If only 1 in 100,000 was turned into a radical sleeper, that would be 440 sleepers.
A chilling thought...
So do you want to lock them all up?
Or perhaps you might prefer to eliminate them entirely?
Or you could sit complacently and wait to be blown up.. not many happy alternatives there.
I'm going to go with 'none of the above'.
I imagine that is what most of those 17 in Paris went with.
So, assuming you don't favour complacency, are you going to choose internment or liquidation?
I'm not a fan of either.
Neither, for a start we could look at the 49% of asylum seekers to the UK that are rejected but have never been removed from the UK, the vast bulk of which are young men from war zones. Take for example Somalia, civil war for almost two decades recently, one of the most fundamentalist islamic states in the world, remember Black Hawk Down, no particular lover of the west. 98% practise of FGM, the highest in the world. We have a population of around 100k, half of which are failed asylum seekers that have disappeared and never deported. Still no real problem I suppose.
"You have to wonder at the stamina of OGH as he staggers out of the fleshpots of Bedford in the early hours and then composes and publishes the morning thread leader at 3am.
Amazing ...."
Indeed. Just as amazing in fact as the stamina exhibited by a 103 year old in writing about such matters on a political website in the early hours of a cold January Sunday morning.
Indeed so but I think you'll find @Moses down thread is somewhat older than 103 .... in fact outstripping all PBers by many years.
If only 1 in 100,000 was turned into a radical sleeper, that would be 440 sleepers.
A chilling thought...
So do you want to lock them all up?
Or perhaps you might prefer to eliminate them entirely?
Or you could sit complacently and wait to be blown up.. not many happy alternatives there.
I'm going to go with 'none of the above'.
I imagine that is what most of those 17 in Paris went with.
So, assuming you don't favour complacency, are you going to choose internment or liquidation?
I'm not a fan of either.
Neither, for a start we could look at the 49% of asylum seekers to the UK that are rejected but have never been removed from the UK, the vast bulk of which are young men from war zones. Take for example Somalia, civil war for almost two decades recently, one of the most fundamentalist islamic states in the world, remember Black Hawk Down, no particular lover of the west. 98% practise of FGM, the highest in the world. We have a population of around 100k, half of which are failed asylum seekers that have disappeared and never deported. Still no real problem I suppose.
I've never got why failing an asylum application didn't mean instantly being kicked out the country. I mean if they were in genuine danger then the asylum application gets passed anyway. So if the asylum application fails then whoever should be instantly deported.
Hopefully they're doing something more useful with their time than worrying about claims attributed to some US anonymous source, reported in the notoriously-full-of-shit Daily Mail, and originally sourced from Bilt Zeitung.
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
If only 1 in 100,000 was turned into a radical sleeper, that would be 440 sleepers.
A chilling thought...
So do you want to lock them all up?
Or perhaps you might prefer to eliminate them entirely?
Or you could sit complacently and wait to be blown up.. not many happy alternatives there.
I'm going to go with 'none of the above'.
I imagine that is what most of those 17 in Paris went with.
So, assuming you don't favour complacency, are you going to choose internment or liquidation?
I'm not a fan of either.
Neither, for a start we could look at the 49% of asylum seekers to the UK that are rejected but have never been removed from the UK, the vast bulk of which are young men from war zones. Take for example Somalia, civil war for almost two decades recently, one of the most fundamentalist islamic states in the world, remember Black Hawk Down, no particular lover of the west. 98% practise of FGM, the highest in the world. We have a population of around 100k, half of which are failed asylum seekers that have disappeared and never deported. Still no real problem I suppose.
I was talking to a senior magistrate the other day.
They made a couple of interesting points:
(1) There is massive spare capacity in the magistrate courts. They should be used to review the initial asylum applications - they are very good at following rules and guidance. The immigration tribunals can then be used for appeals only. This would dramatically reduce timelines
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
Nice to see a one-man anecdotal "assessment" from a super-marginal, though. If only someone were conducting systematic, scientific polling in these important seats.
How do you poll whether a constituency party will have a good a ground game? I mean, I think Ashcroft or someone did some stuff on whether you've got leaflets from each party, but that's a bit of a rough proxy. And do LibDem incumbents' leaflets even mention that they're LibDems these days?
You don't, you ignore "superior ground-game" arguments altogether. Especially after 2014, when Yes was going to win Indyref on differential turnout and Reckless was going to succumb to the kitchen sink.
UKIP won by a margin wider than most expected at the start of the campaign
An interesting statement and 100% wrong. UKIP won by a narrower than expected margin.
I don't think Margaret Thatcher herself would have won the Rochester by-election against that defection. Let's see how it goes on May 7th before rushing out a judgement.
No it isn't
At the start of any campaign, before any polling, 7.2% was a wider margin than UKIP were expected to win by.
Prove me wrong
UKIP's internal polling before Reckess defected gave him a 11% lead. After Carswell's emphatic win in Clacton I don't know a single person who thought the Conservatives would win, nor stood much of a chance. Perhaps from the wisdom of your bedroom you know different. Of course, you are being slippery with your 'before any campaigning or any polling' because that removes anything quantifiable and allows you to claim whatever you like based on anecdotes. Perhaps that nice Mr Singh at your local newsagent told you he thought the Tories would win? If we assume that campaigning began once the Conservatives selected their candidate poll leads went:
11% UKIP internal polling 9% (prior to the Cons selection) 13% (prior to the Cons selection) 15% 12%
Relative to Carswell's Clacton triumph and expectations before campaigning started UKIP under performed.
Those polled by Ashcroft for his exaggerated 12% UKIP lead also said they would return to the Conservatives at the General Election, which would give them a narrow victory there in May. We shall see.
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
If it's not an issue, why did Ed not answer "yes if I have to", which is clearly what the answer is.
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
I think that Mr Jackie Ashley would be quite surprised to hear himself described as a Tory. Perhaps he should regard it as a badge of honour.
Ian Geldard @igeldard 2m2 minutes ago Medical students asked to stand in for doctors without pay in move branded as 'desperate' http://dailym.ai/1yTmWES #NHS
My own GP Surgery is already practicing this. Only last week, went to see my doctor only to be confronted by a 4th year student who had to keep running to a fully fledged doctor for advice. Bloody pathetic!
In the end I had to help him proscribe the medicine that I needed.
10.10 After meeting with the French president, François Hollande, Roger Cukierman, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, said Jewish schools and synagogues would be protected by the French army "if necessary". "He told us that all the schools, all the synagogues will be protected, if necessary, on top of the police, by the army."
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
Very hard not to laugh at the guff Murphy is coming out with , the laughable "be a patriotic Scottish Labour party that puts Scotland first". Given they are a regional office of UK party and there is no real "Scottish Labour Party " organisation and they have never put Scotland first in the last 50 years. There cannot be that many people around stupid enough to be taken in surely. I sometimes wonder if he is really smart , or just not too bright ( ie 9 years at University and unable to get a degree ). He is certainly as fly as a barrel full of monkeys but hard to see where he is going at present other than down the drain.
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
If it's not an issue, why did Ed not answer "yes if I have to", which is clearly what the answer is.
John, come on , when do these toerags ever answer questions honestly. They are all the same , weasely words and will change any principle if it gets/keeps them in power.
Nice to see a one-man anecdotal "assessment" from a super-marginal, though. If only someone were conducting systematic, scientific polling in these important seats.
?
.
UKIP won by a margin wider than most expected at the start of the campaign
An interesting statement and 100% wrong. UKIP won by a narrower than expected margin.
I don't think Margaret Thatcher herself would have won the Rochester by-election against that defection. Let's see how it goes on May 7th before rushing out a judgement.
Prove me wrong
UKIP's internal polling before Reckess defected gave him a 11% lead. After Carswell's emphatic win in Clacton I don't know a single person who thought the Conservatives would win, nor stood much of a chance. Perhaps from the wisdom of your bedroom you know different. Of course, you are being slippery with your 'before any campaigning or any polling' because that removes anything quantifiable and allows you to claim whatever you like based on anecdotes. Perhaps that nice Mr Singh at your local newsagent told you he thought the Tories would win? If we assume that campaigning began once the Conservatives selected their candidate poll leads went:
11% UKIP internal polling 9% (prior to the Cons selection) 13% (prior to the Cons selection) 15% 12%
Relative to Carswell's Clacton triumph and expectations before campaigning started UKIP under performed.
Those polled by Ashcroft for his exaggerated 12% UKIP lead also said they would return to the Conservatives at the General Election, which would give them a narrow victory there in May. We shall see.
Yes, as I said... "before the campaign"
So, if you had kept to that, rather than inventing your own boundaries, your post would be
"UKIP's internal polling before Reckess defected gave him a 11% lead. "
But on here, people were suggesting the Tories would win, which suggests a UKIP winning margin of less than 7.2%... look at the threads
You called it completely wrong yourself, constantly calling the Tories the value at 3/1 etc. Where I was almost a lone wolf on here, constantly advising backing Reckless to win, to much disapproval from Tories who just didn't want to see it
Maybe that's why you have to invent strange stories about me to mask your own stupidity and lack of political betting nous
You can have 4/5 on the Tories to regain the seat for as much as you like.. how much you want?
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
They should be arrested immediately and deported, your pathetic response is why we are awash with illegals.
Ian Geldard @igeldard 2m2 minutes ago Medical students asked to stand in for doctors without pay in move branded as 'desperate' http://dailym.ai/1yTmWES #NHS
My own GP Surgery is already practicing this. Only last week, went to see my doctor only to be confronted by a 4th year student who had to keep running to a fully fledged doctor for advice. Bloody pathetic!
In the end I had to help him proscribe the medicine that I needed.
How do you think that students should learn unless they get to meet real patients?
(And, on a point of pedantry, I suspect he prescribed rather than proscribed your medication...)
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
It's people who are in the dock facing other charges.
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
I think that Mr Jackie Ashley would be quite surprised to hear himself described as a Tory. Perhaps he should regard it as a badge of honour.
Nasty little man he is: "And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too." http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/28/lawrence.ukcrime4
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
They should be arrested immediately and deported, your pathetic response is why we are awash with illegals.
If an illegal immigrant witnesses a crime in which you were a victim, I think you'd be better served by a system that encouraged them to come forward. Don't you?
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
I think that Mr Jackie Ashley would be quite surprised to hear himself described as a Tory. Perhaps he should regard it as a badge of honour.
He is a wishy washy self important metropolitan tos***
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
I think that Mr Jackie Ashley would be quite surprised to hear himself described as a Tory. Perhaps he should regard it as a badge of honour.
Nah - the true badge of honour is to be described as a turnip....
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
They should be arrested immediately and deported, your pathetic response is why we are awash with illegals.
If an illegal immigrant witnesses a crime in which you were a victim, I think you'd be better served by a system that encouraged them to come forward. Don't you?
Cant see it myself, how many milliseconds for the assailants brief to discredit an illegal immigrant, who is by his very nature living dishonestly, as a reliable witness.
Mike might be proved to be right about this but I doubt it. I don't believe that the ground war actually moves many votes or voters. We have seen countless elections where "commitment" , "enthusiasm levels" and "organisation" were going to swing it one way or the other and the result turns out pretty much like the polls. More significantly for present purposes, we rarely see any major differential between the swing in "competitive" areas and those that are not (where presumably resources are not being deployed).
It would be absurd to think all this frantic activity has no effect but it is small, patchy and uncertain. I suspect a bad headline or a difficult interview for a leader can move as many votes as endless nights of canvassing.
The one area I can think of where it might make a difference is where people are being persuaded to vote tactically. So I imagine that rather than worrying too much about the "Conservatives for Palmer" this time around Nick is rather focussed on squeezing that significant Lib Dem vote in his constituency. I can imagine face to face it might be possible to argue that voting for your first preference is a waste and that you are better than the alternative. No doubt the tories will try the same with UKIP although they should not give up on the Lib Dems either.
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
If it's not an issue, why did Ed not answer "yes if I have to", which is clearly what the answer is.
John, come on , when do these toerags ever answer questions honestly. They are all the same , weasely words and will change any principle if it gets/keeps them in power.
I have some sympathy with that argument, and despite the evidence of the polls, and the last General Election, he and Cammo are going to be predicting they will have an overall majority. But it suggests that Milliband thinks that there is a downside to saying that he is prepared to form a coalition with the separatists.
On topic, the balancing factor here is that the Tories have more money. I know there's a limit to how effectively you can spend it without enough boots on the ground, but technology must be helping with that at least to some extent.
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
They should be arrested immediately and deported, your pathetic response is why we are awash with illegals.
If an illegal immigrant witnesses a crime in which you were a victim, I think you'd be better served by a system that encouraged them to come forward. Don't you?
Regardless, they are illegal immigrants and should be on first plane out of the country , no questions. I am not being served by having hundreds of thousands of people living here illegally. Minimum they should be in jail till they are put on the cheapest form of transport back to where they came from.
Another anti-Conservative thread is either prescient or a sign of desperation....... hohoho. However let us not shoot the messenger over a message with some truth..
Yes Mike does tend to leap on anything he can possibly lay his hands on to show his bête noire, the Conservatives, performing less-than-perfectly. Closely followed I should say by UKIP.
From a female viewpoint (I assume), do you think OGH dresses on the left?
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
I think that Mr Jackie Ashley would be quite surprised to hear himself described as a Tory. Perhaps he should regard it as a badge of honour.
Nah - the true badge of honour is to be described as a turnip....
He has a way to go to reach those dizzy heights, he is still among the rattlesnakes level.
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
They should be arrested immediately and deported, your pathetic response is why we are awash with illegals.
If an illegal immigrant witnesses a crime in which you were a victim, I think you'd be better served by a system that encouraged them to come forward. Don't you?
Regardless, they are illegal immigrants and should be on first plane out of the country , no questions. I am not being served by having hundreds of thousands of people living here illegally. Minimum they should be in jail till they are put on the cheapest form of transport back to where they came from.
Deportation isn't the result you get with regard to people voluntarily participating in the justice system. The result you get is that they don't participate in the justice system.
PS. This is kind-of academic since Charles clarified that he's talking about people who are on trial.
10.50 Ahead of the rally this afternoon, security ministers for the EU, including Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, and Sweden - and America held a meeting at France's interior ministry to work a out a joint response to the terror threat. US Attorney General Eric Holder was also present.
If only 1 in 100,000 was turned into a radical sleeper, that would be 440 sleepers.
A chilling thought...
So do you want to lock them all up?
Or perhaps you might prefer to eliminate them entirely?
The numbers should have been controlled.. but it's too late for that.
So what do you suggest?
Not an expert in the field, but clearly multiculturalism doesn't work as a concept.
So the answer is to find a way to break down the separate communities that have developed. Education is a key part of the story, as is language. I'd also restrict the ability to import new wives from the home country (I believe this is particularly an issue with rural Pakistanis). You also need the ability to deport people who have made clear that they are not willing to live by the norms of our society.
British residence/citizenship is a privilege, not a right
The problem is not so much that multiculturalism doesn't work. It is more that it seems utterly unable to deal with rabid Islamic monoculturalists in case it offends, er, multiculturalism.
We should have some ground rules that to qualify as a culture worthy of respect and protection, you have to acknowledge those of other faiths, not behead them. Any group that does not adhere to basic civilised concepts does not get to be in the multi-culti tent.
Very hard not to laugh at the guff Murphy is coming out with , the laughable "be a patriotic Scottish Labour party that puts Scotland first". Given they are a regional office of UK party and there is no real "Scottish Labour Party " organisation and they have never put Scotland first in the last 50 years. There cannot be that many people around stupid enough to be taken in surely. I sometimes wonder if he is really smart , or just not too bright ( ie 9 years at University and unable to get a degree ). He is certainly as fly as a barrel full of monkeys but hard to see where he is going at present other than down the drain.
I think Murphy has finally lost the plot, the appointment of McTernan is the final nail in SLAB's coffin:
I can't fathom why Milliband has allowed the Blairites to reform north of the border. I think the 3Ms have the potential to undermine Labour at a national level - maybe that's their plan !!
What election has ever been won by groundwar, beyond a few ultra marginal seats? In 2005 the Tories arguably had a better ground war than Labour after the Iraq War and still lost.
Of course this article now forgets that the Labour party is also beginning to see its vote on the left split by the rise of the Greens and SNP
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
What kind of normal business are we talking about? If it's the magistrate doing her morning shopping, or if we're talking about people who are convicted for crimes, then it sounds like there should be more follow-up. But if it's participation in the law enforcement process - say as a victim or as a witness - it's probably not in society's interests to encourage them to hide from magistrates.
They should be arrested immediately and deported, your pathetic response is why we are awash with illegals.
If an illegal immigrant witnesses a crime in which you were a victim, I think you'd be better served by a system that encouraged them to come forward. Don't you?
Regardless, they are illegal immigrants and should be on first plane out of the country , no questions. I am not being served by having hundreds of thousands of people living here illegally. Minimum they should be in jail till they are put on the cheapest form of transport back to where they came from.
Deportation isn't the result you get with regard to people voluntarily participating in the justice system. The result you get is that they don't participate in the justice system.
PS. This is kind-of academic since Charles clarified that he's talking about people who are on trial.
I don't care if the odd illegal immigrant participates in the justice system. They are criminals and should be deported at all costs as soon as entering country or when caught later.
If only 1 in 100,000 was turned into a radical sleeper, that would be 440 sleepers.
A chilling thought...
So do you want to lock them all up?
Or perhaps you might prefer to eliminate them entirely?
The numbers should have been controlled.. but it's too late for that.
So what do you suggest?
Not an expert in the field, but clearly multiculturalism doesn't work as a concept.
So the answer is to find a way to break down the separate communities that have developed. Education is a key part of the story, as is language. I'd also restrict the ability to import new wives from the home country (I believe this is particularly an issue with rural Pakistanis). You also need the ability to deport people who have made clear that they are not willing to live by the norms of our society.
British residence/citizenship is a privilege, not a right
The problem is not so much that multiculturalism doesn't work. It is more that it seems utterly unable to deal with rabid Islamic monoculturalists in case it offends, er, multiculturalism.
We should have some ground rules that to qualify as a culture worthy of respect and protection, you have to acknowledge those of other faiths, not behead them. Any group that does not adhere to basic civilised concepts does not get to be in the multi-culti tent.
I was using multiculturalism in the specific sense that it is ok to have parallel communities and cultures existing in the UK.
I believe that with immigration comes the obligation to integrate, not simply to replicate your parent culture in a new geography. Integration, of course, does not mean obliteration of everything that went before.
I can't fathom why Milliband has allowed the Blairites to reform north of the border. I think the 3Ms have the potential to undermine Labour at a national level - maybe that's their plan !!
Wouldn't it have been an even bigger disaster if Miliband was seen to interfere after the "branch office of london " fiasco with Ms Lamont.
The biggest single problem with failed asylum seekers is that it is often not deemed compatible with their human rights to send them back to the hell holes they come from. So a Somali, for example, may have no convincing or credible evidence of personal persecution but given the present situation we take the view it is not safe to send them back.
So they get indefinite leave to remain until such time as Somalia is deemed a safe place to return them to or they die of old age (and if anyone wants to offer odds on which of these is going to happen first I am interested).
In the meantime they do outrageous things like live. They form relationships, have children in this country and create a family life here which can form a further challenge to any ultimate attempt to remove them.
It would be delusional to think these people are getting a welcoming hand. The blunt truth is that we don't want them here and we are not too coy about showing it. So if they end up staying here anyway it is as likely to be with some bitterness as with gratitude. Which can prove to be fertile soil for those wanting to cause trouble or give a purpose to what can no doubt seem a wasted life.
Very hard not to laugh at the guff Murphy is coming out with , the laughable "be a patriotic Scottish Labour party that puts Scotland first". Given they are a regional office of UK party and there is no real "Scottish Labour Party " organisation and they have never put Scotland first in the last 50 years. There cannot be that many people around stupid enough to be taken in surely. I sometimes wonder if he is really smart , or just not too bright ( ie 9 years at University and unable to get a degree ). He is certainly as fly as a barrel full of monkeys but hard to see where he is going at present other than down the drain.
I think Murphy has finally lost the plot, the appointment of McTernan is the final nail in SLAB's coffin:
I can't fathom why Milliband has allowed the Blairites to reform north of the border. I think the 3Ms have the potential to undermine Labour at a national level - maybe that's their plan !!
He may indeed be after Ed's job , it is the only sane answer.
leader, Alex Salmond was treated by his party to a stay at the five-star Gleneagles hotel. In today’s Sunday Herald, I reveal the latest example of the SNP’s touching generosity to the now backbench MSP: a chauffeur-driven private hire. I am told “security” is an issue. One party source told me Mr Salmond is finding it “hard” giving up the trappings of power.
leader, Alex Salmond was treated by his party to a stay at the five-star Gleneagles hotel. In today’s Sunday Herald, I reveal the latest example of the SNP’s touching generosity to the now backbench MSP: a chauffeur-driven private hire. I am told “security” is an issue. One party source told me Mr Salmond is finding it “hard” giving up the trappings of power.
How many millions do taxpayers fork out for duds like Brown , Major , and a long long list of failed troughers. At least the SNP do not milk the tax payers like the London troughers.
It would be delusional to think these people are getting a welcoming hand. The blunt truth is that we don't want them here and we are not too coy about showing it. So if they end up staying here anyway it is as likely to be with some bitterness as with gratitude. Which can prove to be fertile soil for those wanting to cause trouble or give a purpose to what can no doubt seem a wasted life.
Which was precisely my point, as a result of our generosity, and our predisposition to tying ourselves in legal knots until we are unable to act decisively in the face of an oncoming threat. We have a body of people who are bitter, unwelcome, fundamentalist, probably young and male, probably from a war zone, quite likely with some military or paramilitary experience, from a culture with habits and practises wholly incompatible with our own, anyone see a problem here, which is getting ten thousand or so worse every year while we wring our hands ?
If only 1 in 100,000 was turned into a radical sleeper, that would be 440 sleepers.
A chilling thought...
So do you want to lock them all up?
Or perhaps you might prefer to eliminate them entirely?
The numbers should have been controlled.. but it's too late for that.
So what do you suggest?
Not an expert in the field, but clearly multiculturalism doesn't work as a concept.
So the answer is to find a way to break down the separate communities that have developed. Education is a key part of the story, as is language. I'd also restrict the ability to import new wives from the home country (I believe this is particularly an issue with rural Pakistanis). You also need the ability to deport people who have made clear that they are not willing to live by the norms of our society.
British residence/citizenship is a privilege, not a right
The problem is not so much that multiculturalism doesn't work. It is more that it seems utterly unable to deal with rabid Islamic monoculturalists in case it offends, er, multiculturalism.
We should have some ground rules that to qualify as a culture worthy of respect and protection, you have to acknowledge those of other faiths, not behead them. Any group that does not adhere to basic civilised concepts does not get to be in the multi-culti tent.
We should reflect on John of Gaunt's speech, especially the end...
"This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land, Dear for her reputation through the world, Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it, Like to a tenement or pelting farm: England, bound in with the triumphant sea Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself."
The blunt truth is that we don't want them here and we are not too coy about showing it.
So its our fault, right?
Typical of why we have the problem. If they cannot prove 100% that they deserve asylum they should be deported immediately. Keeping hundreds of thousands of them here , paying for them and having them hate us is not a sensible policy. Chuck them out immediately.
The biggest single problem with failed asylum seekers is that it is often not deemed compatible with their human rights to send them back to the hell holes they come from. So a Somali, for example, may have no convincing or credible evidence of personal persecution but given the present situation we take the view it is not safe to send them back.
Why are those two things measured by different standards, though?
It is a hard system, though. My wife had a friend and former colleague who is Somali born working her way through the system. She came here at the age of 13, separated from her mother who (for reasons I don't know) ended up in France, but not permitted to travel to see each other because it would result in their asylum claims being thrown out.
It wasn't until she was *28* that there was a final determination that she wasn't permitted to have asylum! For 10 of those years she was working illegally - she had wasn't allowed to work but had no recourse to public funds.
Fundamentally the whole system needs to be much much faster, with fewer multiple appeals, and rapid implementation of decisions once they are made.
The biggest single problem with failed asylum seekers is that it is often not deemed compatible with their human rights to send them back to the hell holes they come from. So a Somali, for example, may have no convincing or credible evidence of personal persecution but given the present situation we take the view it is not safe to send them back.
So they get indefinite leave to remain until such time as Somalia is deemed a safe place to return them to or they die of old age (and if anyone wants to offer odds on which of these is going to happen first I am interested).
In the meantime they do outrageous things like live. They form relationships, have children in this country and create a family life here which can form a further challenge to any ultimate attempt to remove them.
It would be delusional to think these people are getting a welcoming hand. The blunt truth is that we don't want them here and we are not too coy about showing it. So if they end up staying here anyway it is as likely to be with some bitterness as with gratitude. Which can prove to be fertile soil for those wanting to cause trouble or give a purpose to what can no doubt seem a wasted life.
The obvious thing to do is to have an off-shore asylum centre somewhere like North Africa. That would mean that:
a) People don't risk their lives crossing the Med b) People without a genuine asylum claim can't game the system to get into British society in the manner you say c) We don't give an implicit preference to those with more cash (usually young men) who can afford to pay people to smuggle them across Europe
Australia does it, and they have dramatically reduced the number of sinking boats off the coast as a result - a huge humanitarian improvement. We should do it here.
Very hard not to laugh at the guff Murphy is coming out with , the laughable "be a patriotic Scottish Labour party that puts Scotland first". Given they are a regional office of UK party and there is no real "Scottish Labour Party " organisation and they have never put Scotland first in the last 50 years. There cannot be that many people around stupid enough to be taken in surely. I sometimes wonder if he is really smart , or just not too bright ( ie 9 years at University and unable to get a degree ). He is certainly as fly as a barrel full of monkeys but hard to see where he is going at present other than down the drain.
I think Murphy has finally lost the plot, the appointment of McTernan is the final nail in SLAB's coffin:
I can't fathom why Milliband has allowed the Blairites to reform north of the border. I think the 3Ms have the potential to undermine Labour at a national level - maybe that's their plan !!
I wonder. Does this make sense?
If the Blairites win GE2015 in Scotland, they've (ironically) done him a huge favour, while being sealed away in a part of the UK relatively hostile to actual Blairism (unless you are a Tory voter anyway and there aren't that many).
If they lose, they're history, and have done him a smaller favour in terms of party politics?
Remember it was the Scottish party voting system which brought Mr M to the head of the party. So not much Mr MIliband could do about it.
And remember that that row with Diane Abbott et al over London money paying for Scots nurses looks awfully contrived. Will we now see David Mundell or Danny Alxander demanding more money for Scots farmers from London bank fines, I wonder?
Charles said, "Although I don't trust Hogan-Howe to speak the truth unless it suits him."
I invite you to think about that for a moment or two. What does it say about our society?
Not much about our society
But it does suggest that the police is in urgent need of radical reform with many of the senior ranks appallingly politicised and unfit for purpose.
I think you underestimate the enormity of your statement. Hogan-Howe did not magically appear in his post he was, after a longish career, appointed to it by politicians. Would you appoint a man you thought would only tell the truth if it suited him to run your bank? So how can politicians appoint such a man to run the Met?
Further, and I say this with full respect, you are the scion of one of our old families, a man destined not for power but for the more important influence, the very embodiment of the Establishment. Yet you say the most senior copper cannot be trusted, and if he can't which copper can?
A society where even those at the top of the heap say that the politicians appoint corrupt (with a small c) officials and where the guardians of the rule of law are not to be trusted is a society that is rotting like a fish, from the head down.
But see my posting yesterday arguing that your argument is a fallacy because you have to take away the rabid right wing Tories and UKIP who won't be voting Labour or SNP any day* and that when you take it int oaccount that the true average Scottish voter is actually to the left of the SNP.
*We both agreed that tactical voting modifies that - but there are probably at least as many disenchanted Labour voters who voted yes than Tories who love Mr Murphy.
Charles said, "Although I don't trust Hogan-Howe to speak the truth unless it suits him."
I invite you to think about that for a moment or two. What does it say about our society?
Not much about our society
But it does suggest that the police is in urgent need of radical reform with many of the senior ranks appallingly politicised and unfit for purpose.
I think you underestimate the enormity of your statement. Hogan-Howe did not magically appear in his post he was, after a longish career, appointed to it by politicians. Would you appoint a man you thought would only tell the truth if it suited him to run your bank? So how can politicians appoint such a man to run the Met?
Further, and I say this with full respect, you are the scion of one of our old families, a man destined not for power but for the more important influence, the very embodiment of the Establishment. Yet you say the most senior copper cannot be trusted, and if he can't which copper can?
A society where even those at the top of the heap say that the politicians appoint corrupt (with a small c) officials and where the guardians of the rule of law are not to be trusted is a society that is rotting like a fish, from the head down.
The problem is simply that during Blair's term in office people in public service, including the police, saw that the way to achieve advancement was to kowtow to their political masters.
Politicisation has corrupted an entire generation of senior policemen: the government had few options and none (that I am aware) who were particularly suitable.
There is a huge amount of work to be done in repairing the damage of the last 20 years. And I am not sure our current leadership has the mindset and talent to do so. Still: we keep the flame burning as best we can: we're not welcome in public life at the moment, but the wheel will turn as it always does
(as an aside, I'm a spare, so not destined for anything!)
The biggest single problem with failed asylum seekers is that it is often not deemed compatible with their human rights to send them back to the hell holes they come from. So a Somali, for example, may have no convincing or credible evidence of personal persecution but given the present situation we take the view it is not safe to send them back.
Why are those two things measured by different standards, though?
It is a hard system, though. My wife had a friend and former colleague who is Somali born working her way through the system. She came here at the age of 13, separated from her mother who (for reasons I don't know) ended up in France, but not permitted to travel to see each other because it would result in their asylum claims being thrown out.
It wasn't until she was *28* that there was a final determination that she wasn't permitted to have asylum! For 10 of those years she was working illegally - she had wasn't allowed to work but had no recourse to public funds.
Fundamentally the whole system needs to be much much faster, with fewer multiple appeals, and rapid implementation of decisions once they are made.
I have always thought that asylum seekers should be allowed to work.
The biggest single problem with failed asylum seekers is that it is often not deemed compatible with their human rights to send them back to the hell holes they come from. So a Somali, for example, may have no convincing or credible evidence of personal persecution but given the present situation we take the view it is not safe to send them back.
Why are those two things measured by different standards, though?
It is a hard system, though. My wife had a friend and former colleague who is Somali born working her way through the system. She came here at the age of 13, separated from her mother who (for reasons I don't know) ended up in France, but not permitted to travel to see each other because it would result in their asylum claims being thrown out.
It wasn't until she was *28* that there was a final determination that she wasn't permitted to have asylum! For 10 of those years she was working illegally - she had wasn't allowed to work but had no recourse to public funds.
Fundamentally the whole system needs to be much much faster, with fewer multiple appeals, and rapid implementation of decisions once they are made.
Those who have leave to remain do have access to public funds, albeit not the conventional benefits and not at the same rates. It is a pretty miserable existence and it is not surprising so many end up working illegally or being exploited.
The time taken in the system is absurd but endless attempts to simplify the appeal processes have largely been counterproductive in that it has simply increased the number of judicial reviews. I know that some of the Judges in the Court of Session are very conscious that these cases can be as close as they get in these more enlightened times to a death penalty and they give them anxious scrutiny, albeit the vast majority of challenges ultimately fail.
To say that Muslims, on the whole are more violent and prone to extremism/terrorism than other religions is the height of ignorance. As a % I shouldn't think there is any significant difference.
Muslims are 4.4% of the population. Hindus are 1.3%. Approximately 500 Muslims have gone off to fight for ISIS. Proportionally, about 150 Hindus should have gone off to fight for a terrorist group if they were equally violent.
To say that Muslims, on the whole are more violent and prone to extremism/terrorism than other religions is the height of ignorance. As a % I shouldn't think there is any significant difference.
Muslims are 4.4% of the population. Hindus are 1.3%. Approximately 500 Muslims have gone off to fight for ISIS. Proportionally, about 150 Hindus should have gone off to fight for a terrorist group if they were equally violent.
They haven't.
14.5% of people in jail are Muslims - 3 times the expected percentage. Strike 2.
'Scottish Labour will put the needs of Scotland first when creating policy under a new doctrine the party has dubbed "Murphy's Law".
New leader Jim Murphy [...] will present a redrafted version of Scottish Labour's constitution to the party's Scottish executive today, emphasising his desire to "put Scotland first" without "giving up solidarity with people across the UK [...]. I will always make policy in Scotland that is for the good of the country. The new Clause 4 sets the principles behind my leadership in stone.'
To say that Muslims, on the whole are more violent and prone to extremism/terrorism than other religions is the height of ignorance. As a % I shouldn't think there is any significant difference.
Muslims are 4.4% of the population. Hindus are 1.3%. Approximately 500 Muslims have gone off to fight for ISIS. Proportionally, about 150 Hindus should have gone off to fight for a terrorist group if they were equally violent.
Mr. Socrates, I think the massive leak probably has compromised security, whilst at the same time releasing useful and interesting information for those of us who aren't mad bastards.
To say that Muslims, on the whole are more violent and prone to extremism/terrorism than other religions is the height of ignorance. As a % I shouldn't think there is any significant difference.
Muslims are 4.4% of the population. Hindus are 1.3%. Approximately 500 Muslims have gone off to fight for ISIS. Proportionally, about 150 Hindus should have gone off to fight for a terrorist group if they were equally violent.
They haven't.
14.5% of people in jail are Muslims - 3 times the expected percentage. Strike 2.
Is that an age thing though? Wasn't there a Home Office report a few years back forecasting this on the basis of demographics?
To say that Muslims, on the whole are more violent and prone to extremism/terrorism than other religions is the height of ignorance. As a % I shouldn't think there is any significant difference.
Muslims are 4.4% of the population. Hindus are 1.3%. Approximately 500 Muslims have gone off to fight for ISIS. Proportionally, about 150 Hindus should have gone off to fight for a terrorist group if they were equally violent.
11.28 Turks have tracked Boumeddiene's phone to a Turkish border town on Jan 8, but it has since gone quiet, writes Ben Farmer Turkish counter-terrorism officials have told the Financial Times they believe that Hayat Boumeddiene may now have passed into Syria and could be in territory held by the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant, known as Isil or Isis. The fugitive is believed to have arrived in Istanbul from Paris via Madrid on January 2. CCTV images from Istanbul airport appear to confirm her presence, Turkish officials say. A signal from her phone was then traced on January 8 to the Turkish border town of Akcakale, which is next to Isil territory in Syria. The town is known to harbour Isil sympathisers and the porous border is easy to cross. Her phone signal has not been traced since.
There's a serious risk Al-Qaeda and ISIS will get into a pissing contest over who can **** up Western cities the most.
The government's reason for banning weapons in our society is (presumably) that they can protect us.
If they can;t protect us, they should allow us to break out the ammo.
Your first premise is wrong - thats how all nutjob arguments start all over the world. The notion behind what is left of your argument is crass. Its hard to credit that PB has gone into such g ga ga frenzy of hysterical overload. It was of course the complete absence of weapons (warning: satire sarcasm and irony alert) amongst the people of Northern Ireland that left the Troubles going on so long.
Mr. Socrates, I think the massive leak probably has compromised security, whilst at the same time releasing useful and interesting information for those of us who aren't mad bastards.
All the fuss was caused by overreach, if the NSA has stayed within what congress had authorised it to do it would have been fine. Setting up trawls of the email accounts of vast numbers of your citizens is likely to cause a drama when it gets out, and it did, and congress was outraged. Not only that the tech companies which have made guarantees to their users of confidentiality were forced to react or lose big chunks of subscribers to other providers that increased their security. Consequence is all of gmail is now encrypted by TLS, not impossible to crack, but expensive and slow even for serious players, so they won't do it unless they are sure the mail is going to be worth reading.
To say that Muslims, on the whole are more violent and prone to extremism/terrorism than other religions is the height of ignorance. As a % I shouldn't think there is any significant difference.
Muslims are 4.4% of the population. Hindus are 1.3%. Approximately 500 Muslims have gone off to fight for ISIS. Proportionally, about 150 Hindus should have gone off to fight for a terrorist group if they were equally violent.
'Scottish Labour will put the needs of Scotland first when creating policy under a new doctrine the party has dubbed "Murphy's Law".
New leader Jim Murphy [...] will present a redrafted version of Scottish Labour's constitution to the party's Scottish executive today, emphasising his desire to "put Scotland first" without "giving up solidarity with people across the UK [...]. I will always make policy in Scotland that is for the good of the country. The new Clause 4 sets the principles behind my leadership in stone.'
Interesting attempt to wave the Saltire!
We might even call it an ISIS policy - Independent Socialism In Scotland. (is that good or bad or wise satire?) The clear intent on creating an independent state within a state by the left in Scotland is clear. It hardly makes voting Labour in England a sensible choice.
There's a serious risk Al-Qaeda and ISIS will get into a pissing contest over who can **** up Western cities the most.
The government's reason for banning weapons in our society is (presumably) that they can protect us.
If they can;t protect us, they should allow us to break out the ammo.
Given that - statistically - you are at least 1,000x more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist incident, presumably I can use my gun on a dangerous driver.
Or is a life cut short by a bomb worth more than one cut short by a drunk driver?
Carnyx You cannot exclude Scottish Tory and UKIP voters, about a fifth of Scots, and then say the remainder is 'the true Scottish voter'.
As we als0 discussed leftwing, pro independence Labour voters now voting SNP or Green are highly unlikely to return any time soon to Labour, Murphy would be better off targeting Tory or LD tactical votes in Labour v SNP marginal seats
1% of the general population is a psychopath (circa 30% in prisons) according to various studies. Now, some of these find their own reasons to obtain weapons and kill, but if they get given the weapons and reason by another group, it makes things so much easier. The real surprise is that there are so few attacks in the UK.
Charles said, "Although I don't trust Hogan-Howe to speak the truth unless it suits him."
I invite you to think about that for a moment or two. What does it say about our society?
...
A society where even those at the top of the heap say that the politicians appoint corrupt (with a small c) officials and where the guardians of the rule of law are not to be trusted is a society that is rotting like a fish, from the head down.
The problem is simply that during Blair's term in office people in public service, including the police, saw that the way to achieve advancement was to kowtow to their political masters.
Politicisation has corrupted an entire generation of senior policemen: the government had few options and none (that I am aware) who were particularly suitable.
There is a huge amount of work to be done in repairing the damage of the last 20 years. And I am not sure our current leadership has the mindset and talent to do so. Still: we keep the flame burning as best we can: we're not welcome in public life at the moment, but the wheel will turn as it always does
(as an aside, I'm a spare, so not destined for anything!)
Clearly I agree with pretty much all you say. However the present administration is a coalition. The party which created the mess and is largely unchanged in this particular outlook is, we are told, set to return to power. Why on earth should the right split its vote to let them back in? Labour spent 13 years undermining our society and our economy - not for the first time! It is without a doubt the biggest clear and present danger to our country. It is also increasingly clear - viz posts like the one below about 'passing the ammunition' that the extreme right welcomes every opportunity to peddle and sow intolerance and discord. It would be happy to see Britain ruined on the altar of its own desire to destroy moderate centrist mainstream conservatism. Sickening. The terrorists look like they have already won, despite all the marches professing unity, they have lit a fuse on the bomb they so so much want to see explode.
'The Islamist "spiritual guide" who allegedly helped radicalise the Kouachi brothers behind the deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo now works as a trainee nurse in the accident and emergency unit of one of the Paris hospitals where some of the victims of the assault on the magazine were taken, Le Parisien newspaper reports.
Farid Benyettou was off duty on Wednesday at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital when the wounded were brought there but was meant to back at work on Friday, before hospital authorities took him off the rota.
He was jailed for criminal association in relation with a terrorist enterprise in 2008 but started training as a nurse when he was released in 2011. He began a work placement at the hospital last month, the paper said.
To say that Muslims, on the whole are more violent and prone to extremism/terrorism than other religions is the height of ignorance. As a % I shouldn't think there is any significant difference.
Muslims are 4.4% of the population. Hindus are 1.3%. Approximately 500 Muslims have gone off to fight for ISIS. Proportionally, about 150 Hindus should have gone off to fight for a terrorist group if they were equally violent.
They haven't.
That's not the way it works
Muslims have gone because
(a) they are by far the biggest group in Europe outside Christians. We have the most Hindus by far , there isn't a bigger group for them to join (B) they are the biggest minority group in the uk so are the nearest to grabbing power
There aren't enough Hindu immigrants to try and grab power across the world. If there were they would.
If what you're saying is true there should be countries with very few Muslims in it that have a significant problem with Islamic extremism
Comments
Let's not even start on the traitorous bilge voiced by the politicians themselves...
Any idiot can tell what he is talking about.
Of course, no gentleman would ask my age.
But "highly likely" strikes me as far more plausible.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/jim-murphy-labour-party-open-to-yes-voters-1-3657421#comments-area
Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
They made a couple of interesting points:
(1) There is massive spare capacity in the magistrate courts. They should be used to review the initial asylum applications - they are very good at following rules and guidance. The immigration tribunals can then be used for appeals only. This would dramatically reduce timelines
(2) When they come across an illegal immigrant in the course of their normal business, the courts phone up the home office to ask what they should do. The usual answer is "give them our address and tell them to come to see us". This demonstrates, shall we say, a lack of application to dealing with the problem
11% UKIP internal polling
9% (prior to the Cons selection)
13% (prior to the Cons selection)
15%
12%
The actual margin was 7.3%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_and_Strood_by-election,_2014#Polling
Relative to Carswell's Clacton triumph and expectations before campaigning started UKIP under performed.
Those polled by Ashcroft for his exaggerated 12% UKIP lead also said they would return to the Conservatives at the General Election, which would give them a narrow victory there in May. We shall see.
I invite you to think about that for a moment or two. What does it say about our society?
But it does suggest that the police is in urgent need of radical reform with many of the senior ranks appallingly politicised and unfit for purpose.
Medical students asked to stand in for doctors without pay in move branded as 'desperate' http://dailym.ai/1yTmWES #NHS
My own GP Surgery is already practicing this. Only last week, went to see my doctor only to be confronted by a 4th year student who had to keep running to a fully fledged doctor for advice. Bloody pathetic!
In the end I had to help him proscribe the medicine that I needed.
"He told us that all the schools, all the synagogues will be protected, if necessary, on top of the police, by the army."
http://www.vocativ.com/world/isis-2/amedy-coulibaly-pledged-allegiance-isis-video/
There cannot be that many people around stupid enough to be taken in surely. I sometimes wonder if he is really smart , or just not too bright ( ie 9 years at University and unable to get a degree ). He is certainly as fly as a barrel full of monkeys but hard to see where he is going at present other than down the drain.
So, if you had kept to that, rather than inventing your own boundaries, your post would be
"UKIP's internal polling before Reckess defected gave him a 11% lead. "
But on here, people were suggesting the Tories would win, which suggests a UKIP winning margin of less than 7.2%... look at the threads
You called it completely wrong yourself, constantly calling the Tories the value at 3/1 etc. Where I was almost a lone wolf on here, constantly advising backing Reckless to win, to much disapproval from Tories who just didn't want to see it
Maybe that's why you have to invent strange stories about me to mask your own stupidity and lack of political betting nous
You can have 4/5 on the Tories to regain the seat for as much as you like.. how much you want?
(And, on a point of pedantry, I suspect he prescribed rather than proscribed your medication...)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/28/lawrence.ukcrime4
It would be absurd to think all this frantic activity has no effect but it is small, patchy and uncertain. I suspect a bad headline or a difficult interview for a leader can move as many votes as endless nights of canvassing.
The one area I can think of where it might make a difference is where people are being persuaded to vote tactically. So I imagine that rather than worrying too much about the "Conservatives for Palmer" this time around Nick is rather focussed on squeezing that significant Lib Dem vote in his constituency. I can imagine face to face it might be possible to argue that voting for your first preference is a waste and that you are better than the alternative. No doubt the tories will try the same with UKIP although they should not give up on the Lib Dems either.
PS. This is kind-of academic since Charles clarified that he's talking about people who are on trial.
US Attorney General Eric Holder was also present.
We should have some ground rules that to qualify as a culture worthy of respect and protection, you have to acknowledge those of other faiths, not behead them. Any group that does not adhere to basic civilised concepts does not get to be in the multi-culti tent.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labour-for-dummies-2015/
I can't fathom why Milliband has allowed the Blairites to reform north of the border. I think the 3Ms have the potential to undermine Labour at a national level - maybe that's their plan !!
Of course this article now forgets that the Labour party is also beginning to see its vote on the left split by the rise of the Greens and SNP
I believe that with immigration comes the obligation to integrate, not simply to replicate your parent culture in a new geography. Integration, of course, does not mean obliteration of everything that went before.
So they get indefinite leave to remain until such time as Somalia is deemed a safe place to return them to or they die of old age (and if anyone wants to offer odds on which of these is going to happen first I am interested).
In the meantime they do outrageous things like live. They form relationships, have children in this country and create a family life here which can form a further challenge to any ultimate attempt to remove them.
It would be delusional to think these people are getting a welcoming hand. The blunt truth is that we don't want them here and we are not too coy about showing it. So if they end up staying here anyway it is as likely to be with some bitterness as with gratitude. Which can prove to be fertile soil for those wanting to cause trouble or give a purpose to what can no doubt seem a wasted life.
http://paulhutcheon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/because-hes-worth-it-part-2.html
leader, Alex Salmond was treated by his party to a stay at the five-star Gleneagles hotel.
In today’s Sunday Herald, I reveal the latest example of the SNP’s touching generosity to the now backbench MSP: a chauffeur-driven private hire.
I am told “security” is an issue.
One party source told me Mr Salmond is finding it “hard” giving up the trappings of power.
So its our fault, right?
"This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself."
It is a hard system, though. My wife had a friend and former colleague who is Somali born working her way through the system. She came here at the age of 13, separated from her mother who (for reasons I don't know) ended up in France, but not permitted to travel to see each other because it would result in their asylum claims being thrown out.
It wasn't until she was *28* that there was a final determination that she wasn't permitted to have asylum! For 10 of those years she was working illegally - she had wasn't allowed to work but had no recourse to public funds.
Fundamentally the whole system needs to be much much faster, with fewer multiple appeals, and rapid implementation of decisions once they are made.
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/trading-places-left-right-placement-in-scotland-by-professor-phil-cowley/#.VLJZzCusWjI
a) People don't risk their lives crossing the Med
b) People without a genuine asylum claim can't game the system to get into British society in the manner you say
c) We don't give an implicit preference to those with more cash (usually young men) who can afford to pay people to smuggle them across Europe
Australia does it, and they have dramatically reduced the number of sinking boats off the coast as a result - a huge humanitarian improvement. We should do it here.
If the Blairites win GE2015 in Scotland, they've (ironically) done him a huge favour, while being sealed away in a part of the UK relatively hostile to actual Blairism (unless you are a Tory voter anyway and there aren't that many).
If they lose, they're history, and have done him a smaller favour in terms of party politics?
Remember it was the Scottish party voting system which brought Mr M to the head of the party. So not much Mr MIliband could do about it.
And remember that that row with Diane Abbott et al over London money paying for Scots nurses looks awfully contrived. Will we now see David Mundell or Danny Alxander demanding more money for Scots farmers from London bank fines, I wonder?
Further, and I say this with full respect, you are the scion of one of our old families, a man destined not for power but for the more important influence, the very embodiment of the Establishment. Yet you say the most senior copper cannot be trusted, and if he can't which copper can?
A society where even those at the top of the heap say that the politicians appoint corrupt (with a small c) officials and where the guardians of the rule of law are not to be trusted is a society that is rotting like a fish, from the head down.
*We both agreed that tactical voting modifies that - but there are probably at least as many disenchanted Labour voters who voted yes than Tories who love Mr Murphy.
Politicisation has corrupted an entire generation of senior policemen: the government had few options and none (that I am aware) who were particularly suitable.
There is a huge amount of work to be done in repairing the damage of the last 20 years. And I am not sure our current leadership has the mindset and talent to do so. Still: we keep the flame burning as best we can: we're not welcome in public life at the moment, but the wheel will turn as it always does
(as an aside, I'm a spare, so not destined for anything!)
There's a serious risk Al-Qaeda and ISIS will get into a pissing contest over who can **** up Western cities the most.
The time taken in the system is absurd but endless attempts to simplify the appeal processes have largely been counterproductive in that it has simply increased the number of judicial reviews. I know that some of the Judges in the Court of Session are very conscious that these cases can be as close as they get in these more enlightened times to a death penalty and they give them anxious scrutiny, albeit the vast majority of challenges ultimately fail.
They haven't.
Just read this:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/306018-jim-murphy-scottish-labour-will-put-scots-first-in-policy-creation/
'Scottish Labour will put the needs of Scotland first when creating policy under a new doctrine the party has dubbed "Murphy's Law".
New leader Jim Murphy [...] will present a redrafted version of Scottish Labour's constitution to the party's Scottish executive today, emphasising his desire to "put Scotland first" without "giving up solidarity with people across the UK [...]. I will always make policy in Scotland that is for the good of the country. The new Clause 4 sets the principles behind my leadership in stone.'
Interesting attempt to wave the Saltire!
The government's reason for banning weapons in our society is (presumably) that they can protect us.
If they can;t protect us, they should allow us to break out the ammo.
http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865
How did that turn out?
Turkish counter-terrorism officials have told the Financial Times they believe that Hayat Boumeddiene may now have passed into Syria and could be in territory held by the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant, known as Isil or Isis.
The fugitive is believed to have arrived in Istanbul from Paris via Madrid on January 2. CCTV images from Istanbul airport appear to confirm her presence, Turkish officials say.
A signal from her phone was then traced on January 8 to the Turkish border town of Akcakale, which is next to Isil territory in Syria. The town is known to harbour Isil sympathisers and the porous border is easy to cross. Her phone signal has not been traced since.
Or is a life cut short by a bomb worth more than one cut short by a drunk driver?
OK. So you are claiming the government can protect us, right?
The head of MI5 himself recently distanced himself from that proposition.
So I guess we just sit here and wait to be slaughtered.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/paris-supermarket-kosher-hero-attack
As we als0 discussed leftwing, pro independence Labour voters now voting SNP or Green are highly unlikely to return any time soon to Labour, Murphy would be better off targeting Tory or LD tactical votes in Labour v SNP marginal seats
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30766452
Now, some of these find their own reasons to obtain weapons and kill, but if they get given the weapons and reason by another group, it makes things so much easier.
The real surprise is that there are so few attacks in the UK.
Captain Communism strikes again.
Farid Benyettou was off duty on Wednesday at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital when the wounded were brought there but was meant to back at work on Friday, before hospital authorities took him off the rota.
He was jailed for criminal association in relation with a terrorist enterprise in 2008 but started training as a nurse when he was released in 2011. He began a work placement at the hospital last month, the paper said.
Benyettou was described as a “studious and discreet trainee” by colleagues who appeared to be unaware of his notorious past.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338244/Man-who-helped-radicalise-Paris-gunmen-now-nurse-at-hospital-which-received-victims.html
Jesus H. Christ...
Paris: Grand Mosque Open, Grand Synagogue Closed
I will say "je suis ahmed"
"I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed"
Muslims have gone because
(a) they are by far the biggest group in Europe outside Christians. We have the most Hindus by far , there isn't a bigger group for them to join
(B) they are the biggest minority group in the uk so are the nearest to grabbing power
There aren't enough Hindu immigrants to try and grab power across the world. If there were they would.
If what you're saying is true there should be countries with very few Muslims in it that have a significant problem with Islamic extremism
What's your basis for saying they'd try and grab power if they had higher numbers?