Can we talk about Germany for a bit?

[dudleybloke]

We couldn't deport one crim because he had a cat to look after.
Seriously.

[Sam All]

And refugees/illegal migrants should be subject to one strike and you are out - no ifs, no buts. Educate them at arrival on the basics of our system.

This is about providing reassurance for the natives.

[FredClogs]

dudleybloke said:

We couldn't deport one crim because he had a cat to look after.
Seriously.

Seriously?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980

Look it's one thing when a British Home Secretary talks a load of old ste about human rights etc.. etc...

But this is PH, we have standards of accuracy and due diligence, you can't just roll up and start talking bks on here, this isn't a conservative party conference you know.

[dudleybloke]

OK. I f@cked up on that one.
Should have checked before posting.

[Mr_B]

Zod said:

I'm not sure there are many who will argue against the deportation of asylum seekers who commit serious crimes.

Where you going to deport them to , back to a war zone country ?

[irocfan]

Mr_B said:

Zod said:

I'm not sure there are many who will argue against the deportation of asylum seekers who commit serious crimes.

Where you going to deport them to , back to a war zone country ?

if they're guilty of rape, murder, assault then yes. Why not? fk 'em

[Axionknight]

FredClogs said:

Seriously?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980

Look it's one thing when a British Home Secretary talks a load of old ste about human rights etc.. etc...

But this is PH, we have standards of accuracy and due diligence, you can't just roll up and start talking bks on here, this isn't a conservative party conference you know.

Is it a Labour one?

Not enough arguing or infighting I suppose.

[irocfan]

and now a diplomatic row is brewing over the alleged rape of a 13 y/o Russian girl in Berlin....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-35413134

[scherzkeks]

irocfan said:

ok budf - looks like you're right it's another jjlynn I mean to me it's self evident that if I knew someone was wanted for sexual assault (or indeed any number of other crimes) I'd dob them in. It seems like the great and good jjwannabe can't quite grasp that concept which allows him to wallow in has fake sense of self worth "... oh please all look at me and how good I am..." The sad thing is that that majority are thinking somewhat differently to how he would like to imagine

JJlynn must be another of your tormentors?

In all seriousness, you said: "but as upstanding people they need to start turfing out the ne'er do wells which does not appear to be happening and again bespeaks of a lack of respect for the host country"

Do you understand how ridiculous your statement was, and why the equally ridiculous statement I followed with is based on your own faulty logic?

I think I know the answer, but here is one more chance to prove me wrong.

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 27th January 09:13

[jshell]

irocfan said:

Mr_B said:

Zod said:

I'm not sure there are many who will argue against the deportation of asylum seekers who commit serious crimes.

Where you going to deport them to , back to a war zone country ?

if they're guilty of rape, murder, assault then yes. Why not? fk 'em

First thing they do is dump their 'papers'. Where do you send them, then? The UK is full of parasite lawyers who will take their case and be handsomely paid for doing so.

[andymadmak]

Mr_B said:

Zod said:

I'm not sure there are many who will argue against the deportation of asylum seekers who commit serious crimes.

Where you going to deport them to , back to a war zone country ?

Yes, why not? Look the argument seems to be that either

1. we cannot deport them back to their country because they have destroyed their papers and we are not sure what their country is
2. it's against their human rights

So my answer is very simple. AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME SINCE THEIR ARRIVAL IN EUROPE... Send them back to wherever they claim to be from. If they won't say where they are from then send them back to your best guess as to where they are from based on the language they speak and any other clues as to their nationality that might be available. If no data is available, and if the subject is uncooperative send them back to Syria or whatever "hot conflict zone" is applicable at that point in time. If they come from there they have no complaint about being sent back, and if they don't come from there then they can chose whether to speak up about where they DO come from so that they can be returned to there.
The human rights issue is frankly immaterial in these cases. People who ask for help and then abuse that help have waived their rights to remain.

Now, in parallel I would be looking to further improve the plight of the real suffering refugees - that is to say those women, children, sick and old currently languishing in the refugee camps in the states bordering the conflict zones. More needs to be done by the International community ( I understand that the UK is already doing a terrific amount) to ease their plight, to make the camps more comfortable and secure, and to improve food, medical and educational provision in the camps. A UN screening procedure to pluck the most vulnerable and those most need of special care out for re-homing in the west can then be properly managed. I don't believe in a refugee policy that effectively rewards the strongest and fittest (i.e. those that make their own way to Europe) whilst leaving the most vulnerable and most in need and indeed who ARE observing international law by not busting down fences to gain access to Europe to languish in the camps.

Somebody will be along shortly to call me a fascist or a racist, for sure. But if you're thinking of doing that then please save your energy and the pixels, cos I don't care what you think

[jshell]

andymadmak said:

Somebody will be along shortly to call me a fascist or a racist, for sure.

More likely: naive. Sorry, but the lawyers would call that idea 'Andrex'. To be ripped up for arse-paper.

[andymadmak]

jshell said:

andymadmak said:

Somebody will be along shortly to call me a fascist or a racist, for sure.

More likely: naive. Sorry, but the lawyers would call that idea 'Andrex'. To be ripped up for arse-paper.

Oh I do understand the legal problems my scheme causes. By a few new laws would sort that out.

[AJS-]

That's not fascist at all. If people won't say where they come from and still expect to be treated as asylum seekers just dump them in Syria, Sudan or Afghanistan anyway. At the very least I imagine that would flush out anyone from Pakistan or Morocco etc piggy backing on genuine concern for asylum seekers.

[irocfan]

scherzkeks said:

irocfan said:

ok budf - looks like you're right it's another jjlynn I mean to me it's self evident that if I knew someone was wanted for sexual assault (or indeed any number of other crimes) I'd dob them in. It seems like the great and good jjwannabe can't quite grasp that concept which allows him to wallow in has fake sense of self worth "... oh please all look at me and how good I am..." The sad thing is that that majority are thinking somewhat differently to how he would like to imagine

JJlynn must be another of your tormentors?

In all seriousness, you said: "but as upstanding people they need to start turfing out the ne'er do wells which does not appear to be happening and again bespeaks of a lack of respect for the host country"

Do you understand how ridiculous your statement was, and why the equally ridiculous statement I followed with is based on your own faulty logic?

I think I know the answer, but here is one more chance to prove me wrong.

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 27th January 09:13

you pretentious.... hey, it was pointed out to me earlier and I ignored it. My fault for trying to engage with a troll. Another poster to ignore

[scherzkeks]

andymadmak said:

Lastly it might be a good idea if those people who think that their view of "come one,come all" should prevail in the face of all evidence to the contrary,

There is no one in the thread who has taken that stance.

[Hugo a Gogo]

andymadmak said:

Yes, why not? Look the argument seems to be that either

1. we cannot deport them back to their country because they have destroyed their papers and we are not sure what their country is
2. it's against their human rights

So my answer is very simple. AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME SINCE THEIR ARRIVAL IN EUROPE... Send them back to wherever they claim to be from. If they won't say where they are from then send them back to your best guess as to where they are from based on the language they speak and any other clues as to their nationality that might be available. If no data is available, and if the subject is uncooperative send them back to Syria or whatever "hot conflict zone" is applicable at that point in time. If they come from there they have no complaint about being sent back, and if they don't come from there then they can chose whether to speak up about where they DO come from so that they can be returned to there.
The human rights issue is frankly immaterial in these cases. People who ask for help and then abuse that help have waived their rights to remain.

Now, in parallel I would be looking to further improve the plight of the real suffering refugees - that is to say those women, children, sick and old currently languishing in the refugee camps in the states bordering the conflict zones. More needs to be done by the International community ( I understand that the UK is already doing a terrific amount) to ease their plight, to make the camps more comfortable and secure, and to improve food, medical and educational provision in the camps. A UN screening procedure to pluck the most vulnerable and those most need of special care out for re-homing in the west can then be properly managed. I don't believe in a refugee policy that effectively rewards the strongest and fittest (i.e. those that make their own way to Europe) whilst leaving the most vulnerable and most in need and indeed who ARE observing international law by not busting down fences to gain access to Europe to languish in the camps.

Somebody will be along shortly to call me a fascist or a racist, for sure. But if you're thinking of doing that then please save your energy and the pixels, cos I don't care what you think

What if your criminal says "I am from England"? What if Sudan or Afghanistan or wherever says "not one of ours, sorry"?

[scherzkeks]

Hugo a Gogo said:

What if your criminal says "I am from England"? What if Sudan or Afghanistan or wherever says "not one of ours, sorry"?

Germany has had an issue sending people back to Tunisia in particular. Supposedly, in many caseas, the embassy doesn't even respond when federal requests for passports/documents are issued.

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 27th January 12:58

[Hugo a Gogo]

'Just drop them in one of those countries'

[andymadmak]

Hugo a Gogo said:

What if your criminal says "I am from England"? What if Sudan or Afghanistan or wherever says "not one of ours, sorry"?

Then he would have a British passport, or would be able, through the British embassy to prove he was British. Basic stuff like NHS number, National Insurance number, educational details, UK addresses, family or associates, employment history, PAYE history should be available at least in part for a genuine UK citizen. If he cannot be traced then he aint a Brit. In which case drop him off in Syria (or wherever he finally admits to coming from)