ChatterBank1 min ago
There Are Very Many Not ‘Conducive To The Public Good’, Why Single Out Donald Trump?
47 Answers
http://
So after only 560,000 people signed a petition asking for the banning of Donald Trump's entry into the UK, Mrs May declared that she ‘may exclude’ people who are not ‘conducive to the public good’.
There are many more who should be considered not ‘conducive to the public good’, before you get to Mr Trump, Home Secretary.
/// The Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. ///
She will 'continue' to use the powers available,
'CONTINUE'???????????????????
When did she start?
So after only 560,000 people signed a petition asking for the banning of Donald Trump's entry into the UK, Mrs May declared that she ‘may exclude’ people who are not ‘conducive to the public good’.
There are many more who should be considered not ‘conducive to the public good’, before you get to Mr Trump, Home Secretary.
/// The Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. ///
She will 'continue' to use the powers available,
'CONTINUE'???????????????????
When did she start?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Generally speaking, petitions do not get that large a take-up. So referring to 560,000 signatures as "only" that many is to take the figure very far out of context. That's a huge volume of signatures for a country-specific petition, a good deal more than is typical.
Alternatively, if we are going to say that 560,000 is not all that many, then you might want to note that "only" 450,000 people think that closing the UK borders in response to the threat of ISIS is a good idea, that less than 230,000 agreed with you about no military action in Syria -- and less than 40,000 people are against a ban being imposed on Donald Trump!
https:/
https:/
https:/
Alternatively, if we are going to say that 560,000 is not all that many, then you might want to note that "only" 450,000 people think that closing the UK borders in response to the threat of ISIS is a good idea, that less than 230,000 agreed with you about no military action in Syria -- and less than 40,000 people are against a ban being imposed on Donald Trump!
https:/
https:/
https:/
I know it's not true, ZM, but it would appear to follow so from the logic of the OP, talking about 560,000 petitioners as if that is a small number. In context, it's a massive number -- the largest volume of signatures on any current petition on the government's e-petition website, and also of comparative size to those on the well-organised petition sites such as change.org or avaaz.
Petitions in general don't attract all that much attention. Most people, it seems, just don't care enough. So if a subject manages to attract the attention of the apathetic by so much that it's picked up over half-a-million signatures, that absolutely shouldn't be dismissed lightly as "only" -- and by citing examples of lower-volume petitions I was trying to make the point that AOG's likely using that qualifier mostly because he disagrees with the petition.
As it happens, I've not signed this petition and don't intend to. The government's vague response about "continuing to use available powers" is entirely appropriate in the circumstances, because it's a pretty stupid suggestion to try and ban Donald Trump from the UK, no matter how abhorrent I find the stuff that spews from his mouth.
Petitions in general don't attract all that much attention. Most people, it seems, just don't care enough. So if a subject manages to attract the attention of the apathetic by so much that it's picked up over half-a-million signatures, that absolutely shouldn't be dismissed lightly as "only" -- and by citing examples of lower-volume petitions I was trying to make the point that AOG's likely using that qualifier mostly because he disagrees with the petition.
As it happens, I've not signed this petition and don't intend to. The government's vague response about "continuing to use available powers" is entirely appropriate in the circumstances, because it's a pretty stupid suggestion to try and ban Donald Trump from the UK, no matter how abhorrent I find the stuff that spews from his mouth.
Not signing a petition doesn't mean people don't care. I care that Britain could be about to ban the future president of the US from our country and I don't think many on either side of the argument have thought through the consequences of such an action. We are already in a precarious position with our neighbours to the East (not to mention the Far East). To alienate those to the West, however radical their views are, would seem to be a VERY dangerous tactic.
The Home Secretary has had this power for yonx
IN the sixties, the then Home Secretary excluded Rudi Dutchke on similar grounds and I think was taken to court
the case turned on whether the HS cd exclude whom he liked or did he have to have reasons ? Now governed by the Human Rights Acts (executive powers cannot be used capriciously but must be reasonable )
IN the sixties, the then Home Secretary excluded Rudi Dutchke on similar grounds and I think was taken to court
the case turned on whether the HS cd exclude whom he liked or did he have to have reasons ? Now governed by the Human Rights Acts (executive powers cannot be used capriciously but must be reasonable )
AOG if you mean why should the petitioners "single out" Donald Trump, then plainly the reason for that is that he is famous. He made a controversial statement that got lots of coverage and there was a reaction. That is the reason, whether it's fair or not.
I think the article is pretty poor, as it seems to create the impression that Mrs May's comments are related to the petition against Trump, but there is no proof of that. Firstly, there is a wholly misleading headline (how often do we see that), followed by the opening paragraph:
"Donald Trump could be banned from entering the UK after Theresa May, the Home Secretary, declared that she ‘may exclude’ people who are not ‘conducive to the public good’. "
But that is speculation on the part of the writer. It bears no relation whatever to what the Home Secretary actually said.
I think the article is pretty poor, as it seems to create the impression that Mrs May's comments are related to the petition against Trump, but there is no proof of that. Firstly, there is a wholly misleading headline (how often do we see that), followed by the opening paragraph:
"Donald Trump could be banned from entering the UK after Theresa May, the Home Secretary, declared that she ‘may exclude’ people who are not ‘conducive to the public good’. "
But that is speculation on the part of the writer. It bears no relation whatever to what the Home Secretary actually said.
DT is growing on me, anyone who gets the anti Western anti British right on brigade spitting out their organic St Mandella Peace porridge has got to be doing something right! "Conducive to the public good"? PMSL you mean like hook and choudary! DT just uses hyperbole to get his points over, that's what frightens the willies out of his detractors.
I don't understand how you can possibly think that, TTT. Have you actually listened to this guy? He is full of crap. Stupid soundbites that maybe appeal to people but aren't remotely practicable, sensible or plausible, and often demonstrate a hold on reality that is so tenuous as to beggar belief. Sure, he gets people spitting on their muesli, but that is not a laudable aim because he does so by saying things that are so utterly rubbish as to be laughable. And he's growing on you?! It's been upsetting enough to watch his meteoric rise in the polls -- a response tempered only slightly by the expectation that when the actual votes start people in the Republican party will come to their senses -- without seeing people this side of the point give him any sort of credit.
He's a nutter -- an intelligent one to have so successfully exploited people's anger at certain recent events and trends, but a nutter nonetheless. You can't possibly mean that you take him seriously. He's the world's most successful troll -- and that isn't something worth celebrating.
He's a nutter -- an intelligent one to have so successfully exploited people's anger at certain recent events and trends, but a nutter nonetheless. You can't possibly mean that you take him seriously. He's the world's most successful troll -- and that isn't something worth celebrating.
You mean, look beyond to his having "...so successfully exploited people's anger at certain recent events and trends"?
I've already observed his control. He's done a great job of riding his success and sustaining it, unlike a couple of other outsiders in the Republican race who rose and fell equally quickly. He's still a nutter, and no matter his skills in sustaining and increasing his level of support he is still not at all worth warming to.
I've already observed his control. He's done a great job of riding his success and sustaining it, unlike a couple of other outsiders in the Republican race who rose and fell equally quickly. He's still a nutter, and no matter his skills in sustaining and increasing his level of support he is still not at all worth warming to.
yes, sensible solutions, for the sensible, that's a low percentage in the scheme of things. Most of the general public are not as intellectual as you jim and guys like DT, especially in the US can hit the right chords with with what you'd call the "redneck" vote. All I'm saying is that he's playing to that crowd.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.