A discussion on the rules.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

I get the distinct impression that the individual concerned is being used as the scapegoat for the prejudices of somebody else.

Your distinct impression has been noted. If and when you come up with some evidence for it, be sure to let us know.

I know of nobody who has arrived in Ireland and expects the Irish to stop speaking/writing in Irish just to facilitate their arrival.

I don't know of anyone who expects anyone else to stop speaking/writing in Irish for any reason whatsoever.

That said, it is the height of rudeness to converse in a language that isn't understood by the majority of the people who are listening.

If you want to write in Irish, there are two dedicated forums on this website where you are not merely welcome but encouraged to do so. You also have the freedom to set up your own blog and post on it in whatever language takes your fancy.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Foreigners in Ireland, having mastered at least two languages, are usually more open to Irish language and culture than the average English-speaking monoglot in Ireland.

Those foreigners who wish to embrace the Irish language will find that there are two forums on this site where they can do so to their heart's content.

turgon

I notice weve got a new mod

dunsandin

Hi guys, I expressesd my honest opinion and when I replied after being called names for doing so, I got banned. What I posted was backed up by personal, direct experience. In fact, my opinions were put quite mildly, so why the ban, is this a buddy club?

nesf

dunsandin wrote: »

Hi guys, I expressesd my honest opinion and when I replied after being called names for doing so, I got banned. What I posted was backed up by personal, direct experience. In fact, my opinions were put quite mildly, so why the ban, is this a buddy club?

PM Scofflaw about your ban if you want to discuss it. It won't be discussed in this thread.

jonsnow

Scofflaw has locked a tread I established about the building of a museum of tolerance by the Israeli Government and the Simon Wiesenthal center on a large culturally and religiously important graveyard as not being "really politics".This is frankly a ludicrous assertion as the Israeli governments behavior is obviously a political issue, the Simon Wiesenthal center is arguably a political organisation and unquestionably wields enormous political clout both in the US and in Israel.

There are numerous political issues involved in the building of this center including the Orwellian aspect of building a "museum of tolerance" on another cultures religious graveyard,the ethnic issue,the rewriting of a historical and political narrative and the Israeli governments political control of sham religious organisations to further its own ends.

Politics is defined as
a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
b. Political science.
a. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer).
b. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government:

I believe that my thread clearly met that definition and Scofflaw was wrong in his kneejerk reaction in closing it.If not the politics forum where should it be raised!!!

nesf

jonsnow wrote: »

Scofflaw has locked a tread I established about the building of a museum of tolerance by the Israeli Government and the Simon Wiesenthal center on a large culturally and religiously important graveyard as not being "really politics".This is frankly a ludicrous assertion as the Israeli governments behavior is obviously a political issue, the Simon Wiesenthal center is arguably a political organisation and unquestionably wields enormous political clout both in the US and in Israel.

There are numerous political issues involved in the building of this center including the Orwellian aspect of building a "museum of tolerance" on another cultures religious graveyard,the ethnic issue,the rewriting of a historical and political narrative and the Israeli governments political control of sham religious organisations to further its own ends.

Politics is defined as
a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
b. Political science.
a. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer).
b. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government:

I believe that my thread clearly met that definition and Scofflaw was wrong in his kneejerk reaction in closing it.If not the politics forum where should it be raised!!!

This thread is for general discussion of the rules not discussion of individual decisions. If you want to discuss that decision PM Scofflaw.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is not true, and claiming it to be so is in breach of the forum charter. Read that charter carefully, and familiarise yourself with the actual provisions of the Dublin regulations before reiterating this claim.

Can someone clarify this point? I don't see anything about it in the Charter. From what I had gleaned from the media, this was the case. Looking at this Swedish government website, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/11901/a/126472, it would appear that this is the case, but with a hint of ambiguity.

"The regulations are based on the principle of first country of asylum. This means that a person fleeing from persecution in his or her country of origin is to seek protection in the first safe country where this is possible. The Dublin Regulation means that there are formal procedures for how the principle of first country of asylum should be applied in the EU Member States."
(I added the bold and italics)

donaghs wrote: »

Can someone clarify this point? I don't see anything about it in the Charter. From what I had gleaned from the media, this was the case. Looking at this Swedish government website, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/11901/a/126472, it would appear that this is the case, but with a hint of ambiguity.

"The regulations are based on the principle of first country of asylum. This means that a person fleeing from persecution in his or her country of origin is to seek protection in the first safe country where this is possible. The Dublin Regulation means that there are formal procedures for how the principle of first country of asylum should be applied in the EU Member States."
(I added the bold and italics)

The relevant thread is this one - try searching for "Dublin" and you should find this bit:

The Dublin Regulation - READ BEFORE DISCUSSING ASYLUM IN IRELAND

There has been allot of misinformation regarding the Dublin Regulation, particularly regarding the onus on an asylum seeker to apply at the first member state they enter.

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING

The Dublin Regulation - A Factsheet wrote:

If you have applied for asylum in an EU country covered by the Dublin Regulation and wish to have your application considered here, it is not certain that you are entitled to do so. Another country covered by the Dublin Regulation may be responsible for considering your application. As a result, you may have to go to that country. Following are some circumstances under which another country may consider your application:

1. if you have received a visa or a residence permit from another country covered by the Dublin Regulation
2. if you have illegally entered a country covered by the Dublin Regulation
3. if you have already applied for asylum in another country covered by the Dublin Regulation
4. if your family has already received residence permits in another EU Member State

Point 2 highlighted by me.

You cannot be deemed to have illegally entered a country until you clear immigration.

If you enter an EU country on a transit flight to another country, you DO NOT have to go through immigration.

Sanctuary in Ireland, Perspectives on Asylum Law and Policy By Ursula Fraser, Colin J. Harvey wrote:

Simple movement through a transit area without leaving it, does not count as regular entry into the first member state but if an application for asylum is made while in the transit zone, the member state where the transit zone is bears responsibility (Article 7 The Dublin Convention)

This has not changed for the updated Dublin Regulation.

This issue has been discussed and clarified many times in the Politics forum and is STILL used by some with a xenophobic agenda to derail threads.

While we do not believe that all users who argue against an asylum applicant are xenophobic or trolls, we EXPECT users to know the facts they are presenting. As such, the details of the Dublin Regulation on Asylum entry are clarified above.

Anyone proposing that it is NOT POSSIBLE for an asylum seeker to enter into Ireland as a first member state of entry, will be deemed to be trolling and will be infracted and banned from the forum.

There is no requirement that an application for asylum must be made in the first 'safe' country arrived in.

Anyone posting a suggestion to the contrary falls foul of the rule above, and will be infracted and banned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

The relevant thread is this one - try searching for "Dublin" and you should find this bit:

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just read through that part of the Charter. Maybe its just me, but I'm none the wiser after reading it? Perhaps its the way its laid out - its just not getting the point across. Been trying to find more information online since then. I understand its a complex piece of legislation, and that normally doesnt make for easy reading. However this UK Home Office PDF seems to lay out the facts quite nicely:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/oemsectione/chapter28?view=Binary

"The basic criteria for determining which state should bear the responsibility for an asylum applicant are (in order of descending priority):"

1. Family members legally present..... (2 & 3 are similar) 4. family members granted asylum....5. state which granted residence permit .... state which granted visa

And then 6: "the state where ,on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence, it can be established that the applicant first entered the EU illegally within a 12 month period of the irregular crossing taking place"

There are other variations of the above section further below in descending priority order. And other various exceptions. Looking at the online commentary about the Regulation (e.g. Wikipedia), its telling that most of the criticism comes from EU "border" countries, who believe they have to take on an unfair burden of processing new arrivals.

Off-topic posts moved.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33153_en.htm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Off-topic posts moved.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33153_en.htm

?

What the problem here?

In the link you posted it says: "Where the asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State, that Member State will be responsible for examining the asylum application".

Read your link!:o There are of course other criteria like family, and the above situation expiring after 12 months. But the nub of the arguement is still there. Am I missing something?

donaghs wrote: »

?

What the problem here?

In the link you posted it says: "Where the asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State, that Member State will be responsible for examining the asylum application".

Read your link!:o There are of course other criteria like family, and the above situation expiring after 12 months. But the nub of the arguement is still there. Am I missing something?

The incorrect claim that oscarBravo was referring to was this one:

Legally, they must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

Now, that is not exactly the case, unless you're very specific about the use of the term "arrived in". An asylum seeker has not "arrived" in the UK unless they have passed UK immigration controls, either legally or illegally. It is quite possible for someone to transit through the UK en route to Ireland without passing through immigration - and therefore Ireland will be, in such a case, the first safe country they actually arrive in within the meaning of the Regulation (assuming they pass through immigration controls here).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

The incorrect claim that oscarBravo was referring to was this one:

Now, that is not exactly the case, unless you're very specific about the use of the term "arrived in". An asylum seeker has not "arrived" in the UK unless they have passed UK immigration controls, either legally or illegally. It is quite possible for someone to transit through the UK en route to Ireland without passing through immigration - and therefore Ireland will be, in such a case, the first safe country they actually arrive in within the meaning of the Regulation (assuming they pass through immigration controls here).

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was necessarily disputing that. But you may notice that most boards.ie postings are not made by legal experts. People are having a discussion in vernacular language. The nub of the argument remains true, that there is a safe first country concept which takes precedent oover most other situations. You could add as a footnote that there are exceptions, like as you mention above, transit through another country.

If you were to apply you're rigorours interpretation to every other discussion on boards.ie (including Politics), you might as well remove half the posts.

donaghs wrote: »

If you were to apply you're rigorours interpretation to every other discussion on boards.ie (including Politics), you might as well remove half the posts.

It's not our rigorous interpretation, it's how the Dublin Regulation works in practice.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not our rigorous interpretation, it's how the Dublin Regulation works in practice.

I don't want to sound facetious, but the Dublin Regulations do not work in practice by deleting or moving posts on Boards.ie. Or by moving posts because of something an entirely different user said?

For example in the Ivor Callely thread in Politics, someone has posted: "He's a moron but aren't all FF".
In another topic on Gaza, someone says "Yes, the commandos were attacked by blood thirsty aid workers. Those poor commandos were lucky to get out alive to be honest."
Can these points be proven, and if not, why allow them?

I'm relatively new to this particular discussion, but I've done a lot of reading on it. The idea of seeking asylum in the first safe country is a huge part of the Dublin Regulations.

You claim my post was moved because of a false claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPRIreland
Legally, they must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

But I never made that claim?! That was by someone called IPRIreland.
Also, perhaps its a bit unfair to describe the IPRIreland claim as false? Rather it only gives part of the answer - re: the Dublin Regulations.

It seems like you are simply afraid of any discussion of the particular points in the Dublin Regulations.

"Where the asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State, that Member State will be responsible for examining the asylum application. This responsibility ceases 12 months after the date on which the border has been illegally crossed.
Where a third-country national applies for asylum in a Member State where he/she is not subject to a visa requirement, that Member State will be responsible for examining the asylum application.
Where a third-country national applies for asylum in an international transit area of an airport of a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application."

Perhaps you are afraid of encouraging racist attitudes? But I think by suppressing an ordinary factual debate on immigration and asylum, you are in fact encouraging racism and ignorance. If people can't discuss the facts and the complexities of the issues, they may just persist with their simplistic "black & white" views? There's nothing racist in discussing the Dublin Regulations, and points contained therewithin.

Would it have been simpler to respond to the original post with a clarification of the Dublin Regulations, and how the first safe country concept is only a part of it?

I moved your post because it was off-topic for that thread.

The reason the charter forbids the claim that asylum seekers must claim in the first country they set foot in is because it's not true, and it's the sort of over-simplification that's used to justify a blanket "deport 'em all" form of xenophobia.

I could have replied to the original post with a clarification of the regulations, but then I'd have to reply to every such post with such a clarification. Instead, we have made the decision to deal with this particular common and slanted over-simplification by not allowing it to be made.

writer64

I suggest that rules might be as broad minded and encompassing all / most people's mode of expression.
The language used may be disconcerting to some but the meaning and content , the message must be given priority.
Dictating how one expresses ones view point is akin to an english lesson in a school room setting.
Concern for political correctness distracts from the content of debate.

gandalf

I have reported a post with the same question but has the content rule on Politics been relaxed to allow any old rubbish be posted as a thread these days. There are two threads that I have reported hours ago at the top of the forum at the moment with at best what could be described as extremely lightweight content with extremely limited opening statements from the OP.

Does this extract from the Charter no longer hold true?

Topics should be relevant to the politics board.

Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article without comment from the thread starter. Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion on the subject, or at the very least, your reason for adding the topic.

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

If a quoted article is available online, please supply a link to the article rather than quoting the entire article verbatim.

This isn't AH or Humour. Threads that are not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion will be removed without warning. There are other forums for the silly stuff.

gandalf wrote: »

I have reported a post with the same question but has the content rule on Politics been relaxed to allow any old rubbish be posted as a thread these days. There are two threads that I have reported hours ago at the top of the forum at the moment with at best what could be described as extremely lightweight content with extremely limited opening statements from the OP.

Does this extract from the Charter no longer hold true?

It doesn't hold true when the moderators are having dinner with their family, certainly.

Had I seen that thread in its early stages, within the first page of posts, I probably would have closed it for being excessively lightweight. However, it has since turned into a discussion of crime, punishment, and policing, which is undeniably politics - and that in turn suggests that the question of what constitutes a proper Politics thread is probably less open and shut than it might appear even to me.

More generally, I have to say that it's not so much a case of leniency, but sheer volume. Currently there are, in any given day, at least three or four threads which require locking, deleting, or a swift punt to AH, although the quality of many of the recent threads has been such that the last has been increasingly uncommon. Such threads are rarely reported, which means that their detection relies on me reading them for some other reason.

As far as there being a reason for all that, all I can see is that the Politics forum is currently much busier than usual, because there is a sustained interest in politics - it's pretty rare for there to be less than a hundred users in the forum at any given time, rising pretty frequently to a couple of hundred, and with new users increasingly common. The more popular any forum becomes, the more the signal to noise diminishes, and the more 'populist' debates tend to be - that's unavoidable, short of a really aggressive clampdown on anything that fails some sort of "quality test", which is frankly going to be subjective and highly variable, although it's undeniably tempting to conduct a cull of all posters whose only "contribution" to debates can be summed up as "scumbags...kill...scum".

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

OK so it is a problem of bandwidth then. I have noticed that a majority of the moderator actions recently have been from you. Is there an issue with inactive moderators. Surely on one of the flagship forums on boards an experienced and active moderator team should be in place. From where I am sitting this doesn't seem to be the case?

I know that I am not the only one who has concerns about standards here as well. I'd suggest talking to the admins about getting some experienced mods on board who will extend the bandwidth on the forum and help nip the rubbish in the bud and allow a moderator have a meal with their family in peace. (don't worry btw I am not angling to become a moderator again just posting as a concerned observer).

[Deleted User]

I have to agree with gandalf. There has been a considerable dumbing down of the politics forum and I find it headache inducing. If it (as it appears to be) due to a lack of mods, can we not get more in? I personally think you can never have enough good moderators. It would be interesting to see how busier the politics thread has gotten over the year.

I personally think that every so often it's good for a forum if there is an occassional iron-fist rule regarding the charter. We do it in bands/musicians occassionaly, I know the soccer forum also does it occassionaly.

I'm finding a couple of rules of the charter are frequently being broken:

politics charter wrote:

1. Starting Threads
Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article without comment from the thread starter. Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion on the subject, or at the very least, your reason for adding the topic.

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

Yet we have:
Should Ireland pull out of the OCED conference in Jerusalem?
Londonderry car bomb
Is Irish a dead language?

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick, and while worthwhile threads, no OP offers an opinion on them. I personally think they should have been closed until the OP offered an opinion of their own.

I don't want nor mean to "have a go" at the mods, I think you do a wonderful job in general, but maybe some help is needed and a return to the original principles of intelligent debate is required in the politics forum.

[Deleted User]

Oh, and can we PLEASE ban the word "scumbags"? There are other ways of getting a point across. The soccer forum have pretty much eradicated the use of the word "scum" to describe opposition teams/players and fans.

Papa Smut wrote: »

Oh, and can we PLEASE ban the word "scumbags"? There are other ways of getting a point across. The soccer forum have pretty much eradicated the use of the word "scum" to describe opposition teams/players and fans.

That one is definitely on the cards. In respect of threads with inadequate OPs, reporting them would be a first step...however, the Londonderry car bomb thread doesn't appear to start with a verbatim quote? It seems to me to start with a comment by the OP - albeit short - and a link to an article.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Is the use of the word "scum" a red or a yellow card?

There are no fixed penalties for specific offences.

Wolfe Tone

I was under the impression that "infracted" would lead to receiving an infraction point, ie not a warning?

I ask cause I saw the other day a person who used the word scum was given a red, and today another poster was given a yellow for the same thing.