Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 15:56:23 GMT
Are you saying Squeezed that all people committing crime in the UK holding foreign passports should be deported? If he isn't, I am. Additionally, no non-national should be allowed into the uk without some deal with the source nation that allows them to be expelled from the UK easily. If you pay fixed penalty notices on time, they aren't usually considered criminal matters. I'm in agreement. What I can gather from all of this is that we have people dependent on a warped idea on morality, who believe the public should be put in greater danger to appease a cherry picked doctrine, which I doubt they even understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2022 15:57:44 GMT
Were we responsible for these people's human rights before they came here? No we weren't. We've only become responsible since they decided to commit crimes here. And that's absurd. We are responsible for not sending someone to a place where they might lose their basic human rights. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2022 15:59:26 GMT
If he isn't, I am. Additionally, no non-national should be allowed into the uk without some deal with the source nation that allows them to be expelled from the UK easily. If you pay fixed penalty notices on time, they aren't usually considered criminal matters. I'm in agreement. What I can gather from all of this is that we have people dependent on a warped idea on morality, who believe the public should be put in greater danger to appease a cherry picked doctrine, which I doubt they even understand.
No. We still imprison them to protect the public and we still don't release them if they are still a danger to the public, just like our home grown criminals. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 15, 2022 16:06:04 GMT
Were we responsible for these people's human rights before they came here? No we weren't. We've only become responsible since they decided to commit crimes here. And that's absurd. We are responsible for not sending someone to a place where they might lose their basic human rights.
Yes. And it's high time that we weren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2022 16:15:09 GMT
We are responsible for not sending someone to a place where they might lose their basic human rights.
Yes. And it's high time that we weren't.
I have to disagree. But are you suggesting international law is changed or that we opt out? Makes quite a difference to how the conversation goes forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 16:16:25 GMT
We are responsible for not sending someone to a place where they might lose their basic human rights.
Yes. And it's high time that we weren't.
Again, I have to agree. I am very happy they lost their appeal and if they're sawn in half in their native land then I will consider it good news. If anyone else has a problem with that then I will refer them to those who take pleasure out of a mentally ill person, who was just a dick, committing suicide. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 15, 2022 16:22:19 GMT
We allow in large numbers of people from societies we consider too odious for even criminals to live in.
I wonder what the devil we are trying to achieve here..Perhaps, our own destruction?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2022 16:24:05 GMT
We allow in large numbers of people from societies we consider too odious for even criminals to live in. I wonder what the devil we are trying to achieve here..Perhaps, our own destruction? Different question Mags. Why we let them in in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 15, 2022 16:34:15 GMT
Yes. And it's high time that we weren't.
I have to disagree. But are you suggesting international law is changed or that we opt out? Makes quite a difference to how the conversation goes forward.
I'm suggesting that we opt out. The ECHR and our domestic HRA developed in the aftermath of WW2 and were designed to curb the extremist tendencies of rogue states.
They were never designed to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals and I'm sure that they were never envisaged to become the farce that they are today.
They were designed for different circumstances and are no longer fit for purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 15, 2022 16:34:42 GMT
Different question Mags. Why we let them in in the first place. I think it's part of the same issue. If they weren't here (which they shouldn't be), you wouldn't be able to hang your long list of untenable, contingent responsibilities on us. As Squeezed Middle points out - the only reason we are deemed responsible is because we allowed them to come here and they decided to commit crimes. If we are to be held responsible (which you insist we must be), we should take control and prevent them entering unless they can also be removed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 16:35:44 GMT
We allow in large numbers of people from societies we consider too odious for even criminals to live in. I wonder what the devil we are trying to achieve here..Perhaps, our own destruction? Different question Mags. Why we let them in in the first place. We didn't. There was never any mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 15, 2022 16:37:26 GMT
Yes so you’d have hung Stefan Kiszco would you? Top class whataboutery there. Well done you!  yes typical I'll shut down any debate on this
quoting whataboutery,last refuge of " I can't answer that so I'll dig up this well worn reply"
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 15, 2022 16:43:41 GMT
Look, a squirrel!
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2022 16:56:50 GMT
I have to disagree. But are you suggesting international law is changed or that we opt out? Makes quite a difference to how the conversation goes forward.
I'm suggesting that we opt out. The ECHR and our domestic HRA developed in the aftermath of WW2 and were designed to curb the extremist tendencies of rogue states.
They were never designed to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals and I'm sure that they were never envisaged to become the farce that they are today.
They were designed for different circumstances and are no longer fit for purpose.
Have you considered the ramifications of opting out? How the rest of the civilised world will view us if we say we're righting our own human rights laws? The loss in trade and tourism, the concerns from America about NI and the EU about its countrymen living here? Sounds to me like another shoot from the hip Brexit plan. All righteous damnation and no planning. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2022 16:59:35 GMT
Different question Mags. Why we let them in in the first place. I think it's part of the same issue. If they weren't here (which they shouldn't be), you wouldn't be able to hang your long list of untenable, contingent responsibilities on us. As Squeezed Middle points out - the only reason we are deemed responsible is because we allowed them to come here and they decided to commit crimes. If we are to be held responsible (which you insist we must be), we should take control and prevent them entering unless they can also be removed. Its not part of the same question. The result of not letting them in might negate the problem, but the question was. Why do we let them in in the first place, before you can just say stop letting them in, you have to answer that question. |
|
