Asian sex abusers to be stripped of UK citizenship and deported

First topic message reminder :

Asian-born sex abusers will be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported at the end of their sentences under a new Home Office drive, The Independent can reveal. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is planning to significantly increase her department’s use of legal powers that allow serious criminals with dual nationality to have their British citizenship withdrawn, Whitehall sources say.
Until now, the powers have predominately been used to remove the UK passports of terrorists and terrorist sympathisers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/asian-sex-abusers-to-be-stripped-of-uk-citizenship-and-deported-a6896051.html

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Let the victim have a say your ignorant regressive moran

Did I say decide or have a say?

This is what is the matter with you regressive idiots, you invent lies to things not said

Now are you going to admit you just lied and tried to deceive?

Hey, a little ways up you can see yourself saying that I don't think about the victims of child abuse, and a little above that again, and a little above that, and then if you go a little farther up, and then a few posts before that ...

I've been doing a pretty good job of staying rational and impersonal even as you and others accuse me of pandering to pedophiles on the basis of where they were born.

You don't realize that this policy actually creates a protected class of pedophiles immune to the harshest punishment your country can deal out for the crime, solely on the basis of national origin.

1) Again not answering

2) Not admitting you lied

3) Not admitting you tried to deceive

4) I am very rational,, just bored of your poor inept replies

5) Not once have you answered my questions

6) It does not protect anyone, some are born here, so we cannot send them anywhere, but with those not born here we can

7) That protects nobody, as again where should we send those born here?

Didge wrote:All are equal before the law, accept that is not true is it zack
Children are different before the law, so nothing is equal, its based on subjective views we hold on groups of people.
That means if there is variance there can also be for those foreign born

Children can be below the age of responsibility, so there is a rationale there.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well foreign born citizens can lose also their right to stay

You offer no reason why they should

I offer one for the sake of the victims, that they know they will never have to face them again

You offer up regressive bull

Considering equality before the law is a fundamental of liberalism,  you are being the regressive. Lol!

But as seen its not actually equal

Age makes it different and not equal

Your being utterly thick

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:All are equal before the law, accept that is not true is it zack
Children are different before the law, so nothing is equal, its based on subjective views we hold on groups of people.
That means if there is variance there can also be for those foreign born

Children can be below the age of responsibility, so there is a rationale there.

So a baby of 2 that shoots his mother, as has happened, will be done for murder then?

Did I just make you look even more stupid?

whatever happend to 2victim centered " justice

and, quite frankly, perhaps it IS time the victim got a say in the punishment of offenders

The biggets problem we have in te uk is that at some time in the 1900's we moved from a justice system to the american style "penal code"..with tariffs that reflect only a narrow proportion of society's people (generally noisy lefty "rehabilitators"

which means that there is a "value" put on the crime that has no bearing on its effect on the victim,
nor does it attempt to address the "insult" both physical and mental suffered by te victim

hell i dont want a penalty which bears no relationship to the gross insult recieved...I want the theiving/raping/whatever bastard made to suffer....sufficiently and deeply enough to make him/her want to NEVER...EVER again risk doing anything like it

and for those who simply are irretreivable lock em up somewhere representative of the vileness of their crime...
and if they have another original home...send em back

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Considering equality before the law is a fundamental of liberalism,  you are being the regressive. Lol!

But as seen its not actually equal

Age makes it different and not equal

Your being utterly thick

See what I mean be being emotional. You would make a poor advocate.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


But as seen its not actually equal

Age makes it different and not equal

Your being utterly thick

See what I mean be being emotional. You would make a poor advocate.

Not emotional, utterly in control

You know I just made you look stupid, hence your reply

Nothing is truly equal, just groups are equal under the law

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Children can be below the age of responsibility, so there is a rationale there.

So a baby of 2 that shoots his mother, as has happened, will be done for murder then?

Did I just make you look even more stupid?

Again more emotion. So emotional, that you misread Ben's and my posts.

Is a baby of 2 "responsible"? You made yourself look stupid. Again.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


So a baby of 2 that shoots his mother, as has happened, will be done for murder then?

Did I just make you look even more stupid?

Again more emotion. So emotional, that you misread Ben's and my posts.

Is a baby of 2 "responsible"? You made yourself look stupid. Again.

The only one stupid here is you not understand there is groups in equality, not all are equal

If all are equal, then no child would ever have to wait until 16 to be of age for many things

Children have far more rights than adults

So all are not equal, just within groups their should be equality

You really are thick

What you really mean to say as Ben should know, is that all should have equality under the law, not all are equal, as nobody is ever equal.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Again more emotion. So emotional, that you misread Ben's and my posts.

Is a baby of 2 "responsible"? You made yourself look stupid. Again.

The only one stupid here is you not understand there is groups in equality, not all are equal

If all are equal, then no child would ever have to wait until 16 to be of age for many things

Children have far more rights than adults

So all are not equal, just within groups their should be equality

You really are thick

Calm down bruv and try to have an educated discussion.

What have I said about the age of responsibility? Try to comprehend before abusing posters.

You could also put the mentally ill in that group. All based on rational reasoning.

But to deny that equality under the law is not a fundamental principle is beyond ignorant.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


The only one stupid here is you not understand there is groups in equality, not all are equal

If all are equal, then no child would ever have to wait until 16 to be of age for many things

Children have far more rights than adults

So all are not equal, just within groups their should be equality

You really are thick

Calm down bruv and try to have an educated discussion.

What have I said about the age of responsibility? Try to comprehend before abusing posters.

You could also put the mentally ill in that group. All based on rational reasoning.

But to deny that equality under the law is not a fundamental principle is beyond ignorant.

I am giving you the education, so poor attempt and deflection just made moot

Again you still fail to understand what you said was wrong

You said all are equal before the law, they are not, all have equality, under the law

There is a huge difference

Didge wrote:What you really mean to say as Ben should know, is that all should have equality under the law, not all are equal, as nobody is ever equal.

Lol! What do you think I said?

Your emotions are blinding you from what people have said.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:What you really mean to say as Ben should know, is that all should have equality under the law, not all are equal, as nobody is ever equal.

Lol! What do you think I said?

Your emotions are blinding you from what people have said.

I am fine, just laughing how you cannot grasp something so simple

You said all are equal under the law

That is wrong

All have equality under the law

It proves you are stupid

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! What do you think I said?

Your emotions are blinding you from what people have said.

I am fine, just laughing how you cannot grasp something so simple

You said all are equal under the law

That is wrong

All have equality under the law

It proves you are stupid

I didn't abuse you once bruv.

You are clearly suffering from another bout of TPS again. Tiny Penis Syndrome.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am fine, just laughing how you cannot grasp something so simple

You said all are equal under the law

That is wrong

All have equality under the law

It proves you are stupid

I didn't abuse you once bruv.

You are clearly suffering from another bout of TPS again. Tiny Penis Syndrome.

No just proving you are very thick mate

It proves it now you have gone on about your inadequacies

Sorry should have posted the pther part

At least you've admitted there is equality before law.

Now go back and apply that to your previous posts. HA HA!

Oh dear he still fails to grasp the difference lol

Nobody is equal before the law, but they have equality before the law

See if the penny drops lol

Maybe then zack can explain mitigating circumstances that makes nobody equal before the law, but having equality under the law

Give him some time to work it out lol

Didge wrote:Oh dear he still fails to grasp the difference lol

Nobody is equal before the law, but they have equality before the law

See if the penny drops lol

Which means all are entitled to due process and not some extra process, such as stripping citizenship.

You didn't answer my question on another thread: what is your level of education?

It is right that foreign criminals should be barred entry to this country and it is also right to remove foreign criminals from our country too!

The process can mean anything it wants to mean, where people who come here have a condition attached to their citizenship does it not?
That criminality forfeits that right

Like I said you really are one thick idiot

Has the point on all equal and the difference on all having equality under the law sunk in by his now avoiding speaking of this at all costs?

lol

Poor chapo

Didge wrote:The process can mean anything it wants to mean, where people who come here have a condition attached to their citizenship does it not?
That criminality forfeits that right

Like I said you really are one thick idiot

HA HA!

What is your level of education?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:The process can mean anything it wants to mean, where people who come here have a condition attached to their citizenship does it not?
That criminality forfeits that right

Like I said you really are one thick idiot

HA HA!

What is your level of education?

Clearly superior to yours

ha ha

Due process does not mean it can mean anything.

You must have been dropped on your head when you were a baby.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

HA HA!

What is your level of education?

Clearly superior to yours

ha ha

Then why are you so scared to answer?

So let me get this straight 

Zack wants to know my level of education

How exactly do you measure that over life?

Qualifications?

Acts?

Experience?

Number of influential people

Lets see what he says lol

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Due process does not mean it can mean anything.

You must have been dropped on your head when you were a baby.

It has variance as seen by groups

You lose the argument by your reply

I just call you thick

You are, mainly because you cannot open your eyes

Didge wrote:So let me get this straight 

Zack wants to know my level of education

How exactly do you measure that over life?

Qualifications?

Acts?

Experience?

Number of influential people

Lets see what he says lol

Just a simple question that you are clearly scared to answer.

I was just curious. But if you're going to be a pussy about it, don't worry. I won't ask again I don't want to take advantage of your clear insecurity.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:So let me get this straight 

Zack wants to know my level of education

How exactly do you measure that over life?

Qualifications?

Acts?

Experience?

Number of influential people

Lets see what he says lol

Just a simple question that you are clearly scared to answer.

I was just curious. But if you're going to be a pussy about it, don't worry. I won't ask again I don't want to take advantage of your clear insecurity.

Well levels of education come in many forms

You need to be more specific

You want to measure dicks and even then you are going to come up short

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Just a simple question that you are clearly scared to answer.

I was just curious. But if you're going to be a pussy about it, don't worry. I won't ask again I don't want to take advantage of your clear insecurity.

Well levels of education come in many forms

You need to be more specific

You want to measure dicks and even then you are coming to come up short

I was talking about school, college, undergrad, postgrad, doctorate?

My penis size is 4". What's yours?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well levels of education come in many forms

You need to be more specific

You want to measure dicks and even then you are coming to come up short

I was talking about school, college, undergrad, postgrad, doctorate?

My penis size is 4". What's yours?

ha ha like I said, you would come up short, double yours

 One history masters, one Psychology degree the later only recent.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I was talking about school, college, undergrad, postgrad, doctorate?

My penis size is 4". What's yours?

ha ha like I said, you would come up short, double yours

 One history masters, one Psychology degree the later only recent.

You see. That wasn't so hard, was it. And I don't mean your penis.

You're one insecure brother, considering how long it took you to answer.

So you ask me and then chicken out of saying yours lol

You have homophobia on the brain, for one you think I am gay and think such slurs are funny, yet are idiotic and immature

I am not your brother Zack, you are just a friend I see as very insecure, one that clearly has never had any female copulation with

If you had, you would not even begin to make the immature points on the size of a penis

Didge wrote:So you ask me and then chicken out of saying yours lol

You have homophobia on the brain, for one you think I am gay and think such slurs are funny, yet are idiotic and immature

I am not your brother Zack, you are just a friend I see as very insecure, one that clearly has never had any female copulation with

If you had, you would not even begin to make the immature points on the size of a penis

The fact you took so long to answer my question about your eduation; you don't have the guts to ask about mine, civilly; you mentioned dick sizes first, I was clearly joking and yet you still replied with insecurity; accusing me of some phantom gay slurs; saying I haven't had any female copulation; I'm not your brother...;

I think everyone can see who the insecure person is, bruv. HA HA!

1) Subjective babble based on no sound reasoning, just your view lo

2) You then claim joking making every insiuendo about getting hard around you. Clearly a huge aversion to homosexual men. Even though I am not, you associate me as one. Why?
To make it easier to insult

3) I think everyone can see its you zack
One that constantly uses sexuality as a weapon

Ben_Reilly wrote:And if it helps the victim so much to know their abuser will never be allowed to return to the UK, why not figure out a way to "deport" them all?

Why do the victims of UK-born pedos not deserve that, while the victims of foreign-born pedos do?

Where would one deport a British citizen to if they don't have dual nationality?

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Asian-born sex abusers will be stripped of their UK citizenship

What about the rest of the sex abusers? They get to remain citizens, don't they?

So these people are being punished more than the average sex abuser, because they're "Asian-born."

So the UK thinks its pedos are better than other countries' pedos? Actually, I'm not surprised at all.

I am sure if we could they would be sent away, but those British born cannot have their birth right taken away

Foreigners, they lose their right to stay

Why should the country keep them, after them have come here and then abused the rights of others?

My view would be anyone that comes to this country signs a contract. If you break that contract, just like in any job, you then have to leave

Its that simple

Child sex offenses is just about the most heinous crime to people and I really doubt anyone gives a stuff if anyone foreign also then gets booted out

Its called tough shit and good riddance no matter their ethnicity

Totally agree.


British born paedos are of course, just as much scum as anyone else, but if someone breaks the law who isn't born here, they should be sent back.

I'm of the opinion however, that ALL paedos be sent to an island and left there to die, wherever they're from.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

I am sure if we could they would be sent away, but those British born cannot have their birth right taken away

Foreigners, they lose their right to stay

Why should the country keep them, after them have come here and then abused the rights of others?

My view would be anyone that comes to this country signs a contract. If you break that contract, just like in any job, you then have to leave

Its that simple

Child sex offenses is just about the most heinous crime to people and I really doubt anyone gives a stuff if anyone foreign also then gets booted out

Its called tough shit and good riddance no matter their ethnicity

Totally agree.


British born paedos are of course, just as much scum as anyone else, but if someone breaks the law who isn't born here, they should be sent back.

I'm of the opinion however, that ALL paedos be sent to an island and left there to die, wherever they're from.

Agreed, they damage for life their victims, where again throughout this thread some seem to render them irrelevant to their actual abusers having the right to stay in that country. Its absurd and shows no compassion for the victims in anyway.
If people want to come and stay here, then they obey the law. If not they should be sent packing
Why should this or any other country have to accommodate those who come here and then abuse the invitation to stay by abusing the rights of another.
Some people really have their moral compass completely screwed up

Stormee wrote:We should take over an island somewhere and use it as a penal colony, send scum there to fend for themselves.
Look how the early Americans worked, died and settled.

Australia did alright out of it!

Didge wrote:Yeah grumpy bear you were impressed with the reply, admit it?

I was.  Couldn't have said it better myself 

Ben_Reilly wrote:You guys should stop pretending that I'm saying not to punish foreign-born sex criminals who have UK citizenship.

What I'm saying is that it seems unfair to punish your citizens who were born in other countries more than you punish your citizens born in your own country for the same crime.

Is that so hard to understand? It's like you're saying the same crime is somehow worse if the person wasn't born in the UK, and that it warrants more punishment.

We do punish sex offenders here.   A child sex offender has to stay in isolation, and God help them if other prisoner's get a hold of them.   They are the most despised and reviled.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:FYI: you can still have dual nationality and be born here.

But anyway, I'm going to defend Ben: the law should apply equally, for all citizens.

What I find ironic is that many of the "emotional posters" on here usually complain when the law is not applied equally. That's why lawyers and judges usually prosecute the law using rational thought and not emotions.

Yes, the abused suffers a "life sentence". But then give a life sentence to all citizens.

So, where exactly would you expect to deport a person with single British citizenship?   Why should another country take that person and expose it's community to further crimes?   I'm sure if we could find a country dumb enough to take them, we'd send them.    If a Brit went around raping kids in America, I'd expect America to deport them back here for us to deal with, and rightly so.    I wish we could give child rapists a life sentence, and chemical castration. Hell, serial and repeat child killers should be executed as they've opted out of the human race.  That we don't is down to our stupid laws on the matter and the EU human rights we have to knuckle down to.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:FYI: you can still have dual nationality and be born here.

But anyway, I'm going to defend Ben: the law should apply equally, for all citizens.

What I find ironic is that many of the "emotional posters" on here usually complain when the law is not applied equally. That's why lawyers and judges usually prosecute the law using rational thought and not emotions.

Yes, the abused suffers a "life sentence". But then give a life sentence to all citizens.

It's hard not to get emotional when talking about child abuse. People get upset and sometimes take positions that defy logic.

Also, I'm coming at this as an American -- we have the guarantee of equal protection under the law. The implication is that the law applies in the exact same way to anyone who is a legal citizen, and as far as I can tell, you either are a British citizen or you're not.

Any state act of stripping someone of citizenship should be reserved for treason. You start using it as some form of "bonus punishment" and you're no longer treating all citizens equally.

The US deports criminals, doesn't it?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Due process does not mean it can mean anything.

You must have been dropped on your head when you were a baby.

Would the argument be that a child molester, if sent back to Pakistan for example, where he might commit the same crime again and therefore end up swinging at the end of rope, be the concern here?   That his country of origin is so backward this would be his fate?  That he's safer in the UK?   That he can do time and then rinse and repeat?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:And if it helps the victim so much to know their abuser will never be allowed to return to the UK, why not figure out a way to "deport" them all?

Why do the victims of UK-born pedos not deserve that, while the victims of foreign-born pedos do?

Where would one deport a British citizen to if they don't have dual nationality?

This is a fact they can't seem to get their heads around.

Ben, there is no law of"treason" in Britain any more,

Tony Blair and the Labour party repealed it as soon as they gained power. Wonder why?

Foreign criminals should be deported.


It is bullshit to try to claim that this wouldn't affect British people because it is the same for us when we are in a foreign country and we commit crime... we are deported back to our home country too!!!