From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 30/08/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote: 
  
 > As most people know, you aren't obliged to apply for asylum in the first 
 country you 
 > come to. 
  
 You are, however, obliged in *any* safe country you reach to "present 
 [yourself] without delay to the authorities and show good cause for 
 [your] illegal entry or presence" there. 
  
 If you don't do that, which was clearly intended as a precursor to 
 applying for asylum there, why should anywhere else be obliged to 
 consider your asylum application? 
  
 Is not one obligation a quid pro quo for the other?  If not, it 
 certainly should be. 
  
 > If you speak English and/or have relatives in the UK it makes 
 > very good sense to apply to come to England. Many applications are 
 > rejected, many then succeed on appeal. 
  
 If you speak English you should have appreciated the meaning of 'coming 
 directly'.  And you should have presented yourself to the authorities in 
 any safe country you have entered en route. 
  
 How many have, I wonder? 
 > Perhaps you believe that the only reason why we don't reject asylum 
 > seekers is that bleeding-heart liberals are making all the decisions, 
 > perhaps because of the infamous Human Rights Act.€€ It's the sort of 
 > idiotic narrative peddled by the Daily Mail. 
 No, it's because of manifestly absurd decisions by the European courts 
 changing the meanings of clear English words in a ratified treaty to 
 mean something entirely different, and the UK courts, at least up till 
 now, stupidly being obliged to follow them. 
  
 It's high time we opted out by whatever means are available. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)