howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
this subject continues to crop up and there seems a lot of confusion over it.
we keep reading about people committing crimes here - many most serious and they are allowed to stay in the country after their release.
our justice minister said on the box earlier that there is no reason we cannot get shot of these offenders.
the home secretary tells a yarn about someone who could not be deported because they own a cat(good conference stuff).
who is telling the truth?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#2
howard,smoke and mirrors.
in my mind they could and should be sent back.
and futher more what about the cats rights,
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
They all are telling the truth. The problem lays in the legislation and the way it is interpreted by some judges alongside the lack of duties to balance 'rights'. The Home Sec is trying to find a way of obtaining more sense out of it at least until we get a Conservative government that can make the big changes needed.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#4
Barry
are you saying that Teresa May is telling the truth with her assertion that a criminal was not deported because he owned a cat?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
usual rubbish from ms may, trying to woo conference with a cheap gimmick.
the story from 3 years ago relates to a young bolivian chap who was making a case that he had a settled family life in this country.
amongst many domestic things he mentioned that he had a pet cat.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
Been in and out of meetings and not seen news, was that not allegorical Mark?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#8
I think some researcher will be looking for a job tomorrow and beginning to understand just what it means to be 'in this together'!
It was certainly not allegorical, Barry, though I am sure that is the latest 'on message' from the Tory hierarchy.
Not being able to recall the Scottish Labour Leadership candidate's name fades into insignificance when compared with this outrageous and unfounded regurgitation of tabloid pap in an attempt to whip up support for an ill-conceived policy.
Her card must be marked now though she will fight for her survival and who knows how many casualties there will be!
#9
Wait up! While it is plainly not right that someone stayed because he had a cat, it is perfectly viable that a judge may have seen the ownership of a cat, along with a steady girlfriend/baby/pot plant/whatever, as indicating a settled and family life. That is, as BarryW says, the problem - the interpretation rather than the legislation itself. And yes, she did make a tit of herself.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
this article sums it up for me, a tabloid feeding frenzy from 3 years ago.
why she did not check for the truth beggars belief.
she is hardly an inexperienced politician.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-mays-immigrant-cat-claim-rejected-2365464.htmlGuest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#11
Another candidate for the `Buffoon` list of Ministers.
All `U` turns have been ill-conceived policies.
The casuality list should /will be lengthy!
When Ossie said `Together`........camera`s turned to Flashman who semi controlled a cringe.
Is there anyone still out there who believes in the Propaganda continuously splurted out over seventeen months by the Flashman team?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#12
Rather then focus on the cat, perhaps we could be told what crimes these people have committed.
I remember reading one case about a man from Congo who had dome 8 years for abducting and raping a young woman, but was not allowed to be deported because, while in prison, had married a Congolese woman who had a German passport.
He had EU rights!!! That particular case didn't even need to get as far as the human rights act. If he hadn't married an EU citizen but a cat, no doubt he'd be still eligable to stay, owing to the human rights.
That's what it has got to!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#13
i don't think you are taking the issue seriously alex.
a foreign national would not be allowed to marry a cat, the vicar or registrar would simply not go ahead with the ceremony.
additionally the bride might have ringworm.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
Buffoon maybe. But the biggest buffoons are those who foisted this idiotic legislation on us without regard to the all essential balancing duties.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
disagree barry i think that the government quite likes to have an aunt sally to blame everything on.
the recent issue over the banning of wild animals in circuses was a prime example.
dave said it was against european law, completely untrue.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
#16
I'm not going to bother reading previous posts so forgive me.
Isn't human rights the same as Elf and Safety............COMMON SENSE. I seem to remember in a previous thread, common sense has left the building. That reminds me, a new neighbour needs a kitten.
May as well flog a dead horse.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#17
the way people are talking about this subject we would still be living in the middle ages,if they had there way.times have moved on since then.
if the chap needed deporting,then deport him with the cat.then commen sence would previel wouldnt it.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#18
I think we have all overlooked the obvious solution to this problem..deport the cat as well!!
Yes indeed, give him the relevant shots required, anti- dissentry, anti- malaria, anti- rabies, etc and put him on the plane too with a bon voyage
For those who are unclear here is a picture of a cat, whether or not he is the cat in question remains open to speculation...
Did you ever get the feeling poor old Ken Clarke is lost in the political wilderness, clearly catnapping on the fringes of Toryism, didtn know anything about the cat when approached, didnt know anything about catwoman Theresa May's major general plans either. Oh Dear! the clock ticks for Ken..
But one further word on the cat...the Home Secretary was wrong. The cat played no part. Sky News spoke to the lawyer on the very case and he said so..cat had nothing to do with it, said he. Damian Green was spinning and back shuffling on Newsnight but the cat was already out of the bag!
#19
Hello. The cat might have been one of the factors that a judge ill-advisedly took into account when assessing the home life and family commitments of the guy. He would not be allowed to stay BECAUSE HE HAD A CAT, but it might be one of the indicators that he had settled, along with a girlfriend/spouse, kids, home, job whatever.
IT IS NOT THE LEGISLATION!!! It is the way people interpret it.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#20
just shows how a story can be rehashed often as paulb says without any substance.
im with brian, if the guy commits a crime deport him/her
the human right act has some good/bad stuff within it and rather than scrap it altogether work with others to make it an act suitable to the UK
Of course this is conference silly season and mrs May was looking to score a few points with her party faithful, but ended up being own goals for her.
as for ken clarke he is so out of line with the HANG THEM ALL brgade he's unlikely to survive future reshuffles.
pro europe DC though has a problem, if he ditches ken, who does he appoint? and will whoever he appoints move the party further to the right?
like a tory party anti E.U. warned DC he cant keep hiding on the EU at some point he will need to address the issues of both his own party members but also the UK residents in general.
this guy wanted DC to go for a referendum now and if DC so confident of winning a vote to stay in the EU it shouldn't be problem for him.
but this guy reckoned DC knows he would lose a referendum vote
im neither pro nor anti the EU but merely point out the tories differences and these are just a tip of the iceberg so to speak
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
