Britain is a generous, kindly and tolerant nation.

[McWigglebum4th]

War torn sudan to a house in Birmingham

Poor bugger

[Guybrush]

And all the while, our debt is increasing by about £7000 a second. (Thanks Labour.)

[oyster]

stuart-b said:

Let them all in, hand out some money, give them housing, nhs, english lessons-then TELL them they cant work.

JESUS H CHRIST.

Terrorists and mass murderers - and we send someone to jail for telling a fib about speeding points, because he perverted your lord ship.

Spend your energy where it is better spent, on problems like this, real every day problems.

England, get a grip.

The only people who need to get a grip are those who think these are everyday problems.

The fact it even made it into a newspaper is evidence that it is anything but a common occurence.

Your comment about Chris Huhne's case sums up how retarded your argument is. Where you argue for a tougher criminal justice system, yet can't see the issue with perverting the course of it.

[EDLT]

Guybrush said:

And all the while, our debt is increasing by about £7000 a second. (Thanks Labour.)

This bloke isn't getting THAT much in benefits.

[princeperch]

we aren't all that kind (allegedly)

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/UKBA-GUILTY-MUR...

[Digga]

oyster said:

The fact it even made it into a newspaper is evidence that it is anything but a common occurence.

You're right, but had there been any adult supervision of immigration, this could not have happened. It revolts me that the refugees fleeing from thugs like this are, effectively, insulted by us allowing free entry to their persecutors whom they may, theoretically, have to co-exist with here. Disgusting.

And we wonder why there are so many immigrants in our jails...

[AnonSpoilsport]

oyster said:

stuart-b said:

Let them all in, hand out some money, give them housing, nhs, english lessons-then TELL them they cant work.

JESUS H CHRIST.

Terrorists and mass murderers - and we send someone to jail for telling a fib about speeding points, because he perverted your lord ship.

Spend your energy where it is better spent, on problems like this, real every day problems.

England, get a grip.

The only people who need to get a grip are those who think these are everyday problems.

The fact it even made it into a newspaper is evidence that it is anything but a common occurence.

Your comment about Chris Huhne's case sums up how retarded your argument is. Where you argue for a tougher criminal justice system, yet can't see the issue with perverting the course of it.

Let me ask if you think that:

(a) this case is OK, and he should be here etc. and you are happy with it/would welcome the decision?

(b) if you think the number of cases is so rare that it's not any kind of problem /issue at all?

(c) If you think our justice system is unduly lenient, unduly harsh (unwelcoming) or about right, in your opinion?



Do you have any data/inside knowledge such as to know how few cases there are of people being here who shouldn't be, or who are allowed to stay but could present problems (could be illegals with no right to be here, foreign criminals, dodgy ex 'soldiers' escaping justice, terrorists or wannabe terrorists etc.)

Edited by AnonSpoilsport on Thursday 14th March 21:50

[anonymous-user]

Caulkhead said:

Labour legacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

The Act reflects a Convention drafted by a Tory in the 1940s, which itself represents British Common Law. It's neither foreign, nor party political.

A person who has participated in crimes against humanity is not entitled to asylum, so I wonder if this case is being accurately reported.

[Bill]

Breadvan72 said:

A person who has participated in crimes against humanity is not entitled to asylum, so I wonder if this case is being accurately reported.

Presumably he has to be proven to be guilty, in a court we recognise, before we can send him back to Sudan. So our immigration lot are stuck until the Hague get their act together.

[JDRoest]

Pothole said:

What we need to be doing is making him work for what we are currently giving him, but not at the expense of a British citizen.

What we need to do is put him in a cell and ascertain what he's actually done. Turning up on UK shores and shouting asylum should not entitle you to have access to the nation and it's benefits; it should entitle you to protection from another country but in no way should you be given access to the freedom of the country until it's fit and proper to do so. The ability for any immigrant wandering round the country needs to be seen as a privilege, not a right.

Our country should also be entitled to protection from the asylum seeker themselves.

[chrisw666]

I'm a passive left leaning bloke most of the time.

Its a good job really because if I was a nutter I'd run people like this guy into the sea, then chase the apologists and morons responsible after him.

[Digga]

JDRoest said:

Pothole said:

What we need to be doing is making him work for what we are currently giving him, but not at the expense of a British citizen.

What we need to do is put him in a cell and ascertain what he's actually done. Turning up on UK shores and shouting asylum should not entitle you to have access to the nation and it's benefits; it should entitle you to protection from another country but in no way should you be given access to the freedom of the country until it's fit and proper to do so. The ability for any immigrant wandering round the country needs to be seen as a privilege, not a right.

Our country should also be entitled to protection from the asylum seeker themselves.

^This, mostly. Although I disagree that this particualr individual could or should be classified as an assylum seeker or refugee, given his conduct.

Full stop, we should eject individuals like this, we have no need for them, there is no place for them and they can do us no good whatsoever.

[stuart-b]

AnonSpoilsport said:

Let me ask if you think that:

(a) this case is OK, and he should be here etc. and you are happy with it/would welcome the decision?

(b) if you think the number of cases is so rare that it's not any kind of problem /issue at all?

(c) If you think our justice system is unduly lenient, unduly harsh (unwelcoming) or about right, in your opinion?



Do you have any data/inside knowledge such as to know how few cases there are of people being here who shouldn't be, or who are allowed to stay but could present problems (could be illegals with no right to be here, foreign criminals, dodgy ex 'soldiers' escaping justice, terrorists or wannabe terrorists etc.)

Edited by AnonSpoilsport on Thursday 14th March 21:50

Thanks Anon - I'm not sure what he's talking about either. I was having a general rant, and he's spouting this nonsense.

[oyster]

stuart-b said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

Let me ask if you think that:

(a) this case is OK, and he should be here etc. and you are happy with it/would welcome the decision?

(b) if you think the number of cases is so rare that it's not any kind of problem /issue at all?

(c) If you think our justice system is unduly lenient, unduly harsh (unwelcoming) or about right, in your opinion?



Do you have any data/inside knowledge such as to know how few cases there are of people being here who shouldn't be, or who are allowed to stay but could present problems (could be illegals with no right to be here, foreign criminals, dodgy ex 'soldiers' escaping justice, terrorists or wannabe terrorists etc.)

Edited by AnonSpoilsport on Thursday 14th March 21:50

Thanks Anon - I'm not sure what he's talking about either. I was having a general rant, and he's spouting this nonsense.

What's really ironic is that 99% of educated people would read your post and then read mine, and conclude that yours is nonsense rather than mine. Capital letters do not make you more engaging as a debater.

Oh and the ultimate irony in a post about sending immigrants home is that you refer to the English language with a small 'e'.




Anyhow to answer AnonSpoilsport's questions directed at me:

a. If he's convicted of a crime then he should be jailed. If he's wanted for a crime abroad then he should be extradited. If that country would punish him for that crime upon conviction then tough for him. Don't like the time, then don't do the crime.

b. I'm not saying it isn't a problem or an issue on a case by case basis, of course it is. and to the individuals involved it's important. But is it affecting all of our daily lives? No.

c. I think our justice system is a little too lenient at times. Not a long way off, but a tad too lenient.

[Bill]

JDRoest said:

What we need to do is put him in a cell and ascertain what he's actually done. Turning up on UK shores and shouting asylum should not entitle you to have access to the nation and it's benefits; it should entitle you to protection from another country but in no way should you be given access to the freedom of the country until it's fit and proper to do so. The ability for any immigrant wandering round the country needs to be seen as a privilege, not a right.

Our country should also be entitled to protection from the asylum seeker themselves.

We could intern him while we ascertain whether he should face charges, but I bet that would be more expensive than what's happening now. Particularly when you factor in the human rights case that would inevitably pop up.

Personally I feel innocent until proven guilty is quite an important basis for our justice system. (And I now he's "confessed", but all that shows is that he told a reporter what they wanted to hear, proving it's true is another matter.)

[Digga]

Bill said:

Personally I feel innocent until proven guilty is quite an important basis for our justice system. (And I now he's "confessed", but all that shows is that he told a reporter what they wanted to hear, proving it's true is another matter.)

I do too, but we'd not have to worry about that in any case if he'd not been allowed in in the first insance and he'd probably not even have attempted to come here, had our immigration controls been even remotely sensible.

I have friends who came here as (Indian origin) refugees, fleeing Uganda's brutal regime in the 70's. At that time, I don't remember anyone thinking it was a good idea to offer Idi Amin a council house.

[Bill]

Digga said:

At that time, I don't remember anyone thinking it was a good idea to offer Idi Amin a council house.

There is a raft of evidence against Idi Amin, so internment would be justified.

[RSoovy4]

Ad in other news today, there are not enough school places in England.

I wonder why? Could it perhaps be the flood of immigrants.

[chrisw666]

RSoovy4 said:

Ad in other news today, there are not enough school places in England.

I wonder why? Could it perhaps be the flood of immigrants.

That depends. If you're Millipede it is because of austerity, if you're Cameron it's because of benefits, if you're Clegg you'll have to check which side you're on today and get Vince Cable to tell everyone what you think, if you're normal then it would certainly be a factor.

[Bill]

RSoovy4 said:

Ad in other news today, there are not enough school places in England.

I wonder why? Could it perhaps be the flood of immigrants.

Back to the Mail, you

It could be immigrants, it could be the baby boom since the recession (people can't afford to go out and telly's awful), it could be lack of investment in infrastructure.