ChatterBank5 mins ago
Should we take the same action?
41 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=491862&in_p age_id=1811
Would our politicians have the courage to take similar action in our country?
No promises of action in a couple of years time, after numerous debates and inquires, but immediately as the Italians have.
Would our politicians have the courage to take similar action in our country?
No promises of action in a couple of years time, after numerous debates and inquires, but immediately as the Italians have.
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.
I brought this up last week:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question47 5779.html
Unfortunately we in England are the most tolerant and easy going people (or maybe just lazy).
Even though almost eveyone you talk to has had enough of immigration, and thinks there has been far too much, we never actually get off our backsides and protest about it.
The only thing that has prompted the Italians to do something is the increasing crime rate over there which really has got out of hand.
And because we have voted in Labour for the last two terms it is a sort of tacit support for their open door policy.
If a party stood that was purely an anti-immigration party, and they began to get lots of votes, then the main parties would start to do something about it.
But there is not such a party (unles you count BNP which many people refuse to vote for) and the electorate are not crying out for one, so Labour will continue their open door policy as they feel the public support it as they continue to vote for them.
I really thought the British would start to rise up after the tube bombings a couple of years ago, but we just went "tut tut" and carried on with our lives.
By the time we do come to our senses it will be too late.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question47 5779.html
Unfortunately we in England are the most tolerant and easy going people (or maybe just lazy).
Even though almost eveyone you talk to has had enough of immigration, and thinks there has been far too much, we never actually get off our backsides and protest about it.
The only thing that has prompted the Italians to do something is the increasing crime rate over there which really has got out of hand.
And because we have voted in Labour for the last two terms it is a sort of tacit support for their open door policy.
If a party stood that was purely an anti-immigration party, and they began to get lots of votes, then the main parties would start to do something about it.
But there is not such a party (unles you count BNP which many people refuse to vote for) and the electorate are not crying out for one, so Labour will continue their open door policy as they feel the public support it as they continue to vote for them.
I really thought the British would start to rise up after the tube bombings a couple of years ago, but we just went "tut tut" and carried on with our lives.
By the time we do come to our senses it will be too late.
Yes, we should definitely kick out all these undesirables but this action would pose 2 important issues:-
1) With Gordon Brown and his Scots MP evicted back to Scotland as definitely undesirable, how would the Labour Party function?
2) A new Enoch Powell would have to emerge suggesting we PAY for all the Brits who emigrated to come back to replace the 90% of the population deported to India, Pakistan, Arab countries, Romania, Poland and Chavland.
1) With Gordon Brown and his Scots MP evicted back to Scotland as definitely undesirable, how would the Labour Party function?
2) A new Enoch Powell would have to emerge suggesting we PAY for all the Brits who emigrated to come back to replace the 90% of the population deported to India, Pakistan, Arab countries, Romania, Poland and Chavland.
Should we take the same action?
Quote from your article: The Italian legislation, prompted by rising public anger at crimes committed by Romanian migrants, allows a judge to approve and sign an expulsion order against those who police say are a threat.
No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.
No, we should not bring in legislation like that.
I have absolutely no issue with people who abuse this country's hospitality (by breaking certain laws) being expelled (subject to certain conditions), but the Italian law is in my opinion draconian and ridiculous.
Quote from your article: The Italian legislation, prompted by rising public anger at crimes committed by Romanian migrants, allows a judge to approve and sign an expulsion order against those who police say are a threat.
No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.
No, we should not bring in legislation like that.
I have absolutely no issue with people who abuse this country's hospitality (by breaking certain laws) being expelled (subject to certain conditions), but the Italian law is in my opinion draconian and ridiculous.
Perhaps if the UK had "draconian" laws it would be in a better situation today.
Each individual should have an I.D card and then the Govt. would have a better idea of how many undesirables and immigrants are actually in the Country.
MI5 reckon over 2000 potential terrorists ( which probably means 4000 ).
If self-preservation is at stake I would hardly call it "ridiculous"
Each individual should have an I.D card and then the Govt. would have a better idea of how many undesirables and immigrants are actually in the Country.
MI5 reckon over 2000 potential terrorists ( which probably means 4000 ).
If self-preservation is at stake I would hardly call it "ridiculous"
Christ Almighty.
Oneeyedvic - I was about to post almost word-for-word what you posted.
Can anyone who is in favour of:
No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.
please explain your thinking???
Dassie - I had to read your post a couple of times, and I'm still not sure whether you're saying what I think you're saying...
Please clarify this point:
to replace the 90% of the population deported to India, Pakistan, Arab countries, Romania, Poland and Chavland
Oneeyedvic - I was about to post almost word-for-word what you posted.
Can anyone who is in favour of:
No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.
please explain your thinking???
Dassie - I had to read your post a couple of times, and I'm still not sure whether you're saying what I think you're saying...
Please clarify this point:
to replace the 90% of the population deported to India, Pakistan, Arab countries, Romania, Poland and Chavland
If the UK were to deport 'undesirables', I can imagine a good number of Britons being deported too...
As others have said, I don't there's anything wrong in principle with deporting immigrant criminals who have breached the country's law, but I think there's something heinously wrong about doing so without trial and without right of appeal.
As others have said, I don't there's anything wrong in principle with deporting immigrant criminals who have breached the country's law, but I think there's something heinously wrong about doing so without trial and without right of appeal.
naomi,
I read your posts with interest. You write very persuasively sometimes, but I do think it's a shame that you choose to sensationalise political correctness and human rights.
Think of the actual meaning of the words and the origin of the concepts and you'll realise that they are inherently good ideals. Pursued properly, they protect the vulnerable and make the world a better place.
What you, perhaps fairly, have an issue with is when they are taken to taken to ludicrous extremes or given undue prominence over other ideals, such as the protection of the public or common sense.
But to attack them per se - in their purest, rightest form - is Littlejohn-esque. It polarises the debate so that those who are more easily led by the tabloids then think of it as weak or wrong to protect the rights of human beings or to exercise fairness, reasonableness and tact - whatever the circumstances.
I'm sure this isn't your intention.
I read your posts with interest. You write very persuasively sometimes, but I do think it's a shame that you choose to sensationalise political correctness and human rights.
Think of the actual meaning of the words and the origin of the concepts and you'll realise that they are inherently good ideals. Pursued properly, they protect the vulnerable and make the world a better place.
What you, perhaps fairly, have an issue with is when they are taken to taken to ludicrous extremes or given undue prominence over other ideals, such as the protection of the public or common sense.
But to attack them per se - in their purest, rightest form - is Littlejohn-esque. It polarises the debate so that those who are more easily led by the tabloids then think of it as weak or wrong to protect the rights of human beings or to exercise fairness, reasonableness and tact - whatever the circumstances.
I'm sure this isn't your intention.
Why are those who are 'pro' this ridiculous idea avoiding answering this:
Quote from your article: The Italian legislation, prompted by rising public anger at crimes committed by Romanian migrants, allows a judge to approve and sign an expulsion order against those who police say are a threat.
No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.
How would that work?
Please - c'mon...are you saying that you'd be happy with this?
Quote from your article: The Italian legislation, prompted by rising public anger at crimes committed by Romanian migrants, allows a judge to approve and sign an expulsion order against those who police say are a threat.
No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.
How would that work?
Please - c'mon...are you saying that you'd be happy with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|