howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#21
have to study it but on the face of things i would broadly concur.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#22
1-OK [The all new 7-11?]
2-It will be unavoidably otherwise. If you give 20 year sentences why would you then condemn the same person to death by sending them abroad?
3-Basically, this is racism, pure and simple.
4-As above, the right to a speedy trial shall not apply to 'darkies'.
5-The issue of the gay couple and the Christian B&B was discussed here, it was an away win:GC1-0CB&B
6-As I have said:It is NOT for a Democratic State to remove the right to vote.
7-Despotism.
8-Searching around this issue today I discovered that many plane passengers would not agree with this cheapskate cruelty.
9-...except where politicians say otherwise?
10-Here there should be a long string of expletives ending...like what?
Out-UKIP UKIP why don't you.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#23
Austin's Anti-Razor applied with all its force. I shall in turn apply Occam's Razor and deduce therefore that most of the above is hand-wringing left-wing bigotry gone mad.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#24
What's that Peter?
It is all clearly just a front. The old way are still very much in force, and this will change none of that.
Are we all supposed to now identify with establishment untouchables, now that laws shall only apply to 'them'?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#25
Tom, debating with you is like trying to shake hands with an octopus.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#26
While #26 is the epitome of the art?
Why not begin with CE's Point 2?
Human rights act or no, would a court have to send someone to their certain death just because a few potentially embarrassed MPs would rather that than have a spot-light point their way?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#27
Every action has a consequence Tom and if people choose (and it is their choice) to kill, rape, child abuse or whatever and then want to apply the HR to escape being sent back to their home country, without the responsibility of their actions, in my view that is wrong.
I am surprised and quite shcked that you earnestly believe what you've written. You are giving all overseas criminals, the right to stay here and undermine our society - your's is a dangerous view.
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#28
Every day we extradite people to the USA yet the Americans' treatment of prisoners would in many cases fall foul of European laws as extended by the ECHR. It's just a matter of degree.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#29
Sorry Tom but I find your reply #25 a rather sad view as you appear to believe the 'accused' are more important than the innocent population regardless of their colour or place of origin.
Just had a thought maybe you are being just bl***y awkward in your desire to disagree with Charlie.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#30
Brian - it's nothing to do with being innocent until proven guilty, this is ONLY for those found guilty. Everyone should go through the due process of law first, then the decision should be made.
Everyone who comes to live here, must advise the Border Agency of their own/home country, so in the event of them committing a serious crime - and being found guilty, they should be deported back to their home country to serve that sentence; they should also be advised of this, so they will know the consequences if they do commit a (serious) crime.
Roger
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#31
I notice that Tom manages to crowbar racism into his response 3., despite it having no relevance to the right to a family life.
Rule number one of a handwringing liberal:
If at any stage of a debate you are struggling with a cogent reply, accuse your opponent of racism. Its neither here nor there that race is the subject, it will infuriate your opponent and make you feel even more superior.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#32
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#33
Jan #33
Yes Jan, as there is precious little meat on the bone in CEs ardent response to the lurid Tabloid tales an equally ardent challenge has to be made.
David #35
Point 3, is all about 'them'. The one case of the murderous prince does not detract from this. It is not for me to make CE's arguments.
Roger #34
Poor Daphne Du Maurier, where would her aristos be under such a law? Would they have been sent back to meet Madame Guillotine?
This is as yet all about next to nothing. CE kicks off saying, "We see many cases reported in our newspapers day after day, week after week, that give us a sense that..." and Peter kicks off, "Please don't interpret Charlie's Bill merely in the light of tabloid headlines ..."
Once they get their story straight perhaps all shall become clear.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#34
Tom, this is point 3
Thirdly, the right to family life should not be available as a tool to avoid justice and escape answering criminal charges.
It doesn't mention "them", it certainly doesn't mention race, you do yourself no favours at all in bringing race into the argument. To be perfectly honest it simply indicates you've lost it completely.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#35
So David at present any UK citizen can tell the court that he has the front room to paint so can't go to prison just yet...and then there'll be the bedroom, the bathroom and the lawn to be cut?
I'm with Roger on the question being put at the beginning as to whether any criminal charges hang over any would-be immigrant, and a way of answering the charges, without necessarily sending somebody off, should be considered.
But overall, CE has put this forward for 'our' consideration. You may wish to accept it in it's totality by virtue of the sweet breath that emanates from Deal, I require a bit more.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#36
You can keep prevaricating Tom, the point is you accused somebody of racism when the subject hadn't even been raised, I find that disgusting.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#37
I accused nobody of anything, but I did come close only a moment ago.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#38
Tom: Roger #34
Poor Daphne Du Maurier, where would her aristos be under such a law? Would they have been sent back to meet Madame Guillotine?
To the best of my knowledge, the French aristos that escaped to England during the blood bath that was the Terror would have been totally unaffected by what CE was proposing. Point being they came here as refugees, fleeing persecution and did not spend their time here breaking UK law and advocating the overthrow of our liberal democracy (which was neither liberal, or truly a democracy at the time).
The main point of this whole thing seems to me to enshrine and maintain genuine human rights and ensure that all people residing in this country and enjoying such rights also meet the responsibilities that the exercise of such rights implies.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#39
Thank you for your cooling zephyr Neil.
CE says...
"A Honduran man could not be deported to answer charges of murder because of the family life that he had established in the UK since he arrived here after escaping from custody in Honduras. He killed someone, then came here and established a family, and was able to use that family as a shield against facing justice for the crimes that he is alleged to have committed."
Surely it cannot be right that a 'wanted man' can stay here as long as he keeps his nose clean? Aristo or not.
I have one wee niggle about you saying, "genuine human rights". When human rights are left to be a matter of opinion, whose opinion is the one to trusted?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#40
Of course its a matter of opinion, judges and juries will form an opinion based on evidence.
Fortunately it would appear that on this occasion opinion is with Charlie