What Is Happening To Our Country?

[Sir Ralph]

20 minutes ago, egg said:

Legal is not illegal. That's not semantics. It's basics. 

Ok legally they are not illegal but morally they are.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok legally they are not illegal but morally they are.

The best type of being legal, is the legal type.

[Sir Ralph]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9rxlvp85o
 

Brilliant. It’s just astounding. Illegal imigrant, touched up kids, runs from jail, give the guy £500. What a joke. That proves how fucked up our legal system is that defines these people as legal. The fucked up system can call them what it wants and we can have legal interpretations all day long. In short they shouldn’t be here.

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9rxlvp85o
 

Brilliant. It’s just astounding. Illegal imigrant, touched up kids, runs from jail, give the guy £500. What a joke

To be fair this has been mooted many times - essentially paying illegal immigrants to fuck off back to their countries.

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

To be fair this has been mooted many times - essentially paying illegal immigrants to fuck off back to their countries.

My comment relates more to the legal system that means that we have to pander to them. A legal system is allegedly fair and just. This is not which is why it’s such a politically charged topic

How can someone arrive illegally, break the law, run from jail and the legal system has so little teeth that we have to pay this bloke £500 to leave. And people laugh at people saying we need to leave the ECHR and other legal entities- it’s not bloody surprising!

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

My comment relates more to the legal system that means that we have to pander to them. A legal system is allegedly fair and just. This is not which is why it’s such a politically charged topic

How can someone arrive illegally, break the law, run from jail and the legal system has so little teeth that we have to pay this bloke £500 to leave. And people laugh at people saying we need to leave the ECHR and other legal entities- it’s not bloody surprising!

What's that got to do with the ECHR though? Essentially he's been paid to not appeal, which would cost far more in legal costs anyway.

Edited 17 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What's that got to do with the ECHR though? Essentially he's been paid to not appeal, which would cost far more in legal costs anyway.

I understand why he has been paid in the context of the current system to avoid additional costs. 

The key point is how is this fucker allowed access to a system which protects him to the extent he can try to disrupt his deportation and mean that we have to pay this wanker £500. The legal framework (including the ECHR) that facilitates this is therefore perverse and I would go as far as to say, immoral. Surely you can see why people have the hump, are fed up and want a change to the legal framework that facilitates this? If you agree that this is wrong, by virtue of this you would have an isue with the legal system that allows it

Edited 16 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Mixedkebab]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyld1p0lw1o

Fuck me the news is relentless with this stuff this week

This fellow spent ages in various European countries before coming here, then obviously didn’t like it as much as he hoped. Another senseless fucking violent death.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Mixedkebab

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

My comment relates more to the legal system that means that we have to pander to them. A legal system is allegedly fair and just. This is not which is why it’s such a politically charged topic

How can someone arrive illegally, break the law, run from jail and the legal system has so little teeth that we have to pay this bloke £500 to leave. And people laugh at people saying we need to leave the ECHR and other legal entities- it’s not bloody surprising!

He didn't "run" from jail. Reports said that having been put outside the prison he went back 5 times to check what was happening, and was repeatedly directed to the train station and told to go to London.

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

He didn't "run" from jail. Reports said that having been put outside the prison he went back 5 times to check what was happening, and was repeatedly directed to the train station and told to go to London.

That’s what you took from my post?!
 

I didnt see those reports. He then went missing for a number of days despite it being splashed across the national press. What a lovely paedo. I mean are you serious? Are you defending the bloke and the shitshow of a legal system? your response isnt normal in the context

Edited 16 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyld1p0lw1o

Fuck me the news is relentless with this stuff this week

This fellow spent ages in various European countries before coming here, then obviously didn’t like it as much as he hoped. Another senseless fucking violent death.

 

I think we have to be honest. If we want to work within the current system and think that detaining those who come over illegally is too extreme and that they should be accommodated for an extended period without any restriction of movement then things like this are the price you're going to have to pay unfortunately.

Some people will think that detaining young men from small boats or other measures that might act as a deterrent aren't the actions of a civilised country and that there are downsides to taking more drastic action but the trade off is that rapes, murder and harassment from the number of bad apples will continue.  

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think we have to be honest. If we want to work within the current system and think that detaining those who come over illegally is too extreme and that they should be accommodated for an extended period without any restriction of movement then things like this are the price you're going to have to pay unfortunately.

Some people will think that detaining young men from small boats or other measures that might act as a deterrent aren't the actions of a civilised country and that there are downsides to taking more drastic action but the trade off is that rapes, murder and harassment from the number of bad apples will continue.  

The actions of an uncivilised country is to allow rape, murder and harassing of it’s citizens to continue without attaching importance to it by addressing the cause.

Edited 16 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didnt see those reports. He then went missing for a number of days despite it being splashed across the national press. What a lovely paedo. I mean are you serious? Are you defending the bloke and the shitshow of a legal system? your response isnt normal in the context

It was on SKY News.

As for the rest of this inane drivel, I'm not defending anybody, merely indicating that the prison officers are more culpable than he is for his "escape".

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

The actions of an uncivilised country is to allow rape, murder and harassing of it’s citizens to continue without attaching importance to it by addressing the cause.

The issue of course is how it is addressed. I certainly understand the issue, that some people are worried that treating all small boat migrants with suspicion risks tarring "inocent" asylum seekers with the same brush and that the amount that are sex criminals or who break the law in other ways are still in the minority. Others will argue that there's little sympathy for people who enter the country in a dinghy and that reasonable measures to detain them and prevent the bad apples from harming innocent members of the public is a sensile and proportionate response to people entering the country in this fashion. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It was on SKY News.

As for the rest of this inane drivel, I'm not defending anybody, merely indicating that the prison officers are more culpable than he is for his "escape".

I agree. The paedo isn't responsible for the absolute fuck up that allowed him to go free. It sounds like he was largely oblivious to what was happening. I think everyone can be glad he's gone though. Still infuriating that we had to pay him to get him to leave quietly. 

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The issue of course is how it is addressed. I certainly understand the issue, that some people are worried that treating all small boat migrants with suspicion risks tarring "inocent" asylum seekers with the same brush and that the amount that are sex criminals or who break the law in other ways are still in the minority. Others will argue that there's little sympathy for people who enter the country in a dinghy and that reasonable measures to detain them and prevent the bad apples from harming innocent members of the public is a sensile and proportionate response to people entering the country in this fashion. 

The legal system is creating lots of problems which mean that the bad apples are taking advantage. This leaves the genuine asylum seekers being naturally tarred with the same brush. You need to change the legal system otherwise the grouping of people will and is occurring. Those wanting to protect the existing system and its huge associated problems will actually likely cause the discrimination of the genuine claimants. The bad apples need to be dealt with in a robust and speedy manner (as part of a new system) for people to differentiate between them and the genuine claimants.

Edited 16 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

If labour were smart- no guarantee there -they'd get together with like minded European countries and try to make proper changes to the ECHR to prevent frivolous legal challenges and some of the ridiculous spectacles we have seen holding up reasonable deportations. I reckon there's a good chance they will do that before the end of their term to allow them to ramp up deportation over the next couple of years. You'd have to say their political future depends on it.

Edited 16 hours ago by hypochondriac

[whelk]

40 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyld1p0lw1o

Fuck me the news is relentless with this stuff this week

This fellow spent ages in various European countries before coming here, then obviously didn’t like it as much as he hoped. Another senseless fucking violent death.

 

Don’t you think we are to blame for not sending him on a ‘stabbing is bad’ course?

[AlexLaw76]

32 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree. The paedo isn't responsible for the absolute fuck up that allowed him to go free. It sounds like he was largely oblivious to what was happening. I think everyone can be glad he's gone though. Still infuriating that we had to pay him to get him to leave quietly. 

Given how quickly he has been deported since being found, why wasn’t this level of enthusiasm there to deport him in the first place.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Given how quickly he has been deported since being found, why wasn’t this level of enthusiasm there to deport him in the first place.

Because it didn't become a political hot potato beforehand. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because it didn't become a political hot potato beforehand. 

Ah, so when the political will is there, almost anything is possible.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ah, so when the political will is there, almost anything is possible.

Absolutely, I have said that consistently even though some people say it's literally impossible. What is actually meant when someone says that is they mean they don't like the implications of acting, it makes them uncomfortable and policitcally it's very difficult to do. 

[benjii]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

The legal system is creating lots of problems which mean that the bad apples are taking advantage. This leaves the genuine asylum seekers being naturally tarred with the same brush. You need to change the legal system otherwise the grouping of people will and is occurring. Those wanting to protect the existing system and its huge associated problems will actually likely cause the discrimination of the genuine claimants. The bad apples need to be dealt with in a robust and speedy manner (as part of a new system) for people to differentiate between them and the genuine claimants.

How do you know who the bad apples are?

[benjii]

53 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ah, so when the political will is there, almost anything is possible.

 

59 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because it didn't become a political hot potato beforehand. 

Yep, nothing to do with the ECHR etc.

[Sir Ralph]

14 minutes ago, benjii said:

How do you know who the bad apples are?

A bad apple should be somebody who throws their passport or ID away. It shows bad faith from the start and a commitment to play the system. Currently we just have to accept these characters. If that happens it should be immediate deportation to a third party country or island. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9rxlvp85o
 

Brilliant. It’s just astounding. Illegal imigrant, touched up kids, runs from jail, give the guy £500. What a joke. That proves how fucked up our legal system is that defines these people as legal. The fucked up system can call them what it wants and we can have legal interpretations all day long. In short they shouldn’t be here.

Another interpretation is that a wrong un is booted out, saving us a fortune. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I think we have to be honest. If we want to work within the current system and think that detaining those who come over illegally is too extreme and that they should be accommodated for an extended period without any restriction of movement then things like this are the price you're going to have to pay unfortunately.

Some people will think that detaining young men from small boats or other measures that might act as a deterrent aren't the actions of a civilised country and that there are downsides to taking more drastic action but the trade off is that rapes, murder and harassment from the number of bad apples will continue.  

You still haven't said what you want to do with the women and kids. Separate them from their spouses/fathers?

What about single parent dads - separate from their kids? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

43 minutes ago, egg said:

You still haven't said what you want to do with the women and kids. Separate them from their spouses/fathers?

What about single parent dads - separate from their kids? 

If you leave a safe country to make an incredibly dangerous sea journey with kids onboard, there’s a case for them to be taken into care.

What sort of father leaves France & risks their children’s life like that?  Not the type we should welcome into our society that’s for sure. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If you leave a safe country to make an incredibly dangerous sea journey with kids onboard, there’s a case for them to be taken into care.

What sort of father leaves France & risks their children’s life like that?  Not the type we should welcome into our society that’s for sure. 

So you're removing kids from their parents and putting them into our superbly funded and run social care system? What a good idea.

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

If labour were smart- no guarantee there -they'd get together with like minded European countries and try to make proper changes to the ECHR to prevent frivolous legal challenges and some of the ridiculous spectacles we have seen holding up reasonable deportations. I reckon there's a good chance they will do that before the end of their term to allow them to ramp up deportation over the next couple of years. You'd have to say their political future depends on it.

Just out of interest, is it the ECHR that is stipulating the right to frivolous legal challenges?

[egg]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If you leave a safe country to make an incredibly dangerous sea journey with kids onboard, there’s a case for them to be taken into care.

What sort of father leaves France & risks their children’s life like that?  Not the type we should welcome into our society that’s for sure. 

So the kids fot into care. Ok. Our system won't cope, but I appreciate the answer.

What about the women? Kept separate from the men, or do they stay together? 

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Just out of interest, is it the ECHR that is stipulating the right to frivolous legal challenges?

I'm glad you asked...people keep banging on about the EHCR and overlook the HRA. If we exit the EHCR, we still have the HRA. I guess they expect both to go. 

I'm intrigued to understand what people actually want us to give up. I'm assuming it's the right to family life, but I'd be surprised if people really want our legal system to relinquish a right to family life. I'd appreciate a response from those calling for an end or amendment to EHCR. 

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So you're removing kids from their parents and putting them into our superbly funded and run social care system? What a good idea.

The nonsense gets worse. Local authorities are skint, so let's hire non existent social workers, pay non existent foster carers, and divert the judiciary away from dealing with immigration and asylum cases so they can deal with more care cases. Brilliant idea. 

It's almost as though the red mist makes people unable to think sensibly. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Another interpretation is that a wrong un is booted out, saving us a fortune. 

The Home Secretary “pulled every leaver” to return him back to a country where no formal returns agreement exists.

he even wanted to re-start his asylum claim, but he went anyway.

 

Where there is a will……..

[Mixedkebab]

The best thing would be to appreciate that nearly all of these guys coming over are peace loving refugees from war torn countries- the caring dads that come across various safe European lands, in some cases risking their kids’ lives, but in most cases just coming over and living the single man life, should be allowed a haven here.

Their kids should of course be allowed to stay with them- there can’t be many that will turn out anything like that Southport maniac surely- so we should be ok, I would think the chances of us Saints fans having a child or other relative murdered or sexually assaulted is still extremely small, and let’s face it, there are lots of home grown British murdereres and rapists so it’s no good just focusing on the very very rare ones that have claimed asylum here.

So the best thing would be just to agree that there’s fuck all that can be done, anyone trying to address the issue by wishing to refuse or return these people  is illogically angry, and most likely racist.

Eventually we will all learn to integrate, and these kind of violent random crimes will diminish, if the ignorant, gullible British could just be bloody tolerant of other cultures.

This situation is no different to West Indians, Indians and Chinese coming  in the mid late 20th century, and hey- I bet all these bigoted idiots are fine getting a Turkish or Bangladeshi take away at the weekend!!

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Mixedkebab

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

.

Their kids should of course be allowed to stay with them- there can’t be many that will turn out anything like that Southport maniac surely- 

 

By all means make your point, but don't distort facts to sensationalise. The Southport attacker was born in this country, 4 years after his family legitimately moved here from Rwanda.

[egg]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

By all means make your point, but don't distort facts to sensationalise. The Southport attacker was born in this country, 4 years after his family legitimately moved here from Rwanda.

I took it as a kind of, I want to make a point, but actually haven't got a sensible word to say, so will just post a senseless rant.

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I took it as a kind of, I want to make a point, but actually haven't got a sensible word to say, so will just post a senseless rant.

Back to back stories on BBC news about asylum seekers randomly stabbing people just going about their daily life.  On top of that evil bastard who killed a hotel employee with glee and no remorse. It is easy to be dismissive but these horrendous crimes would not have been committed if we were tougher detaining and deporting.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Back to back stories on BBC news about asylum seekers randomly stabbing people just going about their daily life.  On top of that evil bastard who killed a hotel employee with glee and no remorse. It is easy to be dismissive but these horrendous crimes would not have been committed if we were tougher detaining and deporting.

The incidents that have happened are appalling, on that I'm sure we all agree. We all seem to agree that immigration (legal and otherwise) needs m urgently addressing, and the accomodation of asylum seekers needs to be addressed. The detail of that people have different views on, that's understandable, and reasonable.

The issue I have is with emotional and ill thought suggestions on the solution. The military in the channel, taking kids into care, unlawfully detaining non criminals, separating families, coming out of the EHCR (and presumably HRA), etc, just isn't going to happen. 

Whether I misinterpreted Mixedkebabs post, I'm unsure, but I took it as a sardonic rant. 

 

[badgerx16]

[rallyboy]

Not sure about the uproar over the final comedic twist to last night's deportation - to put it into context, if you could have any poster removed from here for £500 it would sound like a fucking bargain.

[Mixedkebab]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

By all means make your point, but don't distort facts to sensationalise. The Southport attacker was born in this country, 4 years after his family legitimately moved here from Rwanda.

Come on now, you’ve misread my post. I said the kids of asylum seekers (which Axel R was) should be allowed to stay here with them . So no facts were distorted.

I see that Egg is shedding a little tear about my nonsense as well. I don’t know why, I’m just trying to agree with him (or her, apologies if jumping the gun).

Edited 11 hours ago by Mixedkebab

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, benjii said:

 

Yep, nothing to do with the ECHR etc.

Sounds like he was bribed with £500 to withdraw an asylum claim.

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Just out of interest, is it the ECHR that is stipulating the right to frivolous legal challenges?

It would reduce some of the legal avenues asylum seekers currently use to avoid deportation but not all of them.

[egg]

16 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

Come on now, you’ve misread my post. I said the kids of asylum seekers (which Axel R was) should be allowed to stay here with them . So no facts were distorted.

I see that Egg is shedding a little tear about my nonsense as well. I don’t know why, I’m just trying to agree with him (or her, apologies if jumping the gun).

You'll also see that your post was edited, and that having read the edited post I acknowledged that I may have misunderstood. Apologies if so. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It would reduce some of the legal avenues asylum seekers currently use to avoid deportation but not all of them.

Um, HRA? 

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It would reduce some of the legal avenues asylum seekers currently use to avoid deportation but not all of them.

Which ones that aren't backed by other entities/legal frameworks?

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I'm glad you asked...people keep banging on about the EHCR and overlook the HRA. If we exit the EHCR, we still have the HRA. I guess they expect both to go. 

I'm intrigued to understand what people actually want us to give up. I'm assuming it's the right to family life, but I'd be surprised if people really want our legal system to relinquish a right to family life. I'd appreciate a response from those calling for an end or amendment to EHCR. 

As I understand it, most people calling for leaving aren't asking for human rights to be abandoned, they are asking for the to be put back under UK control through a British bill of rights or similar legislation written and interpreted domestically. 

The right to family life principle isn't the issue but how broadly it's been applied. It’s often been used to block deportations of people with criminal records or rejected asylum claims, sometimes on very tenuous grounds. The argument is that those decisions should be made by UK judges based on UK law, not by reference to an international convention that was drafted in 1950 and has been stretched far beyond its original intent. Those arguing for leaving don't want outsourced interpretations of human rights.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Which ones that aren't backed by other entities/legal frameworks?

leaving the ECHR would mainly remove the ability to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and potentially weaken Article 8 (“right to family life”) arguments in domestic courts. Other avenues would remain hence looking at other things too as you mentioned.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

As I understand it, most people calling for leaving aren't asking for human rights to be abandoned, they are asking for the to be put back under UK control through a British bill of rights or similar legislation written and interpreted domestically. 

The right to family life principle isn't the issue but how broadly it's been applied. It’s often been used to block deportations of people with criminal records or rejected asylum claims, sometimes on very tenuous grounds. The argument is that those decisions should be made by UK judges based on UK law, not by reference to an international convention that was drafted in 1950 and has been stretched far beyond its original intent. Those arguing for leaving don't want outsourced interpretations of human rights.

I don't follow, and I think you've confused yourself.

What are the fundamental changes to the ECHR that you referred to above?

The principles of the ECHR are already enshrined in our law, namely the HRA. We don't need a new law because if we exit the ECHR, the HRA remains. Are you suggesting that the HRA goes? 

The decisions re the right to family life are made by our Judges under the HRA. The  case law flowing from that will remain if we exit the ECHR, and will apply to the HRA. 

I'm not sure what change you actually seek, and how you think it'll work.