Grounds for Permanent exclusion
Discussion
From time to time we see cases were people are banned and excluded from the UK, when their behaviour is "non-conducive to the public good".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banne...
Could these be applied to religious extremists involved in Alfie Evans case?
People like Pavel Stroilov, Roger Kiska and Andrea Minichiello Williams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banne...
Could these be applied to religious extremists involved in Alfie Evans case?
People like Pavel Stroilov, Roger Kiska and Andrea Minichiello Williams
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Tuesday 1st May 15:41
Basically the authorities are scared sh*tless of religious nutcases inciting race riots across the UK, so they seem to ban anyone who could potentially aggravate persons within a particular religious group (this is easily done by labelling them racist).
At the same time they are afraid of stopping religious extremists from said group entering the UK (or returning to the UK) because they themselves would be called racist.
Rather than getting rid of extremists, they're getting rid of anyone who might wind them up., which I guess works in the short term, right up until the next truck of peace rolls into town.
The counter terrorism act is very wide reaching and yet non-specific, so it gets abused in order to achieve the above and keep the status quo, as well being abused when dealing with the general public (photographers for example).
At the same time they are afraid of stopping religious extremists from said group entering the UK (or returning to the UK) because they themselves would be called racist.
Rather than getting rid of extremists, they're getting rid of anyone who might wind them up., which I guess works in the short term, right up until the next truck of peace rolls into town.
The counter terrorism act is very wide reaching and yet non-specific, so it gets abused in order to achieve the above and keep the status quo, as well being abused when dealing with the general public (photographers for example).
Edited by lyonspride on Tuesday 1st May 14:19
Just reporting news which may offend some people will also get you banned apparantly.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
Jasandjules said:
I despair at how people view freedom of speech.
Yep, some people think that freedom of expression means "immunity from criticism" and that they have no responsibility for what they say or do. Slow said:
Just reporting news which may offend some people will also get you banned apparantly.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
Actually it had to do with various published violent threats and attempts at deformation. Fox "News" conveniently forgets that she was travelling in a group with people who were involved in "Pizzagate", which falsely accused that democrat officials kept child sex slaves in the White House. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
It was because of published violent threats and deformation that they were denied entry. The UK did the same to Indonesian Cleric Abu Bakar Bashir for the same reason some years ago (so did Australia), seems the UK takes a dim view of all hate preachers.
Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 3rd May 10:32
Slow said:
Just reporting news which may offend some people will also get you banned apparantly.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
If she was just reporting news then she would not have been denied entry though. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
A far right political activist is *not* a reporter. The two are mutually exclusive despite what the media would have you belive. Reporters should be impartial.
lyonspride said:
seriousrikk said:
A far right political activist is *not* a reporter..
But a far left political activist is?The two are not exclusive at all, political bias is endemic throughout the media and most of the time it's left wing.
Left wing extremists who threaten people and publish hate will be denied entry... Its just that most of the militant nut jobs we have to deal with in the UK are on the far right.
Slow said:
Just reporting news which may offend some people will also get you banned apparantly.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
If you shttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing...
t on my carpet, don't expect to be allowed back in my home.Entry to the UK is a privilege not a right.
captain_cynic said:
lyonspride said:
seriousrikk said:
A far right political activist is *not* a reporter..
But a far left political activist is?The two are not exclusive at all, political bias is endemic throughout the media and most of the time it's left wing.
Left wing extremists who threaten people and publish hate will be denied entry... Its just that most of the militant nut jobs we have to deal with in the UK are on the far right.
I also don't see how a young lady from Canada can be called a militant nutjob.
In this country we have the left wing media pumping out propaganda, whilst at the same time throwing "racist" or "far right" at anyone who doesn't agree with them. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to one group, it applies to everyone. I'd rather hear the nutcases on both sides than live in a country where you can't speak your mind if your views differ from the mainstream..... Perhaps North Korea would be better.
lyonspride said:
captain_cynic said:
lyonspride said:
seriousrikk said:
A far right political activist is *not* a reporter..
But a far left political activist is?The two are not exclusive at all, political bias is endemic throughout the media and most of the time it's left wing.
Left wing extremists who threaten people and publish hate will be denied entry... Its just that most of the militant nut jobs we have to deal with in the UK are on the far right.
I also don't see how a young lady from Canada can be called a militant nutjob.
In this country we have the left wing media pumping out propaganda, whilst at the same time throwing "racist" or "far right" at anyone who doesn't agree with them. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to one group, it applies to everyone. I'd rather hear the nutcases on both sides than live in a country where you can't speak your mind if your views differ from the mainstream..... Perhaps North Korea would be better.
lyonspride said:
And what about antifa? The authorities, the Police, the politicians, the media, all seem to ignore their violence and provocation at peaceful events (like "Veterans against terrorism"), bunch of kids throwing rocks at 80 year old armed forces vets (including Gurkhas). America on the other hand are very intolerant of them.......
I also don't see how a young lady from Canada can be called a militant nutjob.
In this country we have the left wing media pumping out propaganda, whilst at the same time throwing "racist" or "far right" at anyone who doesn't agree with them. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to one group, it applies to everyone. I'd rather hear the nutcases on both sides than live in a country where you can't speak your mind if your views differ from the mainstream..... Perhaps North Korea would be better.
I think you've got no idea who Antifa are. You want to think they are some monolithic Leftie(TM) organisation where in fact they're a loose coalition of a lot of groups which oppose Fascism, many of which are right-wing. I also don't see how a young lady from Canada can be called a militant nutjob.
In this country we have the left wing media pumping out propaganda, whilst at the same time throwing "racist" or "far right" at anyone who doesn't agree with them. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to one group, it applies to everyone. I'd rather hear the nutcases on both sides than live in a country where you can't speak your mind if your views differ from the mainstream..... Perhaps North Korea would be better.
Also, very few groups can get you denied entry by simply being a member (think like Al-Queda), In the case we're talking about they were denied entry because of their individual actions. You can be an administrator on Brietbart or Stormfront and get entry as long as you haven't done anything personally. The UK does not practice "guilt by association", in fact association is a freedom in the UK.
captain_cynic said:
I think you've got no idea who Antifa are. You want to think they are some monolithic Leftie(TM) organisation where in fact they're a loose coalition of a lot of groups which oppose Fascism, many of which are right-wing.
I think to say Antifa are anti-fascist is a stretch... Ironic, considering their choice of name and claimed goal. They strut about the place trying to force people to believe what Antifa tell them. When people refuse, Antifa resort to intimidation and violence.
Antifa is a fascist organisation that sometimes gets into fights with other fascist/dubious organisations, but seems to focus most of its efforts against people who have nothing to do with fascism, racism, sexism etc.
donkmeister said:
I think to say Antifa are anti-fascist is a stretch... Ironic, considering their choice of name and claimed goal.
They strut about the place trying to force people to believe what Antifa tell them. When people refuse, Antifa resort to intimidation and violence.
Antifa is a fascist organisation that sometimes gets into fights with other fascist/dubious organisations, but seems to focus most of its efforts against people who have nothing to do with fascism, racism, sexism etc.
Once again, you're confusing a media moniker with actual groups.They strut about the place trying to force people to believe what Antifa tell them. When people refuse, Antifa resort to intimidation and violence.
Antifa is a fascist organisation that sometimes gets into fights with other fascist/dubious organisations, but seems to focus most of its efforts against people who have nothing to do with fascism, racism, sexism etc.
Antifa isn't a monolithic group, its a catch all term that seems to be more and more misused by certain papers. Anti-fa have no leadership or structure, in fact calling them a "loose coalition" is a stretch.
And Anti-fa started in the US as a direct response to the rise in militant white supremacist groups in recent years. If you want to talk about groups who use violence and intimidation to enforce their political ideology, start with the groups actually doing it in large numbers. It wasn't Anti-fa that ran a car into a protest against racism, nor was it anti-fa who beat a man to death in North Carolina because he was the wrong colour.
If you oppose people using violence to attain political goals (Direct Action) then Anti-fa should be very far down on your list considering Anti-fa hasn't actually killed anyone yet.
captain_cynic said:
Once again, you're confusing a media moniker with actual groups.
Antifa isn't a monolithic group, its a catch all term that seems to be more and more misused by certain papers. Anti-fa have no leadership or structure, in fact calling them a "loose coalition" is a stretch.
And Anti-fa started in the US as a direct response to the rise in militant white supremacist groups in recent years. If you want to talk about groups who use violence and intimidation to enforce their political ideology, start with the groups actually doing it in large numbers. It wasn't Anti-fa that ran a car into a protest against racism, nor was it anti-fa who beat a man to death in North Carolina because he was the wrong colour.
If you oppose people using violence to attain political goals (Direct Action) then Anti-fa should be very far down on your list considering Anti-fa hasn't actually killed anyone yet.
Two wrongs don't make a right...Antifa isn't a monolithic group, its a catch all term that seems to be more and more misused by certain papers. Anti-fa have no leadership or structure, in fact calling them a "loose coalition" is a stretch.
And Anti-fa started in the US as a direct response to the rise in militant white supremacist groups in recent years. If you want to talk about groups who use violence and intimidation to enforce their political ideology, start with the groups actually doing it in large numbers. It wasn't Anti-fa that ran a car into a protest against racism, nor was it anti-fa who beat a man to death in North Carolina because he was the wrong colour.
If you oppose people using violence to attain political goals (Direct Action) then Anti-fa should be very far down on your list considering Anti-fa hasn't actually killed anyone yet.
Antifa are w
kers, white supremacists are wkers, islamic fundamentalists are wkers etc etc. Most people (lefties, whites, muslims - these groups are not mutually exclusive 
) would not align themselves with any of them. donkmeister said:
Two wrongs don't make a right...
Antifa are wkers, white supremacists are wkers, islamic fundamentalists are wkers etc etc. Most people (lefties, whites, muslims - these groups are not mutually exclusive ) would not align themselves with any of them.
Agreed.Antifa are w
kers, white supremacists are wkers, islamic fundamentalists are wkers etc etc. Most people (lefties, whites, muslims - these groups are not mutually exclusive ) would not align themselves with any of them. Trouble is there are some on here who label anyone who goes out and protests against right wing groups as antifa. Yes, a small number are, but not the vast majority.
rscott said:
donkmeister said:
Two wrongs don't make a right...
Antifa are wkers, white supremacists are wkers, islamic fundamentalists are wkers etc etc. Most people (lefties, whites, muslims - these groups are not mutually exclusive ) would not align themselves with any of them.
Agreed.Antifa are w
kers, white supremacists are wkers, islamic fundamentalists are wkers etc etc. Most people (lefties, whites, muslims - these groups are not mutually exclusive ) would not align themselves with any of them. Trouble is there are some on here who label anyone who goes out and protests against right wing groups as antifa. Yes, a small number are, but not the vast majority.
rscott said:
donkmeister said:
Two wrongs don't make a right...
Antifa are wkers, white supremacists are wkers, islamic fundamentalists are wkers etc etc. Most people (lefties, whites, muslims - these groups are not mutually exclusive ) would not align themselves with any of them.
Agreed.Antifa are w
kers, white supremacists are wkers, islamic fundamentalists are wkers etc etc. Most people (lefties, whites, muslims - these groups are not mutually exclusive ) would not align themselves with any of them. Trouble is there are some on here who label anyone who goes out and protests against right wing groups as antifa. Yes, a small number are, but not the vast majority.
The problem is not their existence, the problem is the authorities and the media directing them toward events such as the "veterans against terrorism" marches and turning a blind eye to their violent ways whilst looking for the very first opportunity to label the peaceful anti-terrorism protesters as racist nazis bigots...... Which is ironic and funny in a way because the word Nazi came from the word "Nationalsozialismus" or "National Socialism", with socialism being a trait very much on the left wing agenda.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff