Cutting Off Their Nose To Spite Their...
News1 min ago
Why ?
50 Answers
http://
Why was this man allowed to stay, he is not desirable to our country, clearly doesnt like the way we are so why was he allowed I wonder?
Looks like the clue is in here:
The Australian told an immigration tribunal that if he is deported from the UK his British wife and five-month-old baby daughter will not move to Australia with him because it is a "racist country".
Is Australia any worse than here ? This has to be the lamest excuse ever but as usual the ruigth-on brigade swallow it hook line and sinker.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Two aspects of this story caused me some amusement. (Well actually “concern” would be a better term).
The first has already been mentioned. The opinion of Mr & Mrs Oldfield that Australians exhibit “passive aggressive” (Eh?) racism seems to have been accepted by the Tribunal judge without question. This is the first I have heard of such a slur on an entire nation. True, Australia demonstrates a rigid approach when dealing with those who try to enter illegally, but that is hardly “passive aggressive racism” (whatever that might be).
But the second is of even more concern. The judge also stated that Mr Oldfield was “of good character”. I must have been away when the term “of good character” was extended to somebody who, just over a year ago, was sentenced to six months in jail and whose conviction would not become spent for another six years.
The judge’s decision on both those grounds was utterly preposterous. Mr Oldfield’s protest was misguided and dangerous and in any case it is no concern of his how the UK runs its affairs (or its Boat Races). The welfare of his wife should have been uppermost in his mind when he undertook his ridiculous stunt but it was not. His misplaced ideology trumped that concern and only now is she and his child (who had not been conceived at the time of his illegal action) been raised as a reason for his continuing presence here. The UK would be far better off without him.
The first has already been mentioned. The opinion of Mr & Mrs Oldfield that Australians exhibit “passive aggressive” (Eh?) racism seems to have been accepted by the Tribunal judge without question. This is the first I have heard of such a slur on an entire nation. True, Australia demonstrates a rigid approach when dealing with those who try to enter illegally, but that is hardly “passive aggressive racism” (whatever that might be).
But the second is of even more concern. The judge also stated that Mr Oldfield was “of good character”. I must have been away when the term “of good character” was extended to somebody who, just over a year ago, was sentenced to six months in jail and whose conviction would not become spent for another six years.
The judge’s decision on both those grounds was utterly preposterous. Mr Oldfield’s protest was misguided and dangerous and in any case it is no concern of his how the UK runs its affairs (or its Boat Races). The welfare of his wife should have been uppermost in his mind when he undertook his ridiculous stunt but it was not. His misplaced ideology trumped that concern and only now is she and his child (who had not been conceived at the time of his illegal action) been raised as a reason for his continuing presence here. The UK would be far better off without him.
-- answer removed --
"Aborigines are a minority of only 600,000 in Australia's 23 million population. They are the poorest ethnic group in Australia, suffer poor health and lag behind in education. They die years younger than other Australians on average and are more likely to be imprisoned."
http://
http://
As far as I recall the criteria for expulsion was receiving a sentence of over 2 years
As his lawyer said the offense wasn't serious enouh to warrant deportantion and those guidelines were set up to exactly justify what was and what wasn't sufficiently grave to justify deportation.
I recognise that there are some who seem to think that anybody who protests about anything is not conducive to the public good.
Strangely they often seem to spend a lot of their lives grumbling about this or that or saying how the country has gone to 'hell in a handbasket'!
As his lawyer said the offense wasn't serious enouh to warrant deportantion and those guidelines were set up to exactly justify what was and what wasn't sufficiently grave to justify deportation.
I recognise that there are some who seem to think that anybody who protests about anything is not conducive to the public good.
Strangely they often seem to spend a lot of their lives grumbling about this or that or saying how the country has gone to 'hell in a handbasket'!
I always try to look at situations like this in reverse, Jake.
If I were to take up residence in a foreign country and began to criticise some of their customs and procedures and then went on to undertake something like the stunt that Mr Oldfield carried out I would expect to receive very short shrift and would not be at all surprised if I was removed.
It's really a matter of manners and expectations. In short, I would not abuse my host's hospitality and would not criticise and disrupt their customs - even if I did pay income tax.
If I were to take up residence in a foreign country and began to criticise some of their customs and procedures and then went on to undertake something like the stunt that Mr Oldfield carried out I would expect to receive very short shrift and would not be at all surprised if I was removed.
It's really a matter of manners and expectations. In short, I would not abuse my host's hospitality and would not criticise and disrupt their customs - even if I did pay income tax.
-- answer removed --
A friend was deported from Australia for jaywalking and then insulin policeman who stopped her. This man should not, being Australian, not expect to be deported having committed a crime which got him six months jail. Yet another case where family rights have been extended beyond reason And what reason has he to fear racism? He does not look particularly black, but if he did, how is Australia so significantly worse than other countries and in what particular danger would he be?
