Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Swedish Town: Women Are Warned Not To Go Out Alone At Night....
.....after multiple sex attacks by ‘foreigners’.
Shades of Cologne when the mayor there advised women to adopt a 'Code of Conduct' in order to protect themselves from attack. Are any of the powers that be actually addressing the source of the problem or are they, in effect, turning a blind eye to a difficult-to-deal-with issue?
http://
Shades of Cologne when the mayor there advised women to adopt a 'Code of Conduct' in order to protect themselves from attack. Are any of the powers that be actually addressing the source of the problem or are they, in effect, turning a blind eye to a difficult-to-deal-with issue?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. 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.
I like the conclusion that the attacks were not by Swedes because the attcker(s) were not drunk.
// person added that in addition to the increased frequency, the attacks are also conspicuous as - despite being carried out late at night - none of the perpetrators were drunk.
'What stands out is also that none of these perpetrators have been under the influence,' he adds. //
// person added that in addition to the increased frequency, the attacks are also conspicuous as - despite being carried out late at night - none of the perpetrators were drunk.
'What stands out is also that none of these perpetrators have been under the influence,' he adds. //
//Gromit
I like the conclusion that the attacks were not by Swedes because the attcker(s) were not drunk.//
I see nothing to like about that conclusion at all. It seems these animals will treat women with contempt and sexually molest them without the need for narcotic or alcoholic stimulii. In other words. They demonstrate a natural primaeval trait. Filthy detrious shouldn't be allowed out at night .
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it..whose fault is it - the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, senior Muslim cleric.
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, senior Muslim cleric.
-- answer removed --
“…hope to god UK leaves EU. for my childrens sake.”
As much as I’d like the UK to quit, dick, the problem of illegal migration to the UK will not go away if we left. Those massing in Calais and other places across the Channel will continue to do so. The EU continues to allow unfettered roaming by illegal migrants who gain a foothold in Europe (usually via Italy or Greece). This will not stop despite the various measures being discussed (but not implemented) at the copious “summits” that seem to be held every week.
These people will continue to gather there and will continue to try to board lorries and trains to get to the UK. One thing that will exacerbate the problem should we remain is Turkey. As part of the latest discussions Turkey has demanded a doubling of the £3bn they are set to receive from the EU to “help them with migration” but has also demanded visa free travel for its 70m citizens (95% Muslim) from June. This means that those 70m people have effectively the freedom to enter the UK without hindrance. They will not have the right to settle but that does not seem to have stopped many people who have arrived in the UK as visitors from remaining should they decide to do so. As well as this Turkey has demanded that its application for full EU membership be hastened. Frau Merkel seems to be receptive to these demands in an effort to quell the damage done by her disastrous open invitation to the world's dispossesed which she made last year.
Turkey, of course, is the country where, a couple of weeks ago, security forces stormed the offices of one of the country’s main newspapers using tear gas to take control of the presses. This was because the paper published an article criticising the Turkish government. People in this country concerned about vast numbers of Muslim men arriving largely uninvited need to consider Turkey’s demands when they place their crosses in the box in June because the problems occuring in Sweden are small beer.
As much as I’d like the UK to quit, dick, the problem of illegal migration to the UK will not go away if we left. Those massing in Calais and other places across the Channel will continue to do so. The EU continues to allow unfettered roaming by illegal migrants who gain a foothold in Europe (usually via Italy or Greece). This will not stop despite the various measures being discussed (but not implemented) at the copious “summits” that seem to be held every week.
These people will continue to gather there and will continue to try to board lorries and trains to get to the UK. One thing that will exacerbate the problem should we remain is Turkey. As part of the latest discussions Turkey has demanded a doubling of the £3bn they are set to receive from the EU to “help them with migration” but has also demanded visa free travel for its 70m citizens (95% Muslim) from June. This means that those 70m people have effectively the freedom to enter the UK without hindrance. They will not have the right to settle but that does not seem to have stopped many people who have arrived in the UK as visitors from remaining should they decide to do so. As well as this Turkey has demanded that its application for full EU membership be hastened. Frau Merkel seems to be receptive to these demands in an effort to quell the damage done by her disastrous open invitation to the world's dispossesed which she made last year.
Turkey, of course, is the country where, a couple of weeks ago, security forces stormed the offices of one of the country’s main newspapers using tear gas to take control of the presses. This was because the paper published an article criticising the Turkish government. People in this country concerned about vast numbers of Muslim men arriving largely uninvited need to consider Turkey’s demands when they place their crosses in the box in June because the problems occuring in Sweden are small beer.
-- answer removed --
New Judge
/// As much as I’d like the UK to quit, dick, the problem of illegal migration to the UK will not go away if we left. Those massing in Calais and other places across the Channel will continue to do so. ///
But don't you think we will be better able to control our border plus added security at the port and the right to send them back without the interference from the European Court of Human Rights.
After all without the use of the technology we have today, we managed back in 1940 to stop the might of Nazi Germany from coming here.
/// As much as I’d like the UK to quit, dick, the problem of illegal migration to the UK will not go away if we left. Those massing in Calais and other places across the Channel will continue to do so. ///
But don't you think we will be better able to control our border plus added security at the port and the right to send them back without the interference from the European Court of Human Rights.
After all without the use of the technology we have today, we managed back in 1940 to stop the might of Nazi Germany from coming here.
“But don't you think we will be better able to control our border plus added security at the port and the right to send them back without the interference from the European Court of Human Rights.”
No. As I have explained before the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. If we left the EU we would still be signatories to the Convention and would still have our own 1998 Human Rights Act (which largely mirrors the Convention but incorporates it into UK law) in place. We would have to withdraw as signatories to the Convention and repeal the 1998 Act. Neither of these is likely despite Mr Cameron’s pledge to replace them with a “Bill of Rights” (whatever that might be) so we will still have people claiming a right to remain here.
As far as border controls go we probably have the best we can get at the moment. The “Le Touquet Agreement” provides or our immigration control to be sited in France and when clandestines are intercepted there they are removed and released onto French soil. If that agreement were not in place that control would be in the UK and clandestines intercepted there would be released onto UK soil with a travel warrant and reporting instructions to go to Lunar House in Croydon. (Remember, the ECHR and the 1998 Act would still be in play). There are veiled threats by France that they would tear up the Le Touquet Agreement should the voters vote for withdrawal but as I have explained in earlier threads this is most unlikely.
In short, I believe a "Brexit" would have precious little effect on the control of illegal immigration. However, it will have a huge impact on uncontrolled but legal migration from the EU which is set to increase as new members states (including Turkey) are incorporated into the shambles. It will also, of course, remove the increasing likelihood that the UK will be forced to accept its "fair share" of the huge numbers of migrants that the EU has so foolishly and irresponsibly allowed to cross its porous external borders.
No. As I have explained before the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. If we left the EU we would still be signatories to the Convention and would still have our own 1998 Human Rights Act (which largely mirrors the Convention but incorporates it into UK law) in place. We would have to withdraw as signatories to the Convention and repeal the 1998 Act. Neither of these is likely despite Mr Cameron’s pledge to replace them with a “Bill of Rights” (whatever that might be) so we will still have people claiming a right to remain here.
As far as border controls go we probably have the best we can get at the moment. The “Le Touquet Agreement” provides or our immigration control to be sited in France and when clandestines are intercepted there they are removed and released onto French soil. If that agreement were not in place that control would be in the UK and clandestines intercepted there would be released onto UK soil with a travel warrant and reporting instructions to go to Lunar House in Croydon. (Remember, the ECHR and the 1998 Act would still be in play). There are veiled threats by France that they would tear up the Le Touquet Agreement should the voters vote for withdrawal but as I have explained in earlier threads this is most unlikely.
In short, I believe a "Brexit" would have precious little effect on the control of illegal immigration. However, it will have a huge impact on uncontrolled but legal migration from the EU which is set to increase as new members states (including Turkey) are incorporated into the shambles. It will also, of course, remove the increasing likelihood that the UK will be forced to accept its "fair share" of the huge numbers of migrants that the EU has so foolishly and irresponsibly allowed to cross its porous external borders.
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.