|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 2, 2024 15:27:35 GMT
No, but it does make it more difficult. How do you repatriate someone to Iran? Buy them a ticket to Iran or send them to a detention centre in bleakest coldest most windswept part of Scotland and we have those in abundance I don't have an issue with either of those, but good luck taking them to Iran. And with the detention centre, you didn't address the two points I raised. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 2, 2024 15:27:54 GMT
I thought they did cuff him ..after they made sure he was neutralised as a threat . What part of the body is it acceptable to hit a potential threat lying on the floor with a truncheon? The leg ? The back? Have you ever been hit with a truncheon or even handled a truncheon or baton ? If you knew what you were talking about you would choose the boot in the head . Contrary to your once again - ridiculous post - police officers are trained to use trungeons, and contrary to everything which you have stated, officers are trained to NOT hit people in or on the head, and that is a fact. When officers are trained as to how to use trungeons, they are shown which areas of the body to go for, and which areas of the body to avoid hitting, such as any hit which may cause a spinal injury or brain injury. Posters keep on coming back with various pathetic excuses, all of which are simply ridiculous, we all know that to kick a man when he is down is not defendable and not acceptable. I never said police officers are not trained to use truncheons and I never said police hit people on the head with truncheons , that is a fact so stop lying . Police use truncheons to stun or neutralise . They don’t hit people on the head with a truncheon . I never said otherwise . Now be a good boy and read my post again . This time read it properly. Yes kicking a man when he is down is acceptable in extreme circumstances. We know that you are a liar because you lied twice in one post . Let’s see if you can read a post and understand it . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 2, 2024 15:39:54 GMT
They haven’t got control . They haven’t got control of the numbers of illegal migrants on dinghies and if they are letting deliberately letting in excessive numbers they do not have control . They have relinquished it. OK, you've switched from immigration to illegal migration, which is actually only a very small part. About 10%. The 800,000 are much more of a problem than 80,000. There isn't actually a way of "controlling" the number of illegal migrants, you can't put a cap on it, or just say you don't want it. Successive governments have lied to you that they are going to stop it. You can't, and neither can the current Labour government. You can put incentives or disincentives into play, but they play little effect. Considering the universality of English, I'm not sure that we take a bigger share than other comparable nations, I.e. France and Germany. What you should have is an assessment system that is quick and effective, and returns agreements with countries where possible, and active deportations. The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement? But like I said, the main issue with immigration is legal migration, not illegal migration. I never switched , you ignored. I said immigration and referred to the dinghies from the beginning . There is a way of controlling illegal immigration . Make it clear that no illegal immigrant will ever be allowed to function in this country . They will be into a holding camp and either deported back to where they came or sent to another holding country such as. Rwanda. As for ‘ legal’ immigration . If that is excessive then either the government is deliberately importing too many migrants or they are incapable of controlling the numbers . |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Aug 2, 2024 15:46:46 GMT
"The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement?" The lack of a returns agreement does not mean failed asylum seekers cannot be repatriated to their point of origin. No, but it does make it more difficult. How do you repatriate someone to Iran? Skyscanner has plenty of options www.skyscanner.net/flights-to/thra/cheap-flights-to-tehran.html |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 2, 2024 16:03:38 GMT
"The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement?" The lack of a returns agreement does not mean failed asylum seekers cannot be repatriated to their point of origin. No, but it does make it more difficult. How do you repatriate someone to Iran? I believe Iran is one of those countries for which asylum claims are overwhelmingly granted, so that's a bit of a red herring.
There are plenty of other countries such as Vietnam, Nigeria, Turkey, India and Pakistan for which grants are low but very few are returned.
But in general, I'd say that the correct approach with failed asylum seekers ought to be to return if possible, and if not detain them in a remote secure location until such time as a return is feasible. The present policy of simply forgetting about them and turning a blind eye while they descend into criminality and/or enter the grey economy is the worst of all possible worlds.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 2, 2024 16:08:23 GMT
Buy them a ticket to Iran or send them to a detention centre in bleakest coldest most windswept part of Scotland and we have those in abundance I don't have an issue with either of those, but good luck taking them to Iran. And with the detention centre, you didn't address the two points I raised. Taking? One buys a ticket gives it to them and they get on a plane. If they do not then one takes them to option two. Which points did I not address? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 2, 2024 16:10:50 GMT
I don't have an issue with either of those, but good luck taking them to Iran. And with the detention centre, you didn't address the two points I raised. Taking? One buys a ticket gives it to them and they get on a plane. If they do not then one takes them to option two. Which points did I not address? Overcrowding and cost. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 2, 2024 16:21:56 GMT
Yes there is an easy way to control illegal migration. You stop access to British waters. They can throw themselves into the water, we can cross into French water to effect a maritime rescue and take them to France. Those that fail asylum can either return of their own free will or be detained at HMP pleasure, at HMP Detention centre very far away, Outer Hebrides. The first part is of course pie in the sky. The second part I don't have any objection to in principle, but seeing as a) we don't have enough prison spaces for our existing perps, and b) a lot of the vitriol aimed at asylum seekers is regarding the accommodation costs, I'm not sure indefinite detention would help either of these. Legal migration is a disaster area that Tory policy has for some reason been unable to control. They can control it, they have to control it, it may require some heartache for some. No one wants to tackle it yet not tackling it will create a problem sooner than any climate catastrophe and more significant for the people of this country. The first bit I totally agree. In fact that was exactly my point to Bentley. The second bit is just opinion. Not if an emergency is declared. One can effectively block entry to our waters it is called border control. The boats are not fast moving speedboats they are lumbering slow moving caterpillars. Of course it is opinion but if one allows 2 million people to arrive in the next five years and work and do not much about 150,000 illegal arrivals in the same time frame does one think that will have a positive or negative affect on social cohesion, the NHS, the housing crisis, the net zero target, the prisons, the social services and on crime against British Citizens in particular. Accommodation costs are a consideration but in general terms everything else is the problem |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 2, 2024 16:30:14 GMT
Taking? One buys a ticket gives it to them and they get on a plane. If they do not then one takes them to option two. Which points did I not address? Overcrowding and cost. Not a problem, work available for the detainees in terms of construction, cleaning services, catering. We put up prison camps wholesale for Germans and Italians all over the UK and British soldiers did not do the slopping out. Some deep water ports have already been developed up there so supply is not a problem |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 2, 2024 18:02:07 GMT
Because as I demonstrated to TTL a tasered person is fully able to physically move and resume an attack. Neither you or anyone else has answered my question ( a very relevant question ) The suspect was in the ideal position to be cuffed, meaning he was laid on the floor, face down, at least partly subdued by electric shock, and surrounded by police officers. Why at that point did the officers not handcuff him ? ... It was the perfect opportunity If any of your excuses for excessive force were even remotely acceptable in defence, then why instead did one of the officers not use a trungeon instead, and hit the suspect in a a part of the body which is acceptable, and for which officers are trained to do. No he wasn’t partly subdued by electric shock as I told TTL once the trigger is let go you regain full mobility and a taser does not have an endless abiity. Partly surrounded by officers who’d took a beating or did you miss that? You have no idea of what they faced or the possibility of being attacked again and pressured by the politicians they caved in to we want our version of justice we will riot . That is wrong and should not be pandered to whether you be black white or sky blue pink nor should a religion whether that be protestant catholic Muslim or Jedi. Now I've answered your question will you answer why you have the ability to deem the police officer guilty or the youth who under law is innocent till proved guilty or are you going to divert again? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 2, 2024 18:03:54 GMT
Sandypine That could well be the case. Perhaps someone here knows how the tasers are meant to work ? For instance should they stun someone to the extent that they become totally 'disabled' for some considerable time, and won't even have the strength to raise their head ? Is the usual reaction to being tasered not eventually to try to raise your head from the ground ? Or is the taser meant to be just sufficiently effective to give an Officer time to approach and stamp on the head of a suspect who has regained head movement ? If the Police Officers acted according to their training and utilised only approved procedures, then they'll all be fully exonerated. The findings of the inquiry should answer a lot of our questions. No they don’t. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 2, 2024 20:34:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Aug 3, 2024 0:57:18 GMT
Dont be silly hes not far-right Hes a peace loving Hindu lol. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Aug 3, 2024 2:02:37 GMT
He's part of a minority.
Maybe we should sit down and have a cup of tea with him to try and understand his views.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 3, 2024 6:35:12 GMT
What he needed was more youth clubs..
|
|
