Unfortunately, people get the vote without having to gain your approval first. It's obviously a shame and no doubt only temporary until your suzerainty is acknowledged, but there it is.
No, try actually reading stuff, slowly and carefully. He said that a specific view "deserved representation", and I was asking why he said that.
Unfortunately, people get the vote without having to gain your approval first. It's obviously a shame and no doubt only temporary until your suzerainty is acknowledged, but there it is.
No, try actually reading stuff, slowly and carefully. He said that a specific view "deserved representation", and I was asking why he said that.
Unfortunately, people get the vote without having to gain your approval first. It's obviously a shame and no doubt only temporary until your suzerainty is acknowledged, but there it is.
No, try actually reading stuff, slowly and carefully. He said that a specific view "deserved representation", and I was asking why he said that.
Unfortunately, people get the vote without having to gain your approval first. It's obviously a shame and no doubt only temporary until your suzerainty is acknowledged, but there it is.
No, try actually reading stuff, slowly and carefully. He said that a specific view "deserved representation", and I was asking why he said that.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
Can I just say, as someone without a dog in the fight, I really like that Lib Dem leaflet. Yes, it's brutal, but I think it might be rather effective.
I think it's a good one, though how effective I have a hard time believing 'Labour are doing a poor job with hundreds of MPs, we'll do better with 10' is that effective, even if it is funny.
Labour only have to remind the labour voting area who were the real poodle party from only a couple of years ago,these Basta*ds voted through all these cuts with the baby eating Tories would be my slogan ;-)
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
I reckon it's really pretty simple - we have vagrancy laws under which a person can be arrested and charged, so you're caught sleeping under a bridge, you're not a British citizen, you're put on the first flight back to wherever you came from and denied entry to the country ever again.
I would love it if my constituency just changed hands
It's the dream of many. I have some hope the boundary review changes might make my seat competitive, though it is still predicted to be pretty safe, if not as safe as it is now.
Any Remainer who failed to get off his/her arse and get out and actively campaign in the referendum itself must be regarded as politically speaking a dickless eunuch from here on in.
There's something Freudian about your constant reiteration of this point. A fear of losing some vital essence.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
Without wishing to be too graphic, it does sound excruciatingly painful, like being impaled on a long spike.
Quite why someone would *willingly* do such a thing is a mystery.
I cannot even conceive of why anyone would want to make let alone watch a film chronicling such a thing! Some things are best left to the cool, neutral language of a newspaper article.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
I think you are wilfully missing the point.
What is your system where he is kept out?
If he turns up and says I'm a tourist coming for a week to the UK (which, by the way, is how the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigration to the US happens), how will we know whether he has a conviction or not?
I guess you could have a policy where every potential visitor has to get a visa, and they have to go to their local police station and get a signed document saying the person has had no criminal record. Are you really suggesting that?
Now, if someone commits a crime in the UK, we should hopefully in future be able to kick them out, and to prevent re-entry. Which is great. But I simply don't see how we can prevent people - in any realistic manner - from getting into the UK if they have a criminal record from another country and are willing to lie about it.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
I think the point is that you can't have an effective immigration policy, good or bad, about convicted criminals if there is no way of knowing who is a convicted criminal and who isn't.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
...There is no international registry of convictions...
Dear God, why the hell not? How the arse did that happen, or rather fail to happen?
Well:
(1) There are serious differences between countries about what constitutes a crime. (2) There is no equivalent to the WTO which has standard categories for crimes between countries. (3) The risk of you having a similar name to someone who might have committed crime somewhere is quite high. Inconveniencing millions of innocent people is not a great idea for your economy. (4) There are clearly privacy concerns. (5) What about spent convictions? (6) What about cautions and equivalent?
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
I think you are wilfully missing the point.
What is your system where he is kept out?
If he turns up and says I'm a tourist coming for a week to the UK (which, by the way, is how the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigration to the US happens), how will we know whether he has a conviction or not?
I guess you could have a policy where every potential visitor has to get a visa, and they have to go to their local police station and get a signed document saying the person has had no criminal record. Are you really suggesting that?
Now, if someone commits a crime in the UK, we should hopefully in future be able to kick them out, and to prevent re-entry. Which is great. But I simply don't see how we can prevent people - in any realistic manner - from getting into the UK if they have a criminal record from another country and are willing to lie about it.
OK nothing can be done, you win.
It was an example of our immigration system working well.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
If you are going to suggest that politicians make this impossible then you need to suggest a method.
As it is you cannot. You might as well ask why our politicians cannot prevent rainstorms.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
The UK is facing an “absolute catastrophe” if it does not sort out a “frictionless and seamless” border at Dover and other ports, the shipping industry has warned.
I'm surprised that the environmental and climate warriors haven't picked up on the quadrupling of lorries arriving at Dover in the last twenty five years.
Three million additional lorries are trundling around the garden of England each year. EU and environmentalism? They're 'avin a larf.
Isn't that function of both increased trade and containerisation, irrespective of who it's with? I suspect that there is a similar (or larger) increase in lorries coming out of Felixstowe docks too.
Possibly, but from a purely environmental perspective, would you organise an economy like it?
I would have thought that fewer vehicles and more localised production and delivery would have been preferable.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
If you are going to suggest that politicians make this impossible then you need to suggest a method.
As it is you cannot. You might as well ask why our politicians cannot prevent rainstorms.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
In the ideal world, criminals would not be let into the country without going through a stringent vetting/visa process first.
But the cost to the economy of requiring every potential visitor to jump through hoops before they can come for a 90 minute meeting about an IPO would be enormous. Or for the Schmidts or the Changs to come visit Buckingham Palace for the weekend.
There's a reason no other countries require such hoops to be jumped through. It's not that politicians are globalising scum who hate the proletariat and wish them murdered by indigent foreigners. It's that there is an economic cost to such extreme vetting.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
He was allowed in because we have no legal recourse to prevent him. Free movement means free movement.
"Take back control" resonated for so many reasons. "Stronger in" meant nothing.
Carswell's £24k idea seems a great way forward IMO
Buh buh but, it also means you, too have the right to go live under a bridge in Romania!
What was Carswell's 24k idea? The minimum you should earn before being granted the right of free movement? Sounds very sensible to me. Though simply being able to deny people without a British passport the right to benefits, the right to the NHS, etc, would have much the same effect. Combine that with policing the vagrancy laws and insisting on the deportation of all foreign criminals charged with it and "free movement" by and large works.
How many foeign workers in the agricultural , hotel and care home industries earn £ 24K a year ?
I agree, which is why I think a much simpler solution would be to make the marginal cost to a foreign employee or an employer recruiting a foreigner higher would be a more effective way - you could do this easily by denying them in work benefits, by insisting on a flat £100 per month NHS tax and so on. The tax could be raised or lowered depending on supply and demand for jobs and exempted entirely for certain professions - eg nurses and so on.
The point is taking back control. The right to decide who comes in and how many people come in, whether that's a million migrant workers or ten.
The point for many of those voting Leave was not taking back control but stopping Johnny and Jemima foreigners coming in at all . Those people do not care if that f***ks up our agriculture , hotel and care home industries and many of them not even if the NHS ends up with problems .
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
If you are going to suggest that politicians make this impossible then you need to suggest a method.
As it is you cannot. You might as well ask why our politicians cannot prevent rainstorms.
Why do I need to suggest a method?
Because without a method there is no way to stop it.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
In the ideal world, criminals would not be let into the country without going through a stringent vetting/visa process first.
But the cost to the economy of requiring every potential visitor to jump through hoops before they can come for a 90 minute meeting about an IPO would be enormous. Or for the Schmidts or the Changs to come visit Buckingham Palace for the weekend.
There's a reason no other countries require such hoops to be jumped through. It's not that politicians are globalising scum who hate the proletariat and wish them murdered by indigent foreigners. It's that there is an economic cost to such extreme vetting.
So be it. The first job of a politician is to ensure the people are kept safe, and no economic cost should be too high.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
If you are going to suggest that politicians make this impossible then you need to suggest a method.
As it is you cannot. You might as well ask why our politicians cannot prevent rainstorms.
Why do I need to suggest a method?
Because without a method there is no way to stop it.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
We were warned
Yep agree. And if only we'd torpedoed the Windrush we'd be in a much better position also.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
They are out of their depth and doing a nearly impossible job (in the time frame) pretty poorly, but I wouldn't say headless chickens, if you exclude Johnson and Fox.
I doubt you'd ever think they were doing a good job!
It's not what I would think. I don't think they are. We're leaving the EU, so we might as well make the best of a bad job, but they are not even really doing that. Although Theresa May has improved somewhat from a low base.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
We were warned
Yep agree. And if only we'd torpedoed the Windrush we'd be in a much better position also.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
With hindsight being 20/20, we should not have allowed a single new permanent resident from an islamic country post 9/11.
EU freedom of movement should have been limited with the 2004 expansion of the EU, e.g. with a job offer or salary requirement.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
We were warned
Yep agree. And if only we'd torpedoed the Windrush we'd be in a much better position also.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
We need more lateral thinking on this. If we can't stop criminals coming in, at least we could remove the people we catch getting up to no good here. Perhaps ship them somewhere far away?
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
In the ideal world, criminals would not be let into the country without going through a stringent vetting/visa process first.
But the cost to the economy of requiring every potential visitor to jump through hoops before they can come for a 90 minute meeting about an IPO would be enormous. Or for the Schmidts or the Changs to come visit Buckingham Palace for the weekend.
There's a reason no other countries require such hoops to be jumped through. It's not that politicians are globalising scum who hate the proletariat and wish them murdered by indigent foreigners. It's that there is an economic cost to such extreme vetting.
To be fair the Canadians and the US have a convictions sharing agreement. Supposedly it's caused a few issues with people trying to cross.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
He was allowed in because we have no legal recourse to prevent him. Free movement means free movement.
"Take back control" resonated for so many reasons. "Stronger in" meant nothing.
Carswell's £24k idea seems a great way forward IMO
Buh buh but, it also means you, too have the right to go live under a bridge in Romania!
What was Carswell's 24k idea? The minimum you should earn before being granted the right of free movement? Sounds very sensible to me. Though simply being able to deny people without a British passport the right to benefits, the right to the NHS, etc, would have much the same effect. Combine that with policing the vagrancy laws and insisting on the deportation of all foreign criminals charged with it and "free movement" by and large works.
How many foeign workers in the agricultural , hotel and care home industries earn £ 24K a year ?
I agree, which is why I think a much simpler solution would be to make the marginal cost to a foreign employee or an employer recruiting a foreigner higher would be a more effective way - you could do this easily by denying them in work benefits, by insisting on a flat £100 per month NHS tax and so on. The tax could be raised or lowered depending on supply and demand for jobs and exempted entirely for certain professions - eg nurses and so on.
The point is taking back control. The right to decide who comes in and how many people come in, whether that's a million migrant workers or ten.
The point for many of those voting Leave was not taking back control but stopping Johnny and Jemima foreigners coming in at all . Those people do not care if that f***ks up our agriculture , hotel and care home industries and many of them not even if the NHS ends up with problems .
Can I thank you for at least saying 'many of those' voting leave leave, rather than just 'those who voted leave'.
We need more lateral thinking on this. If we can't stop criminals coming in, at least we could remove the people we catch getting up to no good here. Perhaps ship them somewhere far away?
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
In the ideal world, criminals would not be let into the country without going through a stringent vetting/visa process first.
But the cost to the economy of requiring every potential visitor to jump through hoops before they can come for a 90 minute meeting about an IPO would be enormous. Or for the Schmidts or the Changs to come visit Buckingham Palace for the weekend.
There's a reason no other countries require such hoops to be jumped through. It's not that politicians are globalising scum who hate the proletariat and wish them murdered by indigent foreigners. It's that there is an economic cost to such extreme vetting.
So be it. The first job of a politician is to ensure the people are kept safe, and no economic cost should be too high.
Perhaps we should ban all motor vehicles on the same ground.
For example there will be a couple of thousand Athletico Madrid fans in Leicester next week. Should we all require them to get certificates from the Spanish Home office before they fly? Or perhaps they should all be escorted by the Brigade of Guards off the plane to a concentration camp ringed with machine guns conveniently close to the away end at the King Power?
We need more lateral thinking on this. If we can't stop criminals coming in, at least we could remove the people we catch getting up to no good here. Perhaps ship them somewhere far away?
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions.nment does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
We were warned
Yep agree. And if only we'd torpedoed the Windrush we'd be in a much better position also.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
With hindsight being 20/20, we should not have allowed a single new permanent resident from an islamic country post 9/11.
EU freedom of movement should have been limited with the 2004 expansion of the EU, e.g. with a job offer or salary requirement.
What's about German Muslim visitors? Perhaps a more rigourous interview at our airports.
We'll be able to do that now thank goodness once we leave the EU.
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
We were warned
Yep agree. And if only we'd torpedoed the Windrush we'd be in a much better position also.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
4) The electoral system is heavily against them - as I pointed out earlier, the Tories if the boundaries go through have a huge number of very safe seats and it is hard to see a scenario where they are not the largest party by an enormous margin. Even if they don't go through the loss of Scotland makes winning an election problematic for Labour - had it not been for Scotland, Labour would have lost in 1964 and there is a serious school of thought (one I will admit I find unconvincing) that suggests they would have lost the following election too under those circumstances as they would not have controlled the timing. To win in a England and Wales alone they need to win 50 seats in straight fights (assuming no Tory gains in Scotland or Wales). That's a big ask.
Labour are probably too strong to be killed off, although my view keeps changing on that (after every crisis, I think, 'Surely this is rock bottom now' and then they get the jackhammers out and start digging). They should win around 160 seats in any given election. But it's hard to see them being strong enough to win an election in less than twelve years from here.
The Tories have not managed 40% since 1992 - and I doubt that they will do so in 2020 despite what current polls are saying. Nevertheless Labour is doomed that year if Corbyn remains - or is replaced by one of the far left nonentities.I do believe,however, that the outlook could be very different under an effective new leader. Moreover, even under Corbyn Labour was often polling 33%/34% in late 2015 and the early months of 2016. I would expect Starmer or Cooper to do better than that , and am quite clear that 35% in 2020 is perfectly achievable.
We need more lateral thinking on this. If we can't stop criminals coming in, at least we could remove the people we catch getting up to no good here. Perhaps ship them somewhere far away?
Back to where they came from, perhaps?
West Yorkshire? No, I was thinking somewhere like Australia...
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
We were warned
Yep agree. And if only we'd torpedoed the Windrush we'd be in a much better position also.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
Sam we just need to find a way to stop people coming to London from West Yorkshire.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I am afraid that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with them.
We were warned
Yep agree. And if only we'd torpedoed the Windrush we'd be in a much better position also.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
"Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another"
Shut the door on your way out Toppers
You've got thicker skin than that, isam!
Why should I put up with being called a racist by people? I would challenge anyone to find a racist comment I have made on here. It shouldn't be so easy for imbeciles to throw around baseless slurs
In this case an Indian woman was murdered by a Latvian. If I were a racist would I be making a fuss over it?
We need more lateral thinking on this. If we can't stop criminals coming in, at least we could remove the people we catch getting up to no good here. Perhaps ship them somewhere far away?
Back to where they came from, perhaps?
West Yorkshire?
Take the murderer of PC Keith Palmer for example.
Converted to Islam, spent four years living in Saudi. Off you go, don't let the door hit you on the way out, sorry love, no readmittance after 11am, country's full, try round the corner. In best SeanT, voice: BYE.
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
Perhaps we could introduce a Common Arrest Warrant so that the long arm of the law could catch fugitive criminals. If only we were a member of an organisation with that sort of vision!
Can I just say, as someone without a dog in the fight, I really like that Lib Dem leaflet. Yes, it's brutal, but I think it might be rather effective.
I think it's a good one, though how effective I have a hard time believing 'Labour are doing a poor job with hundreds of MPs, we'll do better with 10' is that effective, even if it is funny.
If Labour has surrendered already, one more lame bum on their backbenches ain't gonna change nothing, for sure.
Can someone confirm that this isn't a spoof website?
A pensioner who had sex with three different breeds of dogs claimed she did not realise it was illegal.
Carol Bowditch, 64, was filmed having sex with a St Bernard, a black Labrador and an Alsatian.
A pensioner who had sex with three different breeds of dogs claimed she did not realise it was illegal.
Carol Bowditch, 64, was filmed having sex with a St Bernard, a black Labrador and an Alsatian.
Her activities were exposed as a result of an RAF Police investigation which centred on a man identified as organising a bizarre sex party at which owners watched their dogs having sex with women and then went on to have sex themselves with the women.
It's been picked up by multiple tabloids. I'm fairly sure I saw it on the Beeb too but I can't find it and I'm wary of looking too hard for some reason.
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
As a matter of interest, how are you going to check for criminal convictions for people coming into the UK? There is no international registry of convictions. When you do your Visa Waiver for the US, you declare whether you have a conviction, but the US government does not (and cannot) check if what you say is true or not.
You think its a good immigration policy to let convicted criminals doss under bridges before murdering? Agree to disagree
What would your visa regulations that would have prevented it?
Maybe that he had a job lined up/home to live in? I cant believe it is beyond the realms of possibility to check if people have criminal convictions, we know he had them now so its not that hard to find out.
So would EU passport holders be required to provide a CRB style certificate from their own country before they were alllowed to come on a visitors visa?
Fuck knows I am not a politician, I just don't think criminal from other countries should be let in to sleep rough and murder people.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
If you are going to suggest that politicians make this impossible then you need to suggest a method.
As it is you cannot. You might as well ask why our politicians cannot prevent rainstorms.
Why do I need to suggest a method?
Because without a method there is no way to stop it.
I would find a way if this had been my daughter ,this assault and attacker has always stuck in my mind.
I knew that was going to be brought up at some point. Wasn't this after the reports that Leicester fans had been charged at by police for no reason according to a BBC reporter earlier? So it might well be deliberately provocative chanting in response.
Additionally, if anyone seriously thinks there is any impact on global politics, any impact at all, because of the drunken antics of sports fans (as those are representative of anything), they are either a fool or a liar. These are not the Nika riots in terms of significance.
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
Perhaps we could introduce a Common Arrest Warrant so that the long arm of the law could catch fugitive criminals. If only we were a member of an organisation with that sort of vision!
Well we are in it, and it didn't do much to help Pardeep Kaur
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
Why should I put up with being called a racist by people? I would challenge anyone to find a racist comment I have made on here. It shouldn't be so easy for imbeciles to throw around baseless slurs
In this case an Indian woman was murdered by a Latvian. If I were a racist would I be making a fuss over it?
A fair point, but you do seem capable enough at standing up to such comments and defending your position.
Interesting proposal for corporation tax... Rather than trying to take a share of the profits and trying to close loopholes etc... Government should just take 25% non voting shares in companies.
Companies could also indefinitely and legally avoid paying taxes by not issuing dividends. Since not paying dividends increases the companies asset base, the share value could rise and the shareholders can make revenue by selling their shares while the government doesn't get a penny.
So be it. The first job of a politician is to ensure the people are kept safe, and no economic cost should be too high.
You support a 10 mph speed limit? It'd save 1,500 British lives a year and tens of thousands of injuries.
Or is the economic cost too high?
Ok as I said, you win. I am not in the mood for constant smart arse pin dancing.
Convicted criminals coming from the EU to sleep rough/not work/kill people is unstoppable and always will be.
Happy Days
Convicted criminals coming from the USA/Canada/Australia to sleep rough/not work. kill people is also unstoppable but does not seem to worry you .
Show me where it has happened and I will say that is wrong. Why would I dislike Latvians but like Americans, Canadians & Australians
This Latvian killed an Indian. If I were racist, as you have a hard on to imply, why would it bother me enough to think of posting about it?
I don't think this is a racist argument, just one about whether it is practicable to prevent foreign criminals coming here. It is of course worth noting that we export a lot of criminals to the Costas etc too!
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
Perhaps we could introduce a Common Arrest Warrant so that the long arm of the law could catch fugitive criminals. If only we were a member of an organisation with that sort of vision!
Well we are in it, and it didn't do much to help Pardeep Kaur
@rcs100 is right that there may be no practical way to stop people with criminal convictions visiting the UK.
But there is a difference between a tourist and a permanent resident. Most countries have controls on who can become a permanent resident and it is possible to impose conditions - such as not having a criminal conviction, however defined - which mean that you can be deported if it is found that you have lied on your application form.
Similarly, why should someone have the right to go and live rough in another country?
If people had felt that those visitors who break the rules were actually deported, they would (perhaps) have been more willing to accept free movement for those who did not take the piss.
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
Perhaps we could introduce a Common Arrest Warrant so that the long arm of the law could catch fugitive criminals. If only we were a member of an organisation with that sort of vision!
If only we were a member of a body of nation states that co-operated on issues such as security, arranged mutually beneficial free trade organisations, and respected each other's sovereignty.
Weren't we in such an organisation once? Or did I just dream it?
So be it. The first job of a politician is to ensure the people are kept safe, and no economic cost should be too high.
You support a 10 mph speed limit? It'd save 1,500 British lives a year and tens of thousands of injuries.
Or is the economic cost too high?
Ok as I said, you win. I am not in the mood for constant smart arse pin dancing.
Convicted criminals coming from the EU to sleep rough/not work/kill people is unstoppable and always will be.
Happy Days
Convicted criminals coming from the USA/Canada/Australia to sleep rough/not work. kill people is also unstoppable but does not seem to worry you .
Show me where it has happened and I will say that is wrong. Why would I dislike Latvians but like Americans, Canadians & Australians
This Latvian killed an Indian. If I were racist, as you have a hard on to imply, why would it bother me enough to think of posting about it?
I don't think this is a racist argument, just one about whether it is practicable to prevent foreign criminals coming here. It is of course worth noting that we export a lot of criminals to the Costas etc too!
If an American, Canadian or Australia roughsleeper comes here on a visa-waiver and overstays their welcome they can be deported even if they haven't committed a crime other than outstaying their visa.
Why should I put up with being called a racist by people? I would challenge anyone to find a racist comment I have made on here. It shouldn't be so easy for imbeciles to throw around baseless slurs
In this case an Indian woman was murdered by a Latvian. If I were a racist would I be making a fuss over it?
A fair point, but you do seem capable enough at standing up to such comments and defending your position.
I have been banned more than any other person on here, and for less than we see other people get away with every day.
It hurts to be called a racist, it isn't true, I have never said people of a certain race are this or that, I don't think one race is superior or inferior, I have only ever said the friction caused by mass immigration is dangerous. Countless times I have said the problems caused by mass immigration here would be replayed if poor, white Christians went en masse to a non white, non Christian country.
On top of that, I am arguing here on behalf of an Indian immigrant murdered by a white European. Madness, some people are so stupid
@rcs100 is right that there may be no practical way to stop people with criminal convictions visiting the UK.
But there is a difference between a tourist and a permanent resident. Most countries have controls on who can become a permanent resident and it is possible to impose conditions - such as not having a criminal conviction, however defined - which mean that you can be deported if it is found that you have lied on your application form.
Similarly, why should someone have the right to go and live rough in another country?
If people had felt that those visitors who break the rules were actually deported, they would (perhaps) have been more willing to accept free movement for those who did not take the piss.
It was our government that abolished exit checks, so cannot identify overstayers.
Freedom of movement is also not absolute in the EU.
"Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence."
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
@rcs100 is right that there may be no practical way to stop people with criminal convictions visiting the UK.
But there is a difference between a tourist and a permanent resident. Most countries have controls on who can become a permanent resident and it is possible to impose conditions - such as not having a criminal conviction, however defined - which mean that you can be deported if it is found that you have lied on your application form.
Similarly, why should someone have the right to go and live rough in another country?
If people had felt that those visitors who break the rules were actually deported, they would (perhaps) have been more willing to accept free movement for those who did not take the piss.
We genuinely had more powers at our disposal then we ever used I think !
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
@rcs100 is right that there may be no practical way to stop people with criminal convictions visiting the UK.
But there is a difference between a tourist and a permanent resident. Most countries have controls on who can become a permanent resident and it is possible to impose conditions - such as not having a criminal conviction, however defined - which mean that you can be deported if it is found that you have lied on your application form.
Similarly, why should someone have the right to go and live rough in another country?
If people had felt that those visitors who break the rules were actually deported, they would (perhaps) have been more willing to accept free movement for those who did not take the piss.
I agree with you 100%.
This is about the specific situation that isam mentioned about a Romanian who came to the UK with a criminal conviction and then lived under a bridge before going on to murder someone.
I think it is reasonable to assume that said Romanian did not go through the hoops and apply for a Residence card. In other words, he came in here as a tourist and stayed.
As I said below, I hope that in the future we will do a much better job of throwing out people who have committed offences (from wherever). But we do need to be realistic about the limits (and costs) of action.
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Probably no different from last year, or the year before...
It is completely different and unprecedented and would have been utterly impossible to imagine had it not been for last year's shock result ...
Who'd have ever dreamt of Leicester fans being in Madrid in the first place?
Leicester has now played competitive fixtures against Athletico 5 times. They have won every match! the last time was in '97. We went out 4:1 on aggregate.
Only a dubious penalty prevented a stalemate. Kasper didn't have to produce any real saves. The return fixture is very live.
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
...There is no international registry of convictions...
Dear God, why the hell not? How the arse did that happen, or rather fail to happen?
Well:
(1) There are serious differences between countries about what constitutes a crime. (2) There is no equivalent to the WTO which has standard categories for crimes between countries. (3) The risk of you having a similar name to someone who might have committed crime somewhere is quite high. Inconveniencing millions of innocent people is not a great idea for your economy. (4) There are clearly privacy concerns. (5) What about spent convictions? (6) What about cautions and equivalent?
There doesn't have to be an internally coherent and consistent list, with agreed categories. There just needs to be two-hundred-odd lists: the Russians can have "guilty of not liking Putin, 12ys forced labour", the Chinese can have "wanting to vote for a nonParty member, 1000 criticisms", the Australians can have "used knife and fork correctly, six months solitary", or whatever each country defines as a crime. Every other country can then use that as a basis.
I agree about the false positives, especially this week when it appears that one Dr Dao was smeared with the past of another Dr Dao of similar age and name. And when we deal with tens of thousands on people entering per day, you're going to have to find a way to cope with the hundreds that will be caught by this (see also facial recognition for the same problem). But these are bureaucratic problems, fully solvable with money and a bureaucracy. It's pretty much doable.
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
@rcs100 is right that there may be no practical way to stop people with criminal convictions visiting the UK.
But there is a difference between a tourist and a permanent resident. Most countries have controls on who can become a permanent resident and it is possible to impose conditions - such as not having a criminal conviction, however defined - which mean that you can be deported if it is found that you have lied on your application form.
Similarly, why should someone have the right to go and live rough in another country?
If people had felt that those visitors who break the rules were actually deported, they would (perhaps) have been more willing to accept free movement for those who did not take the piss.
I agree with you 100%.
This is about the specific situation that isam mentioned about a Romanian who came to the UK with a criminal conviction and then lived under a bridge before going on to murder someone.
I think it is reasonable to assume that said Romanian did not go through the hoops and apply for a Residence card. In other words, he came in here as a tourist and stayed.
As I said below, I hope that in the future we will do a much better job of throwing out people who have committed offences (from wherever). But we do need to be realistic about the limits (and costs) of action.
He was Latvian not Romanian, and as it happens it seems the deceased's husband was working here without a permit
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
Do you think it's any consolation to the relatives of the victims of, say, Fred West, that they were struck by a local killer?
Comments
And with that unfortunate image in my head, good night.
Quite why someone would *willingly* do such a thing is a mystery.
What is your system where he is kept out?
If he turns up and says I'm a tourist coming for a week to the UK (which, by the way, is how the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigration to the US happens), how will we know whether he has a conviction or not?
I guess you could have a policy where every potential visitor has to get a visa, and they have to go to their local police station and get a signed document saying the person has had no criminal record. Are you really suggesting that?
Now, if someone commits a crime in the UK, we should hopefully in future be able to kick them out, and to prevent re-entry. Which is great. But I simply don't see how we can prevent people - in any realistic manner - from getting into the UK if they have a criminal record from another country and are willing to lie about it.
You are on the other side of the argument, & think nothing can be done to stop it/its too much trouble, fair dos
(1) There are serious differences between countries about what constitutes a crime.
(2) There is no equivalent to the WTO which has standard categories for crimes between countries.
(3) The risk of you having a similar name to someone who might have committed crime somewhere is quite high. Inconveniencing millions of innocent people is not a great idea for your economy.
(4) There are clearly privacy concerns.
(5) What about spent convictions?
(6) What about cautions and equivalent?
It was an example of our immigration system working well.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/sarin-chiefs-sons-are-uk-citizens-syria-chemical-war-attack-fsnkrk6fw
As it is you cannot. You might as well ask why our politicians cannot prevent rainstorms.
When you've got that sorted I'll join your party.
I would have thought that fewer vehicles and more localised production and delivery would have been preferable.
We were warned
But the cost to the economy of requiring every potential visitor to jump through hoops before they can come for a 90 minute meeting about an IPO would be enormous. Or for the Schmidts or the Changs to come visit Buckingham Palace for the weekend.
There's a reason no other countries require such hoops to be jumped through. It's not that politicians are globalising scum who hate the proletariat and wish them murdered by indigent foreigners. It's that there is an economic cost to such extreme vetting.
Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another, when would you ideally have stopped immigration to this country?
Or is the economic cost too high?
EU freedom of movement should have been limited with the 2004 expansion of the EU, e.g. with a job offer or salary requirement.
Convicted criminals coming from the EU to sleep rough/not work/kill people is unstoppable and always will be.
Happy Days
"Just out of interest, as one arsehole racist to another"
Shut the door on your way out Toppers
For example there will be a couple of thousand Athletico Madrid fans in Leicester next week. Should we all require them to get certificates from the Spanish Home office before they fly? Or perhaps they should all be escorted by the Brigade of Guards off the plane to a concentration camp ringed with machine guns conveniently close to the away end at the King Power?
We'll be able to do that now thank goodness once we leave the EU.
Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
In this case an Indian woman was murdered by a Latvian. If I were a racist would I be making a fuss over it?
Converted to Islam, spent four years living in Saudi. Off you go, don't let the door hit you on the way out, sorry love, no readmittance after 11am, country's full, try round the corner. In best SeanT, voice: BYE.
https://twitter.com/tobiasbuckft/status/852195815259074560
This Latvian killed an Indian. If I were racist, as you have a hard on to imply, why would it bother me enough to think of posting about it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3280805/Slovakian-man-jailed-20-years-raping-woman-18-battered-viciously-stone-life-saved-hood-headscarf.html
Additionally, if anyone seriously thinks there is any impact on global politics, any impact at all, because of the drunken antics of sports fans (as those are representative of anything), they are either a fool or a liar. These are not the Nika riots in terms of significance.
In context, the UK tax rate in those circumstances is 10%
https://www.gov.uk/entrepreneurs-relief/eligibility
Companies could also indefinitely and legally avoid paying taxes by not issuing dividends. Since not paying dividends increases the companies asset base, the share value could rise and the shareholders can make revenue by selling their shares while the government doesn't get a penny.
But there is a difference between a tourist and a permanent resident. Most countries have controls on who can become a permanent resident and it is possible to impose conditions - such as not having a criminal conviction, however defined - which mean that you can be deported if it is found that you have lied on your application form.
Similarly, why should someone have the right to go and live rough in another country?
If people had felt that those visitors who break the rules were actually deported, they would (perhaps) have been more willing to accept free movement for those who did not take the piss.
It is the very definition of racism.
Weren't we in such an organisation once? Or did I just dream it?
It hurts to be called a racist, it isn't true, I have never said people of a certain race are this or that, I don't think one race is superior or inferior, I have only ever said the friction caused by mass immigration is dangerous. Countless times I have said the problems caused by mass immigration here would be replayed if poor, white Christians went en masse to a non white, non Christian country.
On top of that, I am arguing here on behalf of an Indian immigrant murdered by a white European. Madness, some people are so stupid
Freedom of movement is also not absolute in the EU.
"Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence."
from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3.1.3.html
Who'd have ever dreamt of Leicester fans being in Madrid in the first place?
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk/exit-checks-fact-sheet
This is about the specific situation that isam mentioned about a Romanian who came to the UK with a criminal conviction and then lived under a bridge before going on to murder someone.
I think it is reasonable to assume that said Romanian did not go through the hoops and apply for a Residence card. In other words, he came in here as a tourist and stayed.
As I said below, I hope that in the future we will do a much better job of throwing out people who have committed offences (from wherever). But we do need to be realistic about the limits (and costs) of action.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
Only a dubious penalty prevented a stalemate. Kasper didn't have to produce any real saves. The return fixture is very live.
(Something we should be able to do given that Albania is not in the EU.)
I agree about the false positives, especially this week when it appears that one Dr Dao was smeared with the past of another Dr Dao of similar age and name. And when we deal with tens of thousands on people entering per day, you're going to have to find a way to cope with the hundreds that will be caught by this (see also facial recognition for the same problem). But these are bureaucratic problems, fully solvable with money and a bureaucracy. It's pretty much doable.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3310790/vadims-ruskuls-murdered-pardeep-kaur-convictions-in-latvia/