Dan Sohege

It's a sad state of affairs that this is the first year where my wife, a military brat whose father was a Colonel, and myself, former foreign correspondent, have felt emotionally uncomfortable attending a Remembrance Day service. All because of extreme nationalism of those who've weaponised the flag

And a good morning to you too mate

The BBC was right about the Capitol riots. In a sane world, Trump would be in jail The US President faced impeachment over the violence, and in a world where Republicans had more courage, he would have been found guilty

The BBC is apologising for its Panorama edit. It shouldn’t. First, the narrative is true: Donald Trump *did* incite the Capitol riot. Second, the apology won’t appease those attacking it. So why not at least stand for something?

Wrote this on it earlier this week:
inews.co.uk/news/world/b...

Protest held over Crowborough asylum seeker military site plan Crowborough residents say they are concerned about potential safety impact in the town.

Fairly obviously sticking vulnerable people seeking asylum into camps is messed up.
There is something darkly comic though about this government claiming that it is okay, despite camps costing more than hotels, because it "reduces tensions", when it clearly doesn't.
www.bbc.com/news/article...

An autistic’s nightmare. How degrading. Just reinforce being helpful and polite instead!

Should say, this is not going to be ready for a while, but...teaser alert...it's probably going to annoy certain people by, hopefully, demonstrating that the logical extension of full, as in harshest currently proposed, anti-immigration policies would inevitably lead to some form of "open borders".

I've spent far too much of my Saturday working on a thing about how hostile migration policies, among other things, lead to more progressive ones, it's a whole thing which takes a lot to explain. While it's meant to be somewhat hopeful, it's also an absolute mindfuck studying the hostile bits first.

Thanks. Yeah, sorry for coming in so hard initially. I hope it helps what I have explained

You too. Have a good rest of your day

Thing is that Labour are doing what Democrats did, which is why we can safely say it doesn't work. Detention and deportation under Biden shot up, it just increased the salience of Trump's message. You need to counter that message if you stand a chance of beating it.

Simple answer, it gets people's attention. They do it because it makes the story sound more impressive. It isn't accurate, and it used to be that many didn't, but clickbait and competitive nature of news has changed style guides. It's a constant issue, and one raised almost daily.

Provided they seek asylum, as roughly 98-99% of those using small boats do, within a set period, which again they do, then they are protected under international law, and to a lesser, but varying extent, domestic.

Confusion, and I'll appreciate it's common confusion, for first part, r.e. visas, is conflating the immigration system with the asylum system, two different things. If someone enters the UK without a visa, and is not seeking asylum, then, circumstances dependant, there's an argument for an offence.

To, genuinely, help explain the issue with the second point. Labour can't, legally, let alone morally, go as far as Reform, so playing this game, from a policy perspective, only amplifies Reform and plays into their agenda and narrative. It's self defeating, and part of why Reform is gaining.

Provided someone avails themselves of the authorities within a set time to seek asylum it is not illegal, for example you or I could row across the channel should we so desire. The facilitation of irregular routes is illegal, but if someone applies for asylum they are protected against penalisation

Oh, I am phenomenally arrogant. I never said I wasn't. I am also belligerent, and generally an arsehole, I also blow off steam by occasionally just schooling people on the internet when they try and spout absolute bollocks. Feel free to stop responding and I won't feel the need to reply, simple.

I feel I have. Also, thanks for calling us "high ranking organisation". That's very kind of you. I may use that

Ah, so the post where you made a completely bogus statement and then got called out for it. I do appreciate the clarity, thanks

bsky.app/profile/dani...

Denmark steals possessions of people seeking asylum, as policy. It returns people to situations where they are killed. Mahmood is copying some of the worst policies going. Labour once again showing it's just another anti-asylum, anti-human rights, government. #r4today www.bbc.com/news/article... BBCNEWS UK seeks inspiration from Denmark to shake up immigration system Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is taking cues from some of the toughest migration law...

Memories of India, Mumb... @jercor.bs... 5h A solution to stop illegal migration is vita otherwise Farage will be goose stepping up Downing Street in a few years time, people need to wake up and smell the political coffee. Trump is ruining the American economy, but he'd still get elected if an GE was held tomorrow. 1 口↑ ... Dan Sohege @danielsohege.bsky.social 5h There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum. You beat Reform by countering Reform, not, as Labour is doing on many different fronts, becoming them. Labour can never go far enough, because Reform will always promise to go further. Trying just causes more harm to vulnerable individuals 1 1 8 口 Memories of India, Mumb... @jercor.bs... 5h The Illegal Migration Act 2023 is a UK law designed to prevent and deter illegal migration, primarily by making it a legal duty to remove individuals who enter the UK via unauthorized routes. I actually don't agree with it! 1 口↑ ... Dan Sohege @danielsohege.bsky.social It also could not be fully implemented due to it violating key laws, international and 5h

Now for clarity, do you mean first post, as in the one your responded to, which was correct, your first post, where you called seeking asylum "illegal immigration", which, as I think we have established, is false as not illegal, or my response pointing that out and why you are wrong, also not false

Memories of India, Mumb... @jercor.bs... 5h The Illegal Migration Act 2023 is a UK law designed to prevent and deter illegal migration, primarily by making it a legal duty to remove individuals who enter the UK via unauthorized routes. I actually don't agree with it ! Dan Sohege @danielsohege.bsky.social It also could not be fully implemented due to it violating key laws, international and domestic, because seeking asylum is not illegal. Dan Sohege @danielsohege.bsky.social Before you carry on with your 30 second Google search arguments could you do me a favour and check my bio, what I do for a living, and then have a think about how well this is going to play out please? Memories of India, Mumb... @jercor.bs... Stop blowing your own trumpet Dan, trying to belittle people when they prove you're wrong just sounds arrogant.

Hey, I will even screenshot the whole bit for posterity if you really want, you know seeing as I know exactly what I did.

That was me being nice to prevent you doing what you are doing now and showing your arse to the whole internet for making claims which were incorrect, but hey, you did your 30 second Google search, copy and pasted the answer, got it wrong. No harm no foul. Just something to admit and learn from.

So I was right about you only doing a Google search, so wasn't belittling you, just stating the obvious. Also, now you are just backtracking on what you actually said

Memories of India, Mumb... @jercor.bs... 4h Stop blowing your own trumpet Dan, trying to belittle people when they prove you're wrong just sounds arrogant . ...

You specifically said I was wrong in your previous comment

In order for Illegal Migration Act to be fully implemented it requires that there be somewhere for those using irregular routes to seek asylum to seek asylum in, again because seeking asylum is not illegal and you cannot prevent someone seeking it based on manner of entry. They can't implement it.

The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the key documents that form the basis of UNHCR’s work. Learn more about them and view the original text.

If it helps, this blog actually explains in quite some depth why you are wrong regarding the Illegal Immigration Act

righttoremain.org.uk/the-illegal-...

As for it not being illegal to seek asylum, it is specifically prohibited to penalise someone for manner of entry
www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/...

To prove someone wrong you need to actually prove it. Even a quick Google search will support what I have said, if you bothered.

Would you care to back up that statement with facts or fuck off instead? You see, what I said can be, what you said can't. The Illegal Migration Act was never fully implemented, for the reasons stated, and it is undeniable, in law, that seeking asylum is not illegal.

I would rather like to know myself

Just to add, in relation to the "experienced activists" crack. Having done it for a long time doesn't mean they are doing it well, as really shown by YP and the complete cluster which it is, it just means they have been bad at it for a long time.

Denmark has already shown it doesn't consider conflict as a de-facto reason for asylum for example, as an individual is not necessarily being personally persecuted by the state, hence attempting returns of Afghans and Syrians whole conflicts were ongoing, claiming certain areas were "safe".