Ban on airtravel

[Daniel2]

Deary me.
You are all far too comfortable and secure, and you have
far too much time on your hands.

 

[morqthana]

I am against the ECHR all the time it is used to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals or illegal immigrants.

I really am going to insist that you produce evidence showing the size of that problem. If you can't then you aren't so much objecting to something real as just spouting racist prejudice.

We have enough of our own scumbags on the street that we should not have to tolerate foreign parasites - who contribute nothing to society - breaking our Laws, raping our children, murdering our citizens, rioting in our streets in full confidence that they will never be removed because some foreign 'judge' says so. Time that changed.

You do seem to be labouring under a huge weight of staggering ignorance.

The HRA is a UK law. Matters concerning it are adjudicated in UK courts by UK judges.

And if the fact that you put the word judge in quotes like that when it immediately follows foreign does not prove your racist tendencies, I don't know what does. For you, a foreigner can't possibly validly be a real judge, can he.

 

[morqthana]

Fully agree but there is also the issue of a conflict between what is normal / acceptable behavior in their place of origin to what we expect in the UK.

A conflict happily viewed in a completely opposite way by tens of thousands of people when it comes to behaviour of UK citizens transgressing what's expected in other countries.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ign-petition-calling-release-Karl-Andree.html

 

[morqthana]

you clearly missed my point then, that's not my problem, I'll just ignore you, if you aren't willing to listen to what I have to say then I won't listen to you either, it works both ways.

The problem from your POV is that I am very much listening to what you have to say.

You said, in an unambiguous claim of the dangerous things that could flow from a ban on air travel:

what next shall we ban freedom of speech? and also whilst were at it lets ban all unions, all human rights, all working rights and label anybody who's left leaning as a marxist shall we?

So,"first they came for my air miles and then they took away all my basic rights"?

Really?


You said:

if we allow anybody to ban air travel I will be out on the streets protesting, once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power, this is how fascism started in the 20s and 30s, people need to stand against it in huge numbers.

So banning air travel would set us on the slippery slope to a fascist state?

Really?

Tip: If you want people to listen to what you say, say things worth listening to, not nonsense.

 

[Fergie 307]

There were 270 Nigerian prisoners out of a total of 9,349 foreign nationals in UK jails at the end of 2017, according to the latest statistics that I could see on line. The total prison population at that time was 84,373.
They were in prison serving their sentences. Why do you think they should serve an additional punishment by being sent back to Nigeria? It seems to worry you a lot, even though the numbers are tiny and for all you know they will be rehabilitated and lead normal lives, and /or if applying for citizenship will be refused anyway.
We don't "subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda" we put them in prison!!
More stats here: 320 Nigerian prisoners in British jails at the end of 2016
I don't know whether or not this came off UK to pay for £700,000 prison wing in Nigeria but it seems that some may be spending their sentences in Nigeria anyway. Would that make you happier?
Seems to be largely a non issue.
More on the topic Carceral Colonialism: Britain's plan to build a prison wing in Nigeria - Corporate Watch "carceral colonialism" is a new one for me!
Would you send Scottish or Welsh offenders back to Scotland and Wales? Just wondered.

Thanks for the figure. The suggestion of thousands from Nigeria did seem a bit unlikely, which is exactly why I said I had no idea of its accuracy.
But, if I read you correctly, you seem to be content that after serving their sentences foreign criminals should be allowed to remain here illegally indefinitely. If that is your view then you are perfectly entitled to it and we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
I think this issue goes way beyond immigration, or how we approach dealing with foreign nationals who commit crime. Mentioned we have seen horrible crimes committed by people who it turns out had a history of similar offences, this seems particularly true of *** crimes. Maybe if those making sentencing or parole decisions were made to explain recreational behind their decisions to victims, they might think.more carefully. You are of course correct that some people memorable prison fully rehabilitated, but how to you tell which ones? If they are home grown we have to accept that risk. If they can be returned whence they came then we dont.
I am not really sure why you see sending them home as being necessarily an additional punishment, as I say each case on its individual merits. I simply suggest that this should be the default position.
And the practice of transferring people to serve out sentences in their home country is nothing new, often done at the request of the prisoner themselves.

 

[morqthana]

Each case should be considered on its merits obviously, but I think you know very well that is not what I am talking about.

You are spot on. I think we all (well, most of us) do indeed now know very well exactly what it is you are talking about.

Take the case in Luton some years ago where a large gang of Jamaicans were running a 24/7 drugs operation from a block of flats. All young men, all here illegally. I think they got something approaching 100 years between them. Would you have them remain here after serving their sentences?

So - that's either a reasonable concern, based on verifiable examples of that happening before.

Or it's racist dog-whistle.

Which?

As I said earlier a recent report stated that, for example, there are several thousand Nigerian nationals in our prison system, how true that figure is I don't know,

That doesn't stop you quoting it though, does it.

It doesn't stop you then embellishing it with completely fabricated nonsense that the HRA will prevent us from deporting them when they are released, something you do because, basically, you don't want people you don't like to have rights.

but there probably are a substantial number of foreign nationals from all over the world. Why are they there? What crimes have they committed? Some of them are no doubt serious offenders, so why on earth would you want them to remain here once their sentence is completed.

Any point asking you for evidence which justifies the fear that they might have to remain?

 

[morqthana]

The suggestion of thousands from Nigeria did seem a bit unlikely, which is exactly why I said I had no idea of its accuracy.

No, you didn't, not until after you were questioned about its accuracy. Your initial use of it included no such caveats.

I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. If you don't honour your responsibilities, by committing a serious crime for example, then you should not enjoy the same rights as others. So for example your rapist, murderer, drug dealer or whatever who has come here from overseas should not be able to avoid deportation at the end of their sentence on the basis of their right to family life and so forth. We have enough home grown toe rags without taking on other countries. Many of these people I would suggest have hardly been productive members of society, rather parasites, who see our legal system as a soft touch. I recall that reports around the truly shameful Rwanda policy indicated that there were several thousand criminals in our prisons from Nigeria alone. All will no doubt be championed by some Cherie Blair type fighting tooth and mail for their right to remain here, despite having abused that privilege. This gives those who oppose immigration ammunition and undermines the vast majority of immigrants who make a very positive contribution to our country, in the NHS for example. So I don't see anything wrong with the legislation itself, we have just allowed its interpretation to become skewed too much in favour of the individual, with little regard to the rights of the general population to live their lives unmolested by these people, whether they be home grown or from elsewhere.

But, if I read you correctly, you seem to be content that after serving their sentences foreign criminals should be allowed to remain here illegally indefinitely.

Your reading skills could do with some improvement.

I am not really sure why you see sending them home as being necessarily an additional punishment, as I say each case on its individual merits. I simply suggest that this should be the default position.

Do you have any evidence that it is not the default position?

 

[Spectric]

If we are all totally honest then it is bad the way russia is targeting civilians but then the days where two armies would meet and face off on the battlefield have gone and conflicts now get dragged into civilian areas so some leeway whereas the only country to deliberately target and decimate civilian populations has been America so who is really any better or worse than russia if the wrong synario arises? At the end of the day humans just cannot live in peace because eventually someone ends up getting offended, takes offence and things spiral out of control, we just cannot learn from our past.

 

[morqthana]

It that could happen in the USA then in comparison we are nothing more than a canoe, so is doing the right thing really doing the right thing knowing what could happen, are a million lives worth several billion, this is not a decision about what is right or wrong, about doing the moral thing but a simple question of survival, prevention of a possible extinction event.

OK - so we throw millions of Ukranian lives under Putin's bus.

To which of the millions of Moldovans, Georgians, Bosnians, Kosovans, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Montenegrans, Poles, Finns, Swedes do we do the same, bearing in mind that each and every time we do we will be more easily trampled on than the time before?

 

[thetyreman]

Trainee neophyte feeling shame for his support for Putin?

Are you serious?

it's called freedom of speech, neophyte has the right to his opinions, and you're twisting what he said to suit your agenda just like you've done with me too.

The problem from your POV is that I am very much listening to what you have to say.

You said, in an unambiguous claim of the dangerous things that could flow from a ban on air travel:

So,"first they came for my air miles and then they took away all my basic rights"?

Really?


You said:

So banning air travel would set us on the slippery slope to a fascist state?

Really?

Tip: If you want people to listen to what you say, say things worth listening to, not nonsense.

 

[morqthana]

it's called freedom of speech, neophyte has the right to his opinions, and you're twisting what he said to suit your agenda just like you've done with me too.

My agenda is one of truth, evidence, fairness, humanity, reason...

Far from twisting what you say I focus on it and highlight where it conflicts with those principles.

 

[morqthana]

whereas the only country to deliberately target and decimate civilian populations has been America

You do us a disservice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicidal_warfare#Malaya

 

[Fergie 307]

You are spot on. I think we all (well, most of us) do indeed now know very well exactly what it is you are talking about.



So - that's either a reasonable concern, based on verifiable examples of that happening before.

Or it's racist dog-whistle.

Which?




That doesn't stop you quoting it though, does it.

It doesn't stop you then embellishing it with completely fabricated nonsense that the HRA will prevent us from deporting them when they are released, something you do because, basically, you don't want people you don't like to have rights.





Any point asking you for evidence which justifies the fear that they might have to remain?

Sorry I thought you liked facts. You can substitute anything you like for Jamaican doesn't matter to me, and certainly not racist in any way.
You are right I don't like criminals in whatever shape or form. And yes, where there s a balance to be struck between their rights, and the rights the rest of us should have to be protected from them, then I think our rights should take precedence. How far you take that depends on the nature of the crime.
So I make no apology for saying that paedophiles and rapists for example, should in many cases never be released, purely on the basis that I could not face the parents of a murdered child and say that in the interests of his human rights I had released him, despite the risk that he might 're offend.
Which takes us back to where we started. If the person has stolen a pair of jeans from a supermarket then no I would not be jumping up and down demanding they be deported. Because the risk associated with a repetition is insignificant. But at the other extreme in the case of a rapist for example you might argue that the risk of them 're offending may be small, but the consequences of they do are life changing for somebody. So why take the risk at all.

 

[morqthana]

Borris knows he is treading a thin line by his actions of supplying military hardware to Ukraine and is aware that Russia could retaliate, this is why he has already issued letters of last resort in the event he and the government are wiped out in a nuclear strike.

No - he issued LOLR the moment he took office, just like every PM does.

 

[morqthana]

Sorry I thought you liked facts. You can substitute anything you like for Jamaican doesn't matter to me,

OK - so you're not picky about which foreigners you are prejudiced against.

and certainly not racist in any way.

You are right I don't like criminals in whatever shape or form. And yes, where there s a balance to be struck between their rights, and the rights the rest of us should have to be protected from them, then I think our rights should take precedence. How far you take that depends on the nature of the crime.
So I make no apology for saying that paedophiles and rapists for example, should in many cases never be released, purely on the basis that I could not face the parents of a murdered child and say that in the interests of his human rights I had released him, despite the risk that he might 're offend.
Which takes us back to where we started. If the person has stolen a pair of jeans from a supermarket then no I would not be jumping up and down demanding they be deported. Because the risk associated with a repetition is insignificant. But at the other extreme in the case of a rapist for example you might argue that the risk of them 're offending may be small, but the consequences of they do are life changing for somebody. So why take the risk at all.

And yet again you bang on about this, thinking you can sideslip the question I keep asking, which is not about whether certain people should or should not be deported but about whether the HRA prevents us deporting ones who we think should be.

 

[Fergie 307]

it's called freedom of speech, neophyte has the right to his opinions, and you're twisting what he said to suit your agenda just like you've done with me too.

And I would have to point out that what I thought shameful is that he sought to compare the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union fighting Hitler with what is going on now in Ukraine.
As you say he has every right to air his views, including his support for Putin, and however much I may disagree with him I would hate to live in a world where he wasn't free to speak his mind.

 

[Spectric]

That's life, people do it every day to get ahead on the career ladder or to make progress at someone elses expense, if you don't want to be eaten by the bear then let him have the food and live to see another day because life is all about trade offs and making hard and bad decisions. Trying to wrap everything in cotton wool whilst wearing rose tinted specs is not going to change anything, life is hard and can be cruel so hiding behind some stupid pronoun is not going to solve anything.

 

[morqthana]

That's life, people do it every day to get ahead on the career ladder or to make progress at someone elses expense,

What?

if you don't want to be eaten by the bear then let him have the food and live to see another day because life is all about trade offs and making hard and bad decisions.

What?

Trying to wrap everything in cotton wool whilst wearing rose tinted specs is not going to change anything,

Err... what?

life is hard and can be cruel so hiding behind some stupid pronoun is not going to solve anything.

What??

 

[MikeK]

Too many complaints about the thread content, so now this is closed.