Why didn't you pull Jim up about politics into it? He was the first to do so, as far as I'm aware.
Just wondering.
What has happened to Britain?
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Eric/Gusset Sniffer
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gusset Sniffer
"If they want a family life they are free to take their familes with them. We will even pay for them to leave. We need to change the law!"
I suspect you are a tad confused here. As far as I am aware only a small minority of immigration offenders avoid deportation due to the "right to family life" clause. Judges do not interprete this clause as an absolute right to stay in this country. Despite that, as far as I know, May has issued new guidelines to judges and if she finds these guidelines are not being followed or overturned, she plans to introduce legislation to try and amend the Human Rights act. I'm not holding my breath.
Clearly some people avoid deportation this way and as usual it is the exception rather than the standard reaction that ends up in the Daily Mail/Telegraph, "what is the country coming to, we are all going to hell in a handcart, would you adam and eve it, shock horror, I just do not believe it story.
If you get an answer to my question as to why the soldier has not/cannot go down the "right to family life" route, please let me know.
Ta.
I suspect you are a tad confused here. As far as I am aware only a small minority of immigration offenders avoid deportation due to the "right to family life" clause. Judges do not interprete this clause as an absolute right to stay in this country. Despite that, as far as I know, May has issued new guidelines to judges and if she finds these guidelines are not being followed or overturned, she plans to introduce legislation to try and amend the Human Rights act. I'm not holding my breath.
Clearly some people avoid deportation this way and as usual it is the exception rather than the standard reaction that ends up in the Daily Mail/Telegraph, "what is the country coming to, we are all going to hell in a handcart, would you adam and eve it, shock horror, I just do not believe it story.
If you get an answer to my question as to why the soldier has not/cannot go down the "right to family life" route, please let me know.
Ta.
-
Gusset Sniffer
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Eric/Gusset Sniffer
He slagged off nu labour and the condems for this. Then porn baron asked him to write to his mp.
-
Gusset Sniffer
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Gusset Sniffer
You may call it a small number but I think it's too many. And the worry is that the figure is rising.
The figures, disclosed to The Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act, show that there were 56 such cases in 2008, rising to 80 in 2009, 217 in 2010 and 250 in 2011.
Once these criminals know we are a soft touch they will all be at it. The system is unfair and the Telegraph highlights that fact.
The figures, disclosed to The Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act, show that there were 56 such cases in 2008, rising to 80 in 2009, 217 in 2010 and 250 in 2011.
Once these criminals know we are a soft touch they will all be at it. The system is unfair and the Telegraph highlights that fact.
Re: Gusset Sniffer
David Johnson wrote:
>>As far as I am aware only a small minority of immigration offenders avoid
deportation due to the "right to family life" clause.
Even one is too many as far as I'm concerned. Especially when we're talking about violent / serial offenders, and uninsured illegals who run children down in cars.
- Eric
>>As far as I am aware only a small minority of immigration offenders avoid
deportation due to the "right to family life" clause.
Even one is too many as far as I'm concerned. Especially when we're talking about violent / serial offenders, and uninsured illegals who run children down in cars.
- Eric
Re: New role for prison wardens-shocker!
<http://www.jimslip.com>
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gussett Sniffer/Flat Eric
I wish I could share your naivety. Labour introduces surveillance legislation to keep track of terrorists and the result is councils use it to keep track of dog fouling. The Tories and Lib Dems state they are going to roll back the surveillance state of New Labour and then do nothing once in power and even introduce the mobile phone, email, internet surveillance bill that Labour dropped.
In the absence of any attempt by either of you to try and answer the question at the end of my post which queries the shock horror, oh my giddy aunt, who would adam and eve it of the Telegraph juxtaposition of the two stories :
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=259150&t=259138
I would point out that a rewrite of the European Convention on Human Rights or what is more likely, an opting out could well result in far more people like the soldier you refer to who defends himself in a barney, getting deported.
Human Rights legislation is a double-edged sword.
In the absence of any attempt by either of you to try and answer the question at the end of my post which queries the shock horror, oh my giddy aunt, who would adam and eve it of the Telegraph juxtaposition of the two stories :
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=259150&t=259138
I would point out that a rewrite of the European Convention on Human Rights or what is more likely, an opting out could well result in far more people like the soldier you refer to who defends himself in a barney, getting deported.
Human Rights legislation is a double-edged sword.
-
Gusset Sniffer
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Gussett Sniffer/Flat Eric
250 murderers, rapists and terrorists were released from prison in 2011 and allowed to stay in Britain on human rights grounds.
That useless cow who seems to fuck just about everything up Theresa May did not contest these cases because, home office lawyers took the view that
they would not win. Apparently they didn't want to waste time and money???
The Home Office has in the past contested, and won cases where a criminal has claimed his right to a family life.
Why the fuck aren't they at least trying to deport these people? That is what I'm asking my MP.
Would you prefer murderers rapists and terrorists remain in the uk? So they can have a family life? I'm sure most people don't agree with you.
That useless cow who seems to fuck just about everything up Theresa May did not contest these cases because, home office lawyers took the view that
they would not win. Apparently they didn't want to waste time and money???
The Home Office has in the past contested, and won cases where a criminal has claimed his right to a family life.
Why the fuck aren't they at least trying to deport these people? That is what I'm asking my MP.
Would you prefer murderers rapists and terrorists remain in the uk? So they can have a family life? I'm sure most people don't agree with you.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gussett Sniffer
I'm sorry but you give the impression of being totally confused again.
On the one hand, you have a go at me for criticising the Tories and state that
"What I mean is can we stop blaming the government and do something to change things?"
and then you state
"That useless cow who seems to fuck just about everything up Theresa May did not contest these cases because, home office lawyers took the view that they would not win. Apparently they didn't want to waste time and money??? "
Now if that isn't criticisng a government, I don't know what is.
I repeat:
1. My understanding is that only a small minority of immigration offenders get away with using the "right to family life" defence. Therefore.....
2. It is hardly helping matters if the department that Theresa May is in charge of - the Home Office - does not even bother to bring 250 cases to court for the reason that they didnt want to waste time and money!!! I cannot think of an approach which is more likely to increase the use of this defence among offenders.
3. This is the same logic which has resulted in Theresa May making huge cuts in Border staff resulting in unknown numbers of immigrants getting in unchecked.
4. Re. your letter to the MP, I repeat yet again, May has already provided guidelines to judges re. handling right to family life type cases and threatened to bring in legislation if they are not followed.
5. May should then demand that these 250 cases should go before the courts.
"Would you prefer murderers rapists and terrorists remain in the uk? So they can have a family life? I'm sure most people don't agree with you."
Obviously not. Nor am I in favour of Fijian soldiers getting deported simply for defending themselves in a punch-up.
On the one hand, you have a go at me for criticising the Tories and state that
"What I mean is can we stop blaming the government and do something to change things?"
and then you state
"That useless cow who seems to fuck just about everything up Theresa May did not contest these cases because, home office lawyers took the view that they would not win. Apparently they didn't want to waste time and money??? "
Now if that isn't criticisng a government, I don't know what is.
I repeat:
1. My understanding is that only a small minority of immigration offenders get away with using the "right to family life" defence. Therefore.....
2. It is hardly helping matters if the department that Theresa May is in charge of - the Home Office - does not even bother to bring 250 cases to court for the reason that they didnt want to waste time and money!!! I cannot think of an approach which is more likely to increase the use of this defence among offenders.
3. This is the same logic which has resulted in Theresa May making huge cuts in Border staff resulting in unknown numbers of immigrants getting in unchecked.
4. Re. your letter to the MP, I repeat yet again, May has already provided guidelines to judges re. handling right to family life type cases and threatened to bring in legislation if they are not followed.
5. May should then demand that these 250 cases should go before the courts.
"Would you prefer murderers rapists and terrorists remain in the uk? So they can have a family life? I'm sure most people don't agree with you."
Obviously not. Nor am I in favour of Fijian soldiers getting deported simply for defending themselves in a punch-up.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
And another point..
"Would you prefer murderers rapists and terrorists remain in the uk? So they can have a family life? I'm sure most people don't agree with you."
You sound exactly like Theresa May, the woman you berate, defending the introduction of the internet, mail, mobile phone storage bill.
"Would you prefer murderers, rapists remain uncharged? I'm sure most people don't agree with you".
Obviously I am in favour of immigrants convicted of extremely violent and evil crimes being deported, but we need to be wary of any changes to legislation that then allows all sorts of people being deported e.g. defending yourself in a punchup.
You sound exactly like Theresa May, the woman you berate, defending the introduction of the internet, mail, mobile phone storage bill.
"Would you prefer murderers, rapists remain uncharged? I'm sure most people don't agree with you".
Obviously I am in favour of immigrants convicted of extremely violent and evil crimes being deported, but we need to be wary of any changes to legislation that then allows all sorts of people being deported e.g. defending yourself in a punchup.