I am against the ECHR all the time it is used to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals or illegal immigrants. 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.
Oh I see it's about immigrants for you! You should have said.
I wasn't thinking of them at all.
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.
Weakness can also be a strength, knowing when to compromise and when to stand your ground are very important traits when it comes to diplomacy and in this case survival.
Why dont you try actually reading my post before replying to it. I have nothing against immigration, quite the opposite. I merely cite this as one example where very noble legislation is, in my view, being abused.Oh I see it's about immigrants for you! You should have said.
People who "**** or swindle or rob" should be subject to the law and fair trial. It's their human right.
I don't think there's any evidence to show that immigrants are more likely to "**** or swindle or rob" than anybody else.
If anything the opposite - they are looking for a better quality of life and escaping from places where "**** or swindle or rob" or other forms of violence/deprivation are just too common.
They also tend to have a lot to offer and show amazing determination and strength of character just to get here! More the better IMHO and we need them for the work they do and the skills/talent they bring with them.
In both cases I would suggest they would be fully fledged British citizens, so your point is irrelevant. And as I said to Jacob this is not about immigration, that is simply one example where i believe the ECHR is being abused.
Not true. Immigrants are subject to UK laws and punishments just the same as everybody else, and have equal human rights. They aren't getting away with anything.
Unless a tipping point which materially affects the North Atlantic Current is passed.
We can't cope with the smll snowfalls we get now. Have you seen what winters are like at our latitude where the Gulf Stream has no effect?
Not sure if this will work - it is a very tall image:
And many of those were about the EU.
You mean when the gulf between the truth and the rabid fantasies you wish were the truth became too great for you to cope with.
No - it's not out of context.
I'm pointing out that some bans are good things.
Interesting. The holocene begins about 9000bce and you see it in the graph as the modern era relatively stable until very recently. Thought to be anthropogenic itself, due to the effects of agricultureUnless a tipping point which materially affects the North Atlantic Current is passed.
We can't cope with the smll snowfalls we get now. Have you seen what winters are like at our latitude where the Gulf Stream has no effect?
Not sure if this will work - it is a very tall image:
Two things.
Again Jacob, try actually reading my post, rather than assuming you know what I am going to say from reading the first line. You are quite right about Rwanda, a disgraceful idea. But thats what you get if you put someone in charge of the Home Office who couldnt run a bath.
Would that be the window with the ornate gold frame bought for him by a Tory party donor with laundered Russian money?
Climate change "sceptics" intersect with facts in much the same way as Round Earth "sceptics" and Holocaust "sceptics" do.
