Alternative
March 28, 2024, 02:19:54 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Forum Help Search Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 21 
 on: February 21, 2012, 09:33:13 am 
Started by Tattie - Last post by catfish

I feel strongly that anyone who plots against, or preaches against, or incites violence against England should lose the priviledge of living in England and returned whence he came, or to anyone else who has convicted him, or wants to try him for crimes of terrorism in their country.

i think the vast majorty would agree wih you

 22 
 on: February 20, 2012, 06:54:13 pm 
Started by Tattie - Last post by John
The way the Greeks are being and have been treated by the Germans and to a lesser extent the French, lesser only because they don`t have the clout, is deplorable. Merkel is quite happy to cruise along strenghtening her grip on the Eurozone and the EU, and Sarkozy trails along in her wake like a mangy cur.
I dont have a lot of time for the Greeks. I`ve spent quite a lot of time there and got to know many of them. They are the architects of their own troubles. But they don`t deserve this.

 23 
 on: February 20, 2012, 06:46:09 pm 
Started by Tattie - Last post by John
1. Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more


Rubbish. We are deporting people all the time. Have you not heard the complaint that we do not deport enough?

2. If people commit crimes they are tried, convicted on the facts of their particular case and imprisoned. Not deported!


If immigrants commit crimes they serve their sentence and are then considered for deportation by a judge and many are. But not all, and not enough.

I feel strongly that anyone who plots against, or preaches against, or incites violence against England should lose the priviledge of living in England and returned whence he came, or to anyone else who has convicted him, or wants to try him for crimes of terrorism in their country.

 24 
 on: February 20, 2012, 06:31:55 pm 
Started by Tattie - Last post by John
Under the name Omar Mahmoud Othman (عمرمحمودعثمان'Umar Mamūd 'Uthmān), he is under worldwide embargo by the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267 for his affiliation with al-Qaeda.[1][2] Although imprisoned in the UK since 2005, he has not been prosecuted for any criminal or conspiracy offences.[3] He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria,[4] the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan.[5]



Half the damn world wants to question the sod and put him on trial and we are giving him asylum and God knows how much in benefits each week.

We should do what the French and Italians do; just deport him and let the ECHR wail and gnash their teath, but there are not very many
cojones in Parliament.

 25 
 on: February 20, 2012, 05:57:09 pm 
Started by Tattie - Last post by catfish
We no longer deport people as a sanction for committing crime

I will rephrase my Question when was the right of this country to deport foreign Criminals removed and by whom was it removed?


 26 
 on: February 20, 2012, 03:20:36 pm 
Started by Tattie - Last post by John
Violence. How delightful. It might help for a short while, but as everyone knows violence begets more violence.

Practically everyone in my very extended fam,ily were smacked when they were naughty children and strangely enough not one of them has turned out to be violent, not even me you will be horrified to know, and the last time I hit anyone I was 23, and the time before that I was at school. I have never smacxked either of my daughters because there was never any need to, but my wife rells me that she smacked them when they were naughty, you could not meet two nicer girls, well women they are 28 and 30. Rather shoots down your theory about smacking automatically leading to brutalising the smacked doesn`t it?

 27 
 on: February 20, 2012, 03:09:27 pm 
Started by Lippytarian - Last post by John
If there is evidence against him, sufficient to have a reasonable chance of leading to a conviction, then he should be charged.

And if the presentation of that evidence in open court would put our security and intelligence people at risk of being uncovered what then?
I`ll tell you what then, he should be deported because his presence here is not in the public interest. Nuff said.

 28 
 on: February 20, 2012, 01:37:45 pm 
Started by Lippytarian - Last post by Tattie
a) If there is evidence against him, sufficient to have a reasonable chance of leading to a conviction, then he should be charged. If he is charged then according to the usual rules until the trial he should either be held on remand or released on bail with appropriate bail conditions. In the absence of evidence he should be released [correction: in the absence of criminal charges he should be released.] If the police suspect he might commit a crime then they should monitor his activities.

Must just pop down to my local church/town hall/Speaker's Corner to exhort all my rabid followers to eliminate those of a different creed or country especially Asians, Africans and Jews. I can hand out pamphlets and issue wtfucks showing them how.


Quote
If he is not entitled to that, then you are not entitled to that either. The thing about rights is that they are perfectly absolute. And if you don't believe in ordinary rights under the law for those you don't like then you don't believe in rights at all.

How smug! How self-satisfied is that and how naive? How many tablets of stone were needed for the 30? I suppose the theory is that whilst we stick to as many of the "commandments" as we can others can be far more selective

Quote
b) It is about right at the moment. The system for non-EU migration sometimes seems a bit arbitrary, a points system like the Australian one might be more transparent and fairer.

I'll have to come back to this.Undecided


Quote
c) No. But the question is bogus. They can't. They don't. And nobody is suggesting they should. The legal status of these "Sharia Courts" is exactly what was said in the article you posted - it is just some people sitting in a room and settling their differences.

Is it?

“Sharia courts are utterly opposed to equal rights and they discriminate against women,” says Jim Fitzpatrick, the Labour MP for Poplar and Canning Town, an area with a population now dominated by Bangladeshi Muslims.

Fitzpatrick recently chaired a debate in the House of Commons on Sharia.“I’m concerned that they are creating a cultural stranglehold over their communities and leading to the Islamification of our society,” he says."


Precisely. And dare I ask how you square that with human rights?

 29 
 on: February 19, 2012, 08:09:38 am 
Started by Lippytarian - Last post by Lippytarian
We have enough problems of our own making to deal with without indulging the ambitions and prejudices of outsiders and until we get our house in order we shouldn't be doing so. You obviously see it differently so I ask you
a) what should be done with Qatada?
b) what should our immigration policy be?
c) is any immigrant community entitled to adopt their own set of laws?

a) If there is evidence against him, sufficient to have a reasonable chance of leading to a conviction, then he should be charged. If he is charged then according to the usual rules until the trial he should either be held on remand or released on bail with appropriate bail conditions. In the absence of evidence he should be released [correction: in the absence of criminal charges he should be released.] If the police suspect he might commit a crime then they should monitor his activities.

If he is not entitled to that, then you are not entitled to that either. The thing about rights is that they are perfectly absolute. And if you don't believe in ordinary rights under the law for those you don't like then you don't believe in rights at all.

b) It is about right at the moment. The system for non-EU migration sometimes seems a bit arbitrary, a points system like the Australian one might be more transparent and fairer.

c) No. But the question is bogus. They can't. They don't. And nobody is suggesting they should. The legal status of these "Sharia Courts" is exactly what was said in the article you posted - it is just some people sitting in a room and settling their differences.

 30 
 on: February 19, 2012, 07:52:04 am 
Started by Lippytarian - Last post by Lippytarian
You are always proclaiming your Atheism....

Something which is more convenient to do here than elsewhere because most of the constraining factors that apply in real-life do not apply.

Maybe you are to be found out on the highways and byways of Kent gobbing-off at "rag-heads" and "thick Greeks", telling some people they should be deported, not given access to justice, and generally espousing a nasty narrow brand of nationalism, racial and religious bigotry for everyone to enjoy. But somehow I doubt it.

How frustrating for you. That would be why there is little else you want to talk about here.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy