Discussion:
Britain tortures the torture victims
(too old to reply)
The Todal
2017-10-10 10:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
By locking them up and treating them like convicts. We knew that, of
course, but now a court of law has said so. Some people here will say
who cares, if it helps to keep the migrants out it's all good.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/10/torture-victims-were-wrongly-imprisoned-in-uk-high-court-rules


Hundreds of victims of torture have been wrongly locked up in
immigration detention centres, a high court judge has ruled, following a
challenge by seven survivors of serious abuse.

Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that aspects of a Home Office policy introduced
in September 2016 known as “Adults At Risk” wrongly allowed many who had
been tortured overseas to be imprisoned.

The policy redefined torture to refer to violence carried out by
official state agents only. As a result, those tortured by traffickers,
terrorists or other non-government forces could be held in detention
even if expert medical evidence found the scars on their bodies to be
consistent with their accounts of torture.

Ouseley found that the narrowing of the definition of torture by the
Home Office in its flagship policy lacked “rational or evidence base”.
BurfordTJustice
2017-10-10 10:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Indeed.

Better to get them out on the streets, give them the dole
and speed up the fall of England and get it over with quickly.
Post by The Todal
By locking them up and treating them like convicts. We knew that, of
course, but now a court of law has said so. Some people here will say who
cares, if it helps to keep the migrants out it's all good.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/10/torture-victims-were-wrongly-imprisoned-in-uk-high-court-rules
Hundreds of victims of torture have been wrongly locked up in immigration
detention centres, a high court judge has ruled, following a challenge by
seven survivors of serious abuse.
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that aspects of a Home Office policy introduced
in September 2016 known as “Adults At Risk” wrongly allowed many who had
been tortured overseas to be imprisoned.
The policy redefined torture to refer to violence carried out by official
state agents only. As a result, those tortured by traffickers, terrorists
or other non-government forces could be held in detention even if expert
medical evidence found the scars on their bodies to be consistent with
their accounts of torture.
Ouseley found that the narrowing of the definition of torture by the Home
Office in its flagship policy lacked “rational or evidence base”.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-10-10 12:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
By locking them up and treating them like convicts. We knew that, of
course, but now a court of law has said so. Some people here will say
who cares, if it helps to keep the migrants out it's all good.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/10/torture-victims-were-wrongly-imprisoned-in-uk-high-court-rules
Hundreds of victims of torture have been wrongly locked up in
immigration detention centres, a high court judge has ruled, following a
challenge by seven survivors of serious abuse.
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that aspects of a Home Office policy introduced
in September 2016 known as “Adults At Risk” wrongly allowed many who had
been tortured overseas to be imprisoned.
The policy redefined torture to refer to violence carried out by
official state agents only. As a result, those tortured by traffickers,
terrorists or other non-government forces could be held in detention
even if expert medical evidence found the scars on their bodies to be
consistent with their accounts of torture.
When is someone going to realise that the UN convention on refugees represents the biggest racket ever perpetuated on this country?

These people are supposed to be refugees. To me that means that their life or physical well being is in danger were they to remain where they are.

Do they remove this danger by crossing the nearest international border into a country where such conditions do not prevail as do large numbers of their compatriots. The answer is no.

Their idea of flight is a more literal one and usually entails getting onto a an aeroplane, either in their own or a safe country, flying here and *claiming* political asylum. If their claim is not accepted then plan B is to appeal the decision, gain release and then disappear into the population for ever.

If their status is upheld then it's not too long before 'relatives' arrive on the scene under the guise of visitors. Some of these people live in garden sheds. It is not unknown for a 'refugee' to go back home for a visit and return to hear the outcome of his appeal!

A lot has been said over recent months about controlling immigrant entry. How are we supposed to do this if we do not lock up all those who have been refused entry here to prevent them disappearing with a view towards deporting them in the shortest possible time?

Are we soft touches to hard luck story or not? If we admit everyone who asks, what proposals are their from the bleeding hearts to maintain these people for the rest of their lives?
ssos@bungay.com
2017-10-10 14:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
By locking them up and treating them like convicts. We knew that, of=20
course, but now a court of law has said so. Some people here will say=20
who cares, if it helps to keep the migrants out it's all good.
=20
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/10/torture-victims-were-wron=
gly-imprisoned-in-uk-high-court-rules
=20
=20
Hundreds of victims of torture have been wrongly locked up in=20
immigration detention centres, a high court judge has ruled, following a=
=20
challenge by seven survivors of serious abuse.
=20
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that aspects of a Home Office policy introduced=
=20
in September 2016 known as =E2=80=9CAdults At Risk=E2=80=9D wrongly allow=
ed many who had=20
been tortured overseas to be imprisoned.
=20
The policy redefined torture to refer to violence carried out by=20
official state agents only. As a result, those tortured by traffickers,=
=20
terrorists or other non-government forces could be held in detention=20
even if expert medical evidence found the scars on their bodies to be=20
consistent with their accounts of torture.
When is someone going to realise that the UN convention on refugees represe=
nts the biggest racket ever perpetuated on this country?
These people are supposed to be refugees. To me that means that their life =
or physical well being is in danger were they to remain where they are.
Do they remove this danger by crossing the nearest international border int=
o a country where such conditions do not prevail as do large numbers of the=
ir compatriots. The answer is no.
Their idea of flight is a more literal one and usually entails getting onto=
a an aeroplane, either in their own or a safe country, flying here and *cl=
aiming* political asylum. If their claim is not accepted then plan B is to =
appeal the decision, gain release and then disappear into the population fo=
r ever.
If their status is upheld then it's not too long before 'relatives' arrive =
on the scene under the guise of visitors. Some of these people live in gard=
en sheds. It is not unknown for a 'refugee' to go back home for a visit and=
return to hear the outcome of his appeal!
A lot has been said over recent months about controlling immigrant entry. H=
ow are we supposed to do this if we do not lock up all those who have been =
refused entry here to prevent them disappearing with a view towards deporti=
ng them in the shortest possible time?
Are we soft touches to hard luck story or not? If we admit everyone who as=
ks, what proposals are their from the bleeding hearts to maintain these peo=
ple for the rest of their lives?
I do believe that is the best thing you have posted in years.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
saracene
2017-10-10 12:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Some people here will say
who cares, if it helps to keep the migrants out it's all good.
What exactly is your problem with that? It's not exactly as if we are torturing them anew.
Incubus
2017-10-10 12:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Post by The Todal
Some people here will say
who cares, if it helps to keep the migrants out it's all good.
What exactly is your problem with that? It's not exactly as if we are torturing them anew.
We're supposed to be giving them luxury flats, mobile 'phones and all
the mod cons.
Handsome Jack
2017-10-11 16:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
By locking them up and treating them like convicts. We knew that, of
course, but now a court of law has said so.
No it didn't.
--
Jack
Loading...