howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
running alive with terrorists that we give asylum to but this bloke is considered a threat to national security.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23025311Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#2
He upset the Toffs day out and he must be punished
Audere est facere.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#3
I don't know why this man would disrupt a sporting event,
If I had been training all year to have a fool mess it all up, I would be upset
But I think all committing offences have broken the contract the UK have given them and should be removed.
Nobody is stopping His wife going with him
Australia routinely sends back British offenders
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
loved this bit in the report.
A Home Office spokesman said: "Those who come to the UK must abide by our laws.
"We refused this individual leave to remain because we do not believe his presence in this country is conducive to the public good."
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#5
If we left the EU we could sling them all out
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#6
Let's hope they provide that criteria across the board and apply as necessary,the knock on effect for the Education system NHS and Welfare costs would be massive.
Audere est facere.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#7
marting
Why would slinging out criminals affect NHS and education ??
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#8
Because there are so many that fall into this category "We refused this individual leave to remain because we do not believe his presence in this country is conducive to the public good." that if they all went back with their "dependants" it would ease the burden on the services mentioned.
Audere est facere.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#9
We agree martin
just commonsense, I know this mans offences is not that big, but he did agree not brake our laws as condition of his visa.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#10
To be fair Howard nowhere does it say he's a threat to national security. He's been thrown out for disrupting a national event which is good news.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
david
we have convicted rapists, murderers, child molesters and the like that are allowed to stay so that their family lives are unaffected.
why are the home office suddenly coming down hard on this dipstick and letting the others remain?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#12
when they send this chappie back,will it be in a leeky 3 master.all so will he be locked in the brig down by the bilges
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#13
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:david
we have convicted rapists, murderers, child molesters and the like that are allowed to stay so that their family lives are unaffected.
why are the home office suddenly coming down hard on this dipstick and letting the others remain?
Howard, the decision to deport him is correct, the rules that allow others to stay are wrong.
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
#14
It all boils down to the fact he is from Aus. This is not a country that we cannot send ppl back to for fear of them being repressed/murdered etc. The European Convention of Human Rights created what ure talking about.
Keeps politics to myself
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#15
Correct Helen
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
i wasn't arguing the case for the australian david, just noting the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the home office.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#17
Yes but its been pointed out why Howard, the HO can do nothing.
Another reason to leave the EU
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#18
of course they can david,
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#19
You'd better enlighten us Brian
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
not correct david, there was a table published a year or so back of countries that ignored rulings from the echr, we ignored hardly any - other signatories to the treaty had better ways of dealing with terrorists - the order of the boot.
incidentally i believe the echr preceded the european union, there is no tie up with them. if we leave the eu we would still be bound by the echr.