AIBU that Rishi Sunak's holiday to Disneyland be headline news?

[iwillnotstaycalm]

There is almost like a 'read the room' feeling on this. Personally I think it's distasteful given the current cost of living crisis - I'm not saying going on holiday is distasteful but highlighting it to the general public as headline news just seems insidious. Why is this even news ? If someone can please explain it to me that would be wonderful.

There is always coverage of the prime minister’s holidays and a photo shoot almost every year.
I think they agree to a few pics then get left alone to get on with it
agree it’s ridiculous
i don’t recall any with Boris but it was pandemic times Tbf. Cameron and his lot used to pose in some posh corner of the Algarve, Theresa May in the Swiss alps.

The law doesn’t say this, in fact. The relevant convention confers no rights or duties on asylum claimants at all; it deals with how such individuals should be dealt with as between the contracting states.
heres a useful discussion; which I have posted before in an attempt to prevent this poster spreading disinformation.
https://levinslaw.co.uk/dinghies-in-the-channel-illegal-entrants-and-immigration-offences/

I will let others decide which of us is spreading misinformation.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

Worth noting of course that whilst the UK was in the EU the Dublin convention could have been applied and refugees returned to the first EU country they passed through, but the UK government consistently chose not to do so.

For anyone who does not have time to wade through the link that has so kindly been provided I thought I would share a quote from the summary.

"A person is entitled to the protection of Article 31 [of the 1951 convention] if they claim asylum in good faith within a short period of arriving in the UK. They are not deprived of that protection by having travelled through other safe countries on their way here."

The article you have posted does not establish that the Dublin convention confers any rights on refugees. In common with other international treaties it deals with the relationship between contracting states, not individuals and the state. There is no treaty, and certainly no domestic law, which gives an individual a right to cherry pick where he or she claims asylum.

Could you perhaps provide a link to somewhere that explains that asylum seekers have under the 1951 convention to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to?

You are, again dishonestly, cherry picking from the article. It explains quite clearly that the relevant convention confers no rights or obligations on asylum claimants, but deals with how contracting states deal with such claimants as between themselves. It makes clear that the first state in which a claimant could have claimed asylum is a relevant factor, but ranks below other factors in determining which state should deal with the claim.
it is untrue to say there is an obligation to claim asylum in the first contracting state you arrive in; it is equally untrue to say a claimant has a right to pick and choose freely.

Fortunately both your and my links comment upon the 1999 case where a judge ruled (subsequently confirmed by HoLs on appeal) that asylum seekers can transit other countries before claiming asylum in the UK.
And since case law is an important part of the process of UK law, that remains the case to this day.

Yes, in some circumstances they can. That is not the same as saying an asylum seeker has the right to pick and choose.

Since you don't like me quoting part of the summary of the article you linked to I will quote the whole summary.

"Summary
It is likely that many of the people crossing the Channel in dinghies are illegal entrants, and some of them may commit one or more immigration offences. This may be so even if they are refugees, because of the UK government’s failure to align our domestic law with our obligations under Article 31 of the Convention. A person is entitled to the protection of Article 31 if they claim asylum in good faith within a short period of arriving in the UK. They are not deprived of that protection by having travelled through other safe countries on their way here.
In order to give effect to Article 31, the CPS will generally not prosecute a person who is entitled to its protection and who committed the offences “reasonably or necessarily in the course of flight from persecution or threatened persecution”. If such a prosecution is brought, the defendant will in some circumstances have a statutory defence, and in cases to which the statutory defence does not apply, the court may give effect to our obligations under international law by bringing the proceedings to a halt."

The article is quite clear in stating that asylum seekers are unlikely to be successfully prosecuted for illegal entry.

I am not sure why you think that is relevant to a discussion of whether refugees have the right to claim asylum where they like? You appear to be addressing a different point. But in any event, to state the blindingly obvious, to say that someone is unlikely to be prosecuted (which is what the article actually says) is not the same thing as saying they have not broken the law. The average burglar in this country is unlikely to be prosecuted. Burglary is still illegal.

The reason for the lack of prosecutions is important.

In the case of asylum seekers as the article explains the UKs obligations as a signatory to the 1951 refugree convention means that asylum seekers cannot be successfully prosecuted for illegal entry. That the Tory government has for the past 13 years defunded the justice system so that few burgulars are prosecuted is a different discussion which I am quite happy to have.

On the subject of whether or not asylum seekers have the right to claim asylum in any safe country, both your article and the full fact article I linked to are clear that the 1999 case on this subject means that as far as the UK is concerned transit through another country does not negate an asylum seekers right to claim asylum in the UK.

If you don't think the article is relevant why did you link to it?

I think the picture got into the media for several potential reasons:

1. nice photo of him, wife, 2 sweet kids - makes him look relatable/nice/friendly/good dad whatever - to increase popularity.

2. to make people jealous and frothy and decrease his popularity

personally I don’t see why his kids shouldn’t have a holiday in Disneyland, regardless of how anyone feels about him and regardless of whether others can’t afford a holiday or the electricity bill. If he didn’t go on holiday, his money would stay in the bank (or wherever you put that much money) - not going on people’s electricity bills.

He has money because his wife has a net worth of circa £700 million. Nothing to do with running a country. They were rich as Croesus before he became PM and will still be rich as Croesus when he’s done.
Sorry I shouldn't really have started with the reason I thought he had money-I just meant people have money, they can't just ignore that fact because there's a col crisis and he can't give it all away!!

I don’t have a problem with it. I’d love £700m.