Veteran assaulted on way to Remebrance Ceremony
Discussion
MagneticMeerkat said:
MrHorsepower said:
I wouldn't normally want to gas anyone, but these people obviously don't appreciate the men who fought to protect them so I might make an exception.
I really hope that's ironic? I shall assume it isn't, but I have (or had they died years ago) relatives who fought in WW2 and they fought so that instances of poison gas being used wouldn't happen again. Whilst I go no way to defend what happened, after all it's pretty vile beating up an old man for no reason, I don't think a return to Nazism is really the solution. My grandfather was a POW, the other bore witness to Kamikaze attacks in the Pacific, but I know neither of them would in any way support what you've said. I apologise for coming across all preachy here; but all of this talk of recreating Hitler's policies would be quite offensive to someone who genuinely fought in that war.
Back to the old man.... No-one appears to have read the story. He isn't a veteran, as such, as he never fought in a war. He joined in 1960 and left, apparently, prior to the Falklands campaign. He may have been involved with beating up Catholics but that's another matter. Plus things didn't really rev up over there until the late sixties/early seventies.n
I'd use the word shame, but you obviously have no concept of it.
Bravo.
MagneticMeerkat said:
MrHorsepower said:
I wouldn't normally want to gas anyone, but these people obviously don't appreciate the men who fought to protect them so I might make an exception.
I really hope that's ironic? I shall assume it isn't, but I have (or had they died years ago) relatives who fought in WW2 and they fought so that instances of poison gas being used wouldn't happen again. Whilst I go no way to defend what happened, after all it's pretty vile beating up an old man for no reason, I don't think a return to Nazism is really the solution. My grandfather was a POW, the other bore witness to Kamikaze attacks in the Pacific, but I know neither of them would in any way support what you've said. I apologise for coming across all preachy here; but all of this talk of recreating Hitler's policies would be quite offensive to someone who genuinely fought in that war.
Back to the old man.... No-one appears to have read the story. He isn't a veteran, as such, as he never fought in a war. He joined in 1960 and left, apparently, prior to the Falklands campaign. He may have been involved with beating up Catholics but that's another matter. Plus things didn't really rev up over there until the late sixties/early seventies.n
Gaspode said:
XJ Flyer said:
Also bearing in mind that nowhere have In said that such a change in nationality status would mean automatic large scale repatriation.At least until/unless the options of resettlement have been tried to reduce the issue of localised over representation and enclaves in certain areas of the country compared to others.Such as a reduction in the immigrant loading on the South East and Midlands etc v Scotland,Wales and the far North/North West and far West of England.
If I understand you correctly, you favour:Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 29th November 05:40
1. A redefinition of the right to British nationality based on jus sanguinis. This implies the removal of citizenship from those who don't qualify. Given that we are forbidden under international law from rendering people stateless, what would you do about those people who wouldn't qualify, but who don't have citizenship in any other country? Presumably they'd have to be issued with some form of ID giving them rights of abode but not full citizenship.
2. Resettlement of these people to areas of the country deemed by the government to be more suited to having these people living in them than the areas which they have chosen. Given that these people haven't chosen to move to these areas already, presumably there would be an element of legal 'encouragement'?
Blimey.
Edited by Gaspode on Sunday 30th November 19:29
As for a planned population distribution policy the fact is the places required for the incoming numbers planned don't exist yet.In which case the choice between being homeless in the South East or having somewhere to live in new towns built in those at present under populated parts of the country seems like a no brainer.Especially bearing in mind the fact that if I was a guest in someone else's country,I don't think that would give me the right to dictate where they choose to house me,in order to avoid over populating certain parts of the country in question.
XJ Flyer said:
Firstly there isn't any conflict between a definition of nationality based on jus sanguinis and international law regarding making anyone stateless.If that was the case Italian nationality law would obviously be illegal.
As for a planned population distribution policy the fact is the places required for the incoming numbers planned don't exist yet.In which case the choice between being homeless in the South East or having somewhere to live in new towns built in those at present under populated parts of the country seems like a no brainer.Especially bearing in mind the fact that if I was a guest in someone else's country,I don't think that would give me the right to dictate where they choose to house me,in order to avoid over populating certain parts of the country in question.
1. But the Italians aren't proposing to remove citizenship from non-qualifying residents. What would you do with non-qualifying British residents who cannot claim citizenship of another country? As for a planned population distribution policy the fact is the places required for the incoming numbers planned don't exist yet.In which case the choice between being homeless in the South East or having somewhere to live in new towns built in those at present under populated parts of the country seems like a no brainer.Especially bearing in mind the fact that if I was a guest in someone else's country,I don't think that would give me the right to dictate where they choose to house me,in order to avoid over populating certain parts of the country in question.
2. So that's a yes, then.
How would you persuade people to vote for such a policy, which on the face of it seems to be somewhat "Socialist"?
MagneticMeerkat said:
He isn't a veteran, as such, as he never fought in a war. He joined in 1960 and left, apparently, prior to the Falklands campaign. He may have been involved with beating up Catholics but that's another matter. Plus things didn't really rev up over there until the late sixties/early seventies.n
Your definition of a veteran differs to mine. As does your view of the NI Troubles being 'another matter'.TKF said:
Gaspode said:
2. So that's a yes, then.
Maybe we could keep them all in camps? That way all the undesirables would be concentrated in one area.It's a great solution. You could almost call it final.
I wouldn't fancy a trip to the showers though.
Gaspode said:
XJ Flyer said:
Firstly there isn't any conflict between a definition of nationality based on jus sanguinis and international law regarding making anyone stateless.If that was the case Italian nationality law would obviously be illegal.
As for a planned population distribution policy the fact is the places required for the incoming numbers planned don't exist yet.In which case the choice between being homeless in the South East or having somewhere to live in new towns built in those at present under populated parts of the country seems like a no brainer.Especially bearing in mind the fact that if I was a guest in someone else's country,I don't think that would give me the right to dictate where they choose to house me,in order to avoid over populating certain parts of the country in question.
1. But the Italians aren't proposing to remove citizenship from non-qualifying residents. What would you do with non-qualifying British residents who cannot claim citizenship of another country? As for a planned population distribution policy the fact is the places required for the incoming numbers planned don't exist yet.In which case the choice between being homeless in the South East or having somewhere to live in new towns built in those at present under populated parts of the country seems like a no brainer.Especially bearing in mind the fact that if I was a guest in someone else's country,I don't think that would give me the right to dictate where they choose to house me,in order to avoid over populating certain parts of the country in question.
2. So that's a yes, then.
How would you persuade people to vote for such a policy, which on the face of it seems to be somewhat "Socialist"?
How is a policy of development and new towns to settle immigrants in the less populated parts of the country any more socialist than a policy of development and settlement of immigrants in the already highly populated parts of the country like the south east.More like it would face resistance from the hypocrites in those less populated parts of the country who are all for immigration and massive urbanisation.Just so long as they remain unaffected by it all and the South East etc is turned into yet more of an over developed over populated area.
XJ Flyer said:
How would the Italians need to 'remove' citizenship from 'non qualifying' residents when those 'non qualifying' residents wouldn't have 'qualified' to start with.It is only in our case,in making the change from one definition to another and applying that change retrospectively where such removal of citizenship would be required.
OK, once more. You are proposing removing British citizenship from people who may well not be able to claim citizenship from any other country. What would you do with these people, given that you could not simply declare them stateless?How would you package these policies into something that would be palatable to the electorate?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff