse of other terms in the press, media, etcetera, in ways which would not be used in legislation or in the courts. Because most decisions are made in the courts accurate language should be used.

    “A ‘refugee’, on the other hand, is forced to move because of persecution, or they are displaced by war or humanitarian disaster or some other external and compelling factor. States are obliged to provide them with protection under international law.” There have been many attempts over many years to extend the definition of a refugee in this way. If an extension of this kind is desired please recognise the existing situation and be open about the desire to extend the definition.
    Bizarrely, this over-simplified definition even falls short of the protection which has been in the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees since it came into force on 1 January 1953.
    Please use another source. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 12:20pm

    @ Richard Underhill,
    I understand how frustrating it must be.

    However, since the press and its contributors are using terms that suit their own agenda, some of us are saying who cares,? We have our own particular values and we are going to put the most benevolent label on the desperate people who are leaving their country until an assessment of individuals demonstrates that we are wrong to do in their particular individual case.

    Nigel Farage, as expected has entered the debate. What do you make of his contribution?

  • @David Allen “How about simply saying that we should now take those of the 3000 people camped at Calais who qualify for asylum in Europe, then shut the camp and keep open the M20?”

    I agree with David Allen!

  • Richard Stallard 1st Sep '15 - 12:47pm

    @Jayne Mansfield
    “Nigel Farage, as expected has entered the debate. What do you make of his contribution?”

    He has said that the eu’s policy has “opened the door to an exodus of biblical proportions”.
    According to Exodus 12:37–38, the Israelites numbered “about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children,” plus many non-Israelites and livestock. (Although perhaps bear in mind that that this is generally thought to be something of an over-estimation).

    Bearing in mind that Germany alone expects as many as 750,000 refugees to seek asylum there this year, it seems that he is pretty much right regarding the number or people but incorrect in relation to the number of livestock.

  • Richard Stallard 1st Sep ’15 – 12:47pm ……When the refugees start marching around the tunnel entrance blowing rams’ horns we might start to worry…

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 1:02pm

    Jayne mansfield 1st Sep ’15 – 12:20pm
    OK, let’s deal with Nigel Farage MEP first. i did not hear what he said, but the BBC did and the link is below.
    i am reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt because he has advisers and he has a track record.
    It is possible that there is a debate in which he wants to take part where some of the contributors have made suggestions with which he disagrees, or where his interpretation is different from the intentions of the original contributor.
    There is a previous thread on LDV which i have watched, in which he expresses his frustration about differences within the NO campaign and the findings of opinion polls that he should not lead it because he is “toxic”.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34110960
    i am a pro-european, but the 1951 convention is a United Nations document with signatories from all over the world. Look at the policy of Australia, a prosperous democracy, but with a very restrictive policy. Compare it with Canada, also large, also prosperous, more likely to grant asylum. People are arrested in the UK for trying to stow away on planes and ships headed to Canada leading to casual talk “Why not let the go?” because they would be sent back, because we value our relations with Canada and our international reputation. Some of these people are not known to the UK authorities, having entered the UK illegally, not been previously caught, and not served with illegal entry papers.

  • Martin Hunt 1st Sep '15 - 1:07pm

    The problem surely is the creaking ly long time it takes to process asylum applications. Set a team up in Calais to do it quickly and efficiently and we can make a small start on solving the problem. However we also need to recognise that Europe cannot absorb huge numbers of the populations of Syria, Eritrea and Libya.

  • Richard Stallard 1st Sep '15 - 1:35pm

    I don’t think Nigel Farage will lead the “Leave” Campaign (it looks like the wording of the referendum will now change to “stay” or “Leave” rather than the rather confusing “Yes” or “No”).

    He had almost 4,000,000 supporters at the General Election (and probably more who voted Tory due to the SNP threat) and about the same number voted for UKIP at the EU elections. Those people are pretty safe “Leave ” voters.
    Many millions more, however, who are fed up with the eu and all it stands for, don’t agree with some of UKIP’s other policies. They would probably prefer to listen to a voice other than his.

    Therefore, Nigel will do well to stick to what he knows best, which is immigration, whilst other voices (business leaders etc.) put the case for all the other reasons to leave. He won’t need to do much – 50% of the British population (and rapidly rising) are already against unrestricted immigration. The next few revelations of criminality/terrorism (such as Rochdale) will push that further still.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 1:47pm

    The definitions are deficient in their description of the timing. Let us deal first with “refugees sur place”, The phrase is in the 1951 convention in French.
    A Croatian au pair (before Croatia joined the EU). There is a widespread perception that the au pair must be female although there are a small numbers of males. There is a widespread perception that the job is baby-sitting and a knowledge of English is needed, but the conditions of entry require that the applicant is in the UK to learn English and the number of hours of work are a restricted small number. There are other conditions. She/he has a valid Croatian passport legally stamped by Croatia and by the UK. She usually travels by air, going home for Christmas, family weddings and birthdays. She does not apply to the UK for permanent settlement and is sincere in her stated wish to return to Croatia when her visa expires, or before. She intends to work in the family business, which is a cafe-restauraurant on the Adriatic coast.
    Then a war breaks out in the former Yugoslavia and she is afraid to return home. She claims asylum in the UK, in-country because she is already here legally. She is photographed and fingerprinted. She is interviewed in the language of her choice, which, after taking advice, may be Serbo-Croat, using an interpreter provided by the Home Office who is not a refugee, nor an asylum seeker. Her claim is written down and considered after the interview, using information in the public domain from a variety of sources.
    She has not lied in her claim, so there are no credibility arguments.
    She is currently fearful of returning to Croatia, but would wish to return when the war is over.
    She has not been conscripted into the armed forces of Croatia because they are only calling up adult men.
    To be recognised as a refugee her fear needs to “well founded” in the language of the convention, but although her country is divided by war, there are safe areas to which she could return, not necessarily where her family lives.
    She is refused asylum, given written reasons and a right of appeal.
    If she appeals against refusal of asylum the situation in her country at the date of the appeal is relevant, it might be better or worse. Her visa as an au pair may have expired, but is irrelevant anyway, except as part of her history.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 1:47pm

    Her brother has claimed asylum on arrival at a UK seaport and produced his call-up papers. He is refused asylum because the 1951 convention specifically excludes the basis of his claim. He is granted a right of appeal.

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 2:07pm

    @Richard Underhill,
    Sorry Richard . I was actually referring to Mr Farage’s comments on the definition of a refugee.

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 2:14pm

    @ Richard Staalard,
    Actually, an IPSOS MORI poll in October 2014 showed that 11 per cent of UKIP supporters would vote to stay in the EU.Although a lower percentage than from other parties, it.’s hardly a safe bet you have made!

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 2:39pm

    Jayne mansfield 31st Aug ’15 – 3:29pm Jurisdiction is the key issue. Embassies are abroad. There is a footnote which applies to South America. The Ecuadorian embassy in the UK houses Julian Assange in a small space which does not have an underground car park. There is a Vienna convention on which i am not expert.

  • Richard Stallard 1st Sep '15 - 2:43pm

    @Jayne.
    That’s why I said “pretty safe!
    Indeed, I suspect people vote UKIP for a variety of reasons, leaving the eu being just one. Leaving the eu is probably the second or third biggest draw (probably after control of immigration and the re-establishment of Britain as an independent nation, and before the return of grammar schools).

    I’d be happy to stay in the eu if (in no particular order):
    Its unelected bureaucrats stopped trying to tell us what to do.
    It stopped trying to destroy nations and turn Europe into a federation of states.
    We could stop the favouritism that allows eu citizens to bypass immigration regulations we have in place for people from other nations and let them compete on equal terms.
    It would stop constantly demanding more and more money.
    We could ignore any of its rules and regulations that don’t suit us and decide things for ourselves.
    If once (just once!) we received more from the eu that we gave it. Every single year we are net losers.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 3:02pm

    Jayne mansfield 1st Sep ’15 – 2:07pm ” I was actually referring to Mr Farage’s comments on the definition of a refugee.”
    Jayne, do the words “Farage” and “definition” sit together? How about “Farage” and “resignation”?
    Despite the stated certainty, which is so appealing to voters, there is actually a lot of flexibility.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 3:03pm

    Richard Stallard 1st Sep ’15 – 2:43pm Should this be on a separate thread?

  • Richard Stallard 1st Sep '15 - 3:07pm

    @Richard Underhill
    You’re right – it should. Simply answering Jane’s point, that’s all.

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 3:17pm

    @ Richard Stallard,
    First of all, apologies for mis- typing your name earlier.

    Unlike you, I am not on first name terms with ‘Nigel’ , but are you sure that he is simply not ‘ frit’. he must know from poling that he repels more than he appeals.

    We are in agreement that people vote UKIP for a variety of reasons. Some for reasons that disgust me.

    I am felling pretty upbeat after listening to Angela Merkel and the majority response of the German people, and also by the actions of Icelandic people. I have faith in the British people that we too will not turn our backs on the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding and will do our bit.

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 3:33pm

    @ Richard Underhill,
    Doesn’t the complicated nature of the rules make it possible for government’s

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 3:37pm

    continued..
    To keep people out?

    I am thinking of a case of Eritreans who were sent home on the basis of what Human Rights Watch call a flawed Danish report.

  • Richard Stallard, I would want Britain out of the EU if your list of demands were the price to keep it in. I would vote to leave if it were the case that such a deal would be imposed to keep us in.

    You’re saying that you’d be willing to stay in the Union provided it didn’t try to do anything that would unite. You want ‘regulations’ that anyone can just declare that they’re not going to abide by, which are no regulations at all. In short, you’re willing to stay a member of the Tennis Club, but only if everyone agrees to play golf instead. It doesn’t exactly leap out as the most reasonable of positions.

    The relief is that the European side of the argument is unlikely to offer such a capitulation to Mr Cameron. Quite the reverse really. If he pushes too hard, he may well be told that actually, it might be easier to make this work with England outside of the Union after all. And that would make me sad, because England is my country and I don’t want to see it fail. But if that’s what people want that’s what they should get.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 3:56pm

    Jayne mansfield 1st Sep ’15 – 3:33pm , Jayne mansfield 1st Sep ’15 – 3:37pm
    Doesn’t the complicated nature of the rules make it possible for governments to keep people out?
    No, because the asylum claim overrides the Immigration Rules, to the frustration of Immigration Officers at ports.
    This is another reason for using accurate language, Immigration Officers do not decide asylum claims although some have done interviews.
    As for keeping people out, perhaps parliamentarians should ask about Airline Liaison Officers. What powers do they have outside UK jurisdiction? What do they actually do? Are they a good use of money? If truthful answers are received there might be surprise.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 4:05pm

    Jayne mansfield Another issue is what is called “suffiicency of protection”. Even if an individual has been assaulted (and lived or an asylum claim would not be possible) a system in the nation-state of police officers, criminal courts, sensible laws, etc provides this protection, or fails to.
    The Republic of Albania was not directly involved in the wars in the former Yugoslavia (except that they received a huge number of ethnic Albanian refugees from Kosovo). There was also a riot in the only prison, which would have caused problems for the police if they kept arresting people. Financial aid from Italy built a new prison. The Republic of Albania is not the most prosperous country in the region and has a history of direct action, vendettas and vendettas being inherited. An eye for an eye and make the whole world blind.

  • Jayne mansfield 1st Sep '15 - 4:51pm

    @ Richard Underhill,
    Thankfully newspapers no longer have a monopoly on spreading news. I get quite a lot of information from websites posted by my friends who work for NGOs.

    You refer to airline officers. I recently received a communication created by a non profit making organisation- Why don’t boat refugees fly? Factpod#16. It is available onFacebook and I believe the Internet. Is this related?

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 4:58pm

    It should also be understood that when the 1951 convention was being negotiated we were still recovering from World War 2 and the widespread damage to the housing stock. The numbers of refugees was huge and many of them were refugees sur place. The early files are typed but the documents are much shorter (Parkinson’s law applies).
    One side of a sheet of paper (predating the metric A4 and predating electric typewriters and word processors) would contain basic details such as name, date of birth, nationality, crucially, wheher there was a criminal record and a single line “He is a refugee”. Some of them were former prisoners of war brought to the UK by Allied Forces and not returnable because their countries were behind the Iron Curtain.
    Improved transport has increased travel of all kinds, but, if records of numbers exist, they are likely to be lower then than now.
    Bad governance is a major cause. We keep alive a memory of the atrocities of Adolf Hitler, but tend to ignore or forget Benito Mussolini’s actions in Greece, Libya, Eritrea, … .

  • Richard Underhill 1st Sep '15 - 5:01pm

    Typo: if records of numbers exist, they are likely to be lower now than then.

  • Please someone tell me how all these people are to be housed and fed? Then there is schooling and healthcare. British people are having to use food banks, housing becoming unaffordable so what is going to happen here and in the rest of the EU? I have not heard anyone talking practicalities at all. Several families to a house or camps? Where is the food coming from? We keep being told we have to suffer austerity and I doubt many will want to take any in to their own homes or be able to afford to I do not know the answer to any of this, I wish I did.

  • Richard Stallard 1st Sep '15 - 9:44pm

    @Ian Sanderson.
    Perhaps he forgot to mention that since Sweden turned into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa, and 77.6% of those rapes are committed by immigrants.

    Perhaps he also forgot to mention the four grande attacks in one week, committed in his very city in July. Or that it is infamous for high crime rates, multi-ethnic and gang-related violence with a 62% unemployment rate.

    Not to worry – I;’m sure you enjoyed your squash event.

  • Jayne mansfield 2nd Sep '15 - 10:16am

    @ Ian Sanderson,
    I think one has to read Richard Stallard ‘s last post in the context of other things he has said, his reference to the ‘religion of peace’, his suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn Is attractive to UAF, , and the acronym BINO.

    He does’t seem to keen on Liberals with power either.

  • Richard Underhill 29th Feb '16 - 2:46pm

    As Andrew Marr said on Sunday 28/2/2016 there is a new newspaper out today, the New Day, FREE for one day only. It is aimed at “normal people”. Good luck with that.
    It quotes latest opinion polls for the EU referendum
    Comres 51% would vote IN 39% out.
    ICM 43% want to remain 39% opt to leave.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Mohammed Amin
    I fail to understand the basis for Samuel Jackson's objections. He clearly believes in local democracy. Calderdale Council is the elected body with responsib...
  • John Marriott
    Yes, I have to agree that some people in Israel and on the US evangelical right appear to be getting what they want. Sadly, in their opposition to the creation ...
  • Cllr Donna Harris
    Huge congratulations, Roderick, on all your efforts, success and for working cross-party on this important issue! As Leader of the Opposition in Lambeth, we ...
  • John Marriott
    @Samuel Jackson They missed a trick there then. Where are the barricades?!...
  • Samuel James Jackson
    Hi John Marriot, I would like to clarify that proposals for the Sowerby Bridge incinerator does not include plans for electricity generation....