Immigration Bill Amendment Would Strip British Terror Suspects Of Passport And Citizenship (POLL)

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:53 pm

British terror suspects could be stripped of their passports and citizenship following a last-minute change to the Immigration Bill by the Home Secretary. The new amendment, a sop to Tory backbenchers desperate for more punitive legislation, was tabled by Theresa May on Wednesday, and would allow for the removal of a UK passport for any suspect whose actions are deemed “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK”.

Under current legislation, the Home Secretary can already withdraw British citizenship from anyone with dual nationality, howe ver, the amendment would give May the power to make people stateless regardless of any naturalisation as a British citizen.

The move drew immediate condemnation, most notably from director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti, who said: "Liberty always said that terror suspects should be charged and tried. First politicians avoided trials for foreign nationals; now they seek the same for their own citizens."

The campaigner added: "This move is as irresponsible as it is unjust. It would allow British Governments to dump dangerous people on the international community, but equally to punish potential innocent political dissenters without charge or trial. There is the edge of populist madness and then the abyss."

The Immigration Bill is scheduled to return to the Commons on Thursday evening, with May and David Cameron braced for a backbench revolt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/29/immigration-bill-amendment-theresa-may_n_4689098.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:54 pm

Ship all terror suspects to Syria to help rebuild in the name of Islam.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:57 pm

I remember that Thatcher did that when she stripped the Falkland Islanders of their citizenship. Argentina invaded after she did that.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm

Irn Bru wrote:I remember that Thatcher did that when she stripped the Falkland Islanders of their citizenship. Argentina invaded after she did that.

Oh yes, funny that.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:00 pm

Irn Bru wrote:I remember that Thatcher did that when she stripped the Falkland Islanders of their citizenship. Argentina invaded after she did that.

Then she won them back again after pulling off a great victory, which people applauded her for and which won her the next election, people see it way different to you Irn.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:02 pm

Still reading more of this they are also looking to have completely block foreign criminals appealing against deportation by claiming a right to a ''family life'' in the UK.

I agree with this, it is like when you take on employment, you know the rules, if you break them to the extent of gross misconduct, you are out, simple as that, the same should apply with people coming to this country, don;t break the law, or you are out. Should make people sign contracts on coming to the uk, would make it so much easier to deport those who commit crimes.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:04 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:I remember that Thatcher did that when she stripped the Falkland Islanders of their citizenship. Argentina invaded after she did that.

Then she won them back again after pulling off a great victory, which people applauded her for and which won her the next election, people see it way different to you Irn.

How many lives did that cost then?

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:05 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:I remember that Thatcher did that when she stripped the Falkland Islanders of their citizenship. Argentina invaded after she did that.

Then she won them back again after pulling off a great victory, which people applauded her for and which won her the next election, people see it way different to you Irn.

Argentina would not have invaded if she hadn't done it. And she'd never lost them to win them back, she discarded them.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:07 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Then she won them back again after pulling off a great victory, which people applauded her for and which won her the next election, people see it way different to you Irn.

Argentina would not have invaded if she hadn't done it. And she'd never lost them to win them back, she discarded them.

Hypothetical as nobody will ever know, people always say things in hindsight and say things after making claims, that though is after an event.

It really does not matter Sassy many will remember her for winning them back

by ALLAKAKA Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:09 pm

Brilliant !!!! send the scum back to the shitholes they came from.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:12 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Then she won them back again after pulling off a great victory, which people applauded her for and which won her the next election, people see it way different to you Irn.

Argentina would not have invaded if she hadn't done it. And she'd never lost them to win them back, she discarded them.

Hypothetical as nobody will ever know, people always say things in hindsight and say things after making claims, that though is after an event.

It really does not matter Sassy many will remember her for winning them back

Carrington resigned over the mess and the incompetence of it all Didge. That's not hypothetical.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:14 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hypothetical as nobody will ever know, people always say things in hindsight and say things after making claims, that though is after an event.

It really does not matter Sassy many will remember her for winning them back

Carrington resigned over the mess and the incompetence of it all Didge. That's not hypothetical.

Again it is hypothetical they would not have invaded.

You are basing this on hindsight

Again nobody really cares that you hate Maggie, she will be remembered as being great by many and for winning back the Falklands Irn, there is nothing you can say to change that

by ALLAKAKA Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:15 pm

Hardly surprising that 50% of the Puffington Post support terrorists.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:17 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hypothetical as nobody will ever know, people always say things in hindsight and say things after making claims, that though is after an event.

It really does not matter Sassy many will remember her for winning them back

Carrington resigned over the mess and the incompetence of it all Didge. That's not hypothetical.

Again it is hypothetical they would not have invaded.

You are basing this on hindsight

Again nobody really cares that you hate Maggie, she will be remembered as being great by many and for winning back the Falklands Irn, there is nothing you can say to change that

Oh well if it has come to the hating Maggie rhetoric rather than what actually happened then I suppose any rational discussion ends there.

Another day another time perhaps.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:18 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote: Hardly surprising that 50% of the Puffington Post support terrorists.

How do you figure that?

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:36 pm

Wow, revoking citizenship because someone is just suspected of terrorism? Not even being proven to have committed terrorism? That's barbaric.

I don't think I'd even support revoking the citizenship of someone who was convicted of terrorism, if only because a) you know some people who think like the Bush administration would be doing it in order to create horrible punishments for them, and b) you might find yourself in the position where you can't do anything to punish them directly without running into legal trouble.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:48 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Wow, revoking citizenship because someone is just suspected of terrorism? Not even being proven to have committed terrorism? That's barbaric.

I don't think I'd even support revoking the citizenship of someone who was convicted of terrorism, if only because a) you know some people who think like the Bush administration would be doing it in order to create horrible punishments for them, and b) you might find yourself in the position where you can't do anything to punish them directly without running into legal trouble.

So what do you suggest

as I see it...we either

revoke citzenship and kick em out...
lock em up forever (which is EXPENSIVE)
execute em...which is cheap enough granted...but do we wanna go there?

see my commentary on liberalists in the thinking deeply thread

why would you value some one who intends to/does destroy your own folks MORE?

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:52 pm

How do you even know whether a terrorist

SUSPECT

is a bad person who "intends to destroy your own folks" in the first place?

Do you know what "suspect" means?

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:06 pm

yer, but....when abdullah is caught with 30 lbs of HE in his rucksack
or has been caught out downloading terrorism 101 and receiving 10 grand from bin wally whotsit in afghanistan and his girlfriend is caught with another 2 grand in her knickers I dont think we need to worry to much about semantics do we?
and even IF we restrict it to convicted terrorists you still say its wrong???

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:15 pm

grumpy old git wrote:yer, but....when abdullah is caught with 30 lbs of HE in his rucksack
or has been caught out downloading terrorism 101 and receiving 10 grand from bin wally whotsit in afghanistan and his girlfriend is caught with another 2 grand in her knickers I dont think we need to worry to much about semantics do we?
and even IF we restrict it to convicted terrorists you still say its wrong???

First of all, nobody is ever actually "caught with explosives" or "caught out downloading terrorism manuals" unless you live in a police state where the word of some cop is final. Is that what you want the U.K. to be, a place where if the police said you did something, you're guilty?

Trial by a non-biased party or by opposing parties is a fundamental human right. Police have a rich history of planting evidence and everyone deserves to have that possibility taken into account in an orderly trial.

And yes, I find it sinister for a state to strip anyone convicted of a crime of their citizenship, because that means they no longer have any rights, doesn't it? For example, in the U.S. even if you're convicted of killing thousands of people, you still have the right not to be sentenced to a "cruel or unusual punishment" as a citizen.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:20 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:yer, but....when abdullah is caught with 30 lbs of HE in his rucksack
or has been caught out downloading terrorism 101 and receiving 10 grand from bin wally whotsit in afghanistan and his girlfriend is caught with another 2 grand in her knickers I dont think we need to worry to much about semantics do we?
and even IF we restrict it to convicted terrorists you still say its wrong???

First of all, nobody is ever actually "caught with explosives" or "caught out downloading terrorism manuals" unless you live in a police state where the word of some cop is final. Is that what you want the U.K. to be, a place where if the police said you did something, you're guilty?

Trial by a non-biased party or by opposing parties is a fundamental human right. Police have a rich history of planting evidence and everyone deserves to have that possibility taken into account in an orderly trial.

And yes, I find it sinister for a state to strip anyone convicted of a crime of their citizenship, because that means they no longer have any rights, doesn't it? For example, in the U.S. even if you're convicted of killing thousands of people, you still have the right not to be sentenced to a "cruel or unusual punishment" as a citizen.

and yet you would hang fry shoot or poison em??? (i take it federal charges can still invoke the DP?)
even if stripped of british citizenship they would still be entitled to their human rights under the European human rights act.
what DO you want us to do with em ??
Your lot would likely top em....at least we would have the grace to send em home.

by ALLAKAKA Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:36 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:yer, but....when abdullah is caught with 30 lbs of HE in his rucksack
or has been caught out downloading terrorism 101 and receiving 10 grand from bin wally whotsit in afghanistan and his girlfriend is caught with another 2 grand in her knickers I dont think we need to worry to much about semantics do we?
and even IF we restrict it to convicted terrorists you still say its wrong???

First of all, nobody is ever actually "caught with explosives" or "caught out downloading terrorism manuals" unless you live in a police state where the word of some cop is final. Is that what you want the U.K. to be, a place where if the police said you did something, you're guilty?

Trial by a non-biased party or by opposing parties is a fundamental human right. Police have a rich history of planting evidence and everyone deserves to have that possibility taken into account in an orderly trial.

And yes, I find it sinister for a state to strip anyone convicted of a crime of their citizenship, because that means they no longer have any rights, doesn't it? For example, in the U.S. even if you're convicted of killing thousands of people, you still have the right not to be sentenced to a "cruel or unusual punishment" as a citizen.

You obviously know fuck all of the things that go on in the UK , we have those with British Passports and not only do they not integrate but work against the country in acts of terrorism and when they are on the run from the authorities they go BACK HOME with that other passport they have for their homeland.

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:42 pm

Ah, you guys can throw up bullshit that doesn't matter all day, it still doesn't change the fundamental right of the accused to be tried for guilt before any punishment is given out.

I don't know much about what goes on in the U.K., nor do I really care that much, but it sounds a lot like Cameron can't run anything and that a lot of the citizenry believes reverting to some sort of "law of the jungle" mentality would be preferable.

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:48 pm

Thats what happens when the law of the land becomes in disrepute..sad and regretable but i think inevitable.

and you are dead right about cameron he couldnt run a piss up in a brewery....

by Guest Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:52 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ah, you guys can throw up bullshit that doesn't matter all day, it still doesn't change the fundamental right of the accused to be tried for guilt before any punishment is given out.

I don't know much about what goes on in the U.K., nor do I really care that much, but it sounds a lot like Cameron can't run anything and that a lot of the citizenry believes reverting to some sort of "law of the jungle" mentality would be preferable.

I did say even IF we restricted it to convicted terrorists....thereby admitting to the possibility that perhaps mere suspicion is a little harsh

so saying that and we have our pet terrorist all nicely convicted ....what then??

do we
kick em out
lock em up forever..
shoot/hang em

or what?

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:14 am

I think there is some semantics here that are important, are we talking passports or full citizenship removal.
Passports we take away here, for things less than terrorism. But I don’t think you can lose your citizenship unless you have another.

I think the UK is like here where the particular individuals they are trying to target have dual citizenship and use the British passport to travel to a wider range of nations with less scrutiny.

It is still a slippery slope so would generally not support it.

@grumpy
lock them up.

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:17 am

veya_victaous wrote:I think there is some semantics here that are important, are we talking passports or full citizenship removal.
Passports we take away here, for things less than terrorism. But I don’t think you can lose your citizenship unless you have another.

I think the UK is like here where the particular individuals they are trying to target have dual citizenship and use the British passport to travel to a wider range of nations with less scrutiny.

It is still a slippery slope so would generally not support it.

@grumpy
lock them up.

and who pays??? It costs us enough to (inadequately) incarcerate our own scumbags

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:19 am

grumpy old git wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:I think there is some semantics here that are important, are we talking passports or full citizenship removal.
Passports we take away here, for things less than terrorism. But I don’t think you can lose your citizenship unless you have another.

I think the UK is like here where the particular individuals they are trying to target have dual citizenship and use the British passport to travel to a wider range of nations with less scrutiny.

It is still a slippery slope so would generally not support it.

@grumpy
lock them up.

and who pays??? It costs us enough to (inadequately) incarcerate our own scumbags

Who ever said having a civilization doesn't come with a price tag? Who pays for the salaries of your soldiers? By your logic, it's unfair to have to pay for a military to keep your country safe from invasion!

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:23 am

No...I gain an indirect and direct benefit from that the military
incarcerating scumbags when we could and should rightly send em home gains neither me or the nation any benefit

by ALLAKAKA Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:28 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ah, you guys can throw up bullshit that doesn't matter all day, it still doesn't change the fundamental right of the accused to be tried for guilt before any punishment is given out.

I don't know much about what goes on in the U.K., nor do I really care that much, but it sounds a lot like Cameron can't run anything and that a lot of the citizenry believes reverting to some sort of "law of the jungle" mentality would be preferable.

Let me put it this way , you have some UK passport holders in Guantanamo Bay and release them back to the UK , now they may have dual nationality , say Pakistan. they re-enter the UK very bitter and it has hardened their terrorist ideals. So they blow up US Embassy's ect in the UK. Now should we in the UK be bothered if it is only American personnel that are killed.

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:51 am

@grumpy
Earn More!!!
Fuck it is not like UK is in a unique position, Yes You are facing EXACTLY the same issue as every other western nation on the planet!!!! You’re just Whinging about it more, maybe because you haven't had and dealt with the Cultural issues the English caused on half the other continents.

Like Ben Said Civil Society does not come without a price tag.

"Send them Home".. Fuck wouldn’t the Aboriginals/native Americans/Indians/Pakistanis/Maoris have LOVED to do that to the English Terrorists that came to their land !!!!
Evolve, Move on, Adapt Your world is just as susceptible to change as the societies you forced it on. Now the world has turned and it is England’s turn to play catch up because it is behind the modern world.

by ALLAKAKA Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:05 am

veya_victaous wrote:@grumpy
Earn More!!!
Fuck it is not like UK is in a unique position, Yes You are facing EXACTLY the same issue as every other western nation on the planet!!!! You’re just Whinging about it more, maybe because you haven't had and dealt with the Cultural issues the English caused on half the other continents.

Like Ben Said Civil Society does not come without a price tag.

"Send them Home".. Fuck wouldn’t the Aboriginals/native Americans/Indians/Pakistanis/Maoris have LOVED to do that to the English Terrorists that came to their land !!!!
Evolve, Move on, Adapt Your world is just as susceptible to change as the societies you forced it on. Now the world has turned and it is England’s turn to play catch up because it is behind the modern world.

Then by your argument when the English are a Minority in their own land in years to come you will condone English Terrorists for carrying on that cycle.

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:11 am

veya_victaous wrote:@grumpy
Earn More!!!

Again...tell those idiots in westminster that fgs....dont you think I'm as pissed about it as anyone??

Fuck it is not like UK is in a unique position, Yes You are facing EXACTLY the same issue as every other western nation on the planet!!!! You’re just Whinging about it more, maybe because you haven't had and dealt with the Cultural issues the English caused on half the other continents.

Like Ben Said Civil Society does not come without a price tag.

"Send them Home".. Fuck wouldn’t the Aboriginals/native Americans/Indians/Pakistanis/Maoris have LOVED to do that to the English Terrorists that came to their land !!!!
Evolve, Move on, Adapt Your world is just as susceptible to change as the societies you forced it on. Now the world has turned and it is England’s turn to play catch up because it is behind the modern world.

Nuts... what happened 100 200 years ago aint my concern...I didnt vote for it...this view of "britain getting its just deserts, comming from abroad is EXACTLY the sort of thing we dont want....It only encourages the R/W idiots....for crying out loud when will you lot "out there " get it!! the vast majority of british have NO problem with reasonable immigration, NOR do many have a problem with helping out refugees from the various horrors going on (even though by UN rules we shouldnt have to) what we do have are those who by stealth turn and bite the hand that feeds em, and share the common aim of turning britain into a copy of the hell hole they recently left. At least the british in the past had the grace and open-ness to turn up as open warriors looking for conquest, they didnt sneak into underground trains and kill people on the sly..Even their worst crimes..like the concentration camps in africa were at least "relatively " in the open as far as public knowlege was concerned. Yes britain has done plenty of shitty things...so has the rest of the world...that doesnt change whats happening now OR justify it....you sound as if you are doing just that...justifying terrorism on the basis of our "PAST " crimes....

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:40 am

what you guys "out there " dont understand or see about british politics is this

MOST people tend to vote how the were "taught to vote"

me dad voted XXX so I'll Vote XXX
a few will vote for the guy they like..
and a few will vote tactically

BUT there is a slow and deadly undercurrent growing

catman mentions it when hes keeps whittling on about the comming "revolution" and water cannons...and HE thinks its a L/W thing...he is deluded.

there is a slow but steady creep to the right, ant one time parties like the BNP and UKIP were almost totally marginalised and were thought of as disgusting by a solid majority.This is no longer the case, UKIP support is growing the BNP would be in a better state but for one reason....
whats worse is that there is a creeping tolerance to the R/W, It is seen as being legitimate by an increasing number of people.

IF you posed the question would you worry if there was a very R/W govt in charge I bet you...

10% would say yes
10% would say no
and 80% wouldnt give a flying f**K as long as it didnt bite THEM

and herin lies the danger, because all it takes to swing those figures from
that to
10% saying yes
30% saying no
and 60% not giving a toss
is a terrorist atrocity at the wrong time, or a big enough atrocity at any time. and the present system being seen as ineffectual (which it undeniably is anyway)
and with our mad voting system THAT could put an extreme R/W govt in a majority govt in westminster....thats all it takes.

Other countries sitting there cheering will only make the situation worse...
if the electorate REALLY threw the teddy out of the pram by the double insult of some prat from another power telling us its all our fault any way because of colonialism AND there WAS to be a terrorist attack, it is a forseeable possibility that we could see the return of a 100% R/W govt....ie NO opposition at all....
remeber..our voting system can return a govt on a 30% turn out with less than 30% of the votes going to each winning candidate...

remember that 20% swing in opinion I mentioned above?????

and you wonder why moderates like me are nervous.........

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:10 am

grumpy old git wrote:what you guys "out there " dont understand or see about british politics is this

MOST people tend to vote how the were "taught to vote"

me dad voted XXX so I'll Vote XXX
a few will vote for the guy they like..
and a few will vote tactically

BUT there is a slow and deadly undercurrent growing

catman mentions it when hes keeps whittling on about the comming "revolution" and water cannons...and HE thinks its a L/W thing...he is deluded

there is a slow but steady creep to the right, ant one time parties like the BNP and UKIP were almost totally marginalised and were thought of as disgusting by a solid majority.This is no longer the case, UKIP support is growing the BNP would be in a better state but for one reason....
whats worse is that there is a creeping tolerance to the R/W, It is seen as being legitimate by an increasing number of people.

IF you posed the question would you worry if there was a very R/W govt in charge I bet you...

10% would say yes
10% would say no
and 80% wouldnt give a flying f**K as long as it didnt bite THEM

and herin lies the danger, because all it takes to swing those figures from
that to
10% saying yes
30% saying no
and 60% not giving a toss
is a terrorist atrocity at the wrong time, or a big enough atrocity at any time. and the present system being seen as ineffectual (which it undeniably is anyway)
and with our mad voting system THAT could put an extreme R/W govt in a majority govt in westminster....thats all it takes.

Other countries sitting there cheering will only make the situation worse...
if the electorate REALLY threw the teddy out of the pram by the double insult of some prat from another power telling us its all our fault any way because of colonialism AND there WAS to be a terrorist attack, it is a forseeable possibility that we could see the return of a 100% R/W govt....ie NO opposition at all....
remeber..our voting system can return a govt on a 30% turn out with less than 30% of the votes going to each winning candidate...

remember that 20% swing in opinion I mentioned above?????

and you wonder why moderates like me are nervous.........

I never said that it would just be a LW thing, but mostly LW! :D

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:11 am

ALLAKAKA wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@grumpy
Earn More!!!
Fuck it is not like UK is in a unique position, Yes You are facing EXACTLY the same issue as every other western nation on the planet!!!! You’re just Whinging about it more, maybe because you haven't had and dealt with the Cultural issues the English caused on half the other continents.

Like Ben Said Civil Society does not come without a price tag.

"Send them Home".. Fuck wouldn’t the Aboriginals/native Americans/Indians/Pakistanis/Maoris have LOVED to do that to the English Terrorists that came to their land !!!!
Evolve, Move on, Adapt Your world is just as susceptible to change as the societies you forced it on. Now the world has turned and it is England’s turn to play catch up because it is behind the modern world.

Then by your argument when the English are a Minority in their own land in years to come you will condone English Terrorists for carrying on that cycle.

OR they could be civilized, and make Native title claims and use the legal system. Like the Majority of those peoples past effected do today.

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:27 am

@grumpy
that is the same as us, who have inherited the westminster system

My point not a single one of the issues the British are presenting is Unique to the UK. other nations are either dealing or dealt with it already.

And the RW was getting that strong here 15 years ago, but like the stats show we kept moving forward and now have TWICE the number of immigriants per capita than the UK. the One Nation party (equivelent of BNP) is dead they got a few seats in one elections then nothing much ever again, because IF they become a threat both the major parties will turn on them. And they will put skeletons in the closet if they don't find any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Nation_(Australia)

by nicko Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:11 pm

veya,you don't like the british do you? you seem to like running us down. don't forget one of your ancestors may have been hung for sheep stealing.

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:14 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ah, you guys can throw up bullshit that doesn't matter all day, it still doesn't change the fundamental right of the accused to be tried for guilt before any punishment is given out.

I don't know much about what goes on in the U.K., nor do I really care that much, but it sounds a lot like Cameron can't run anything and that a lot of the citizenry believes reverting to some sort of "law of the jungle" mentality would be preferable.

Yeah you DONT know much about goes on here

So wind it in

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:18 pm

Again, the Conservatives have listened to something the electorate have been saying for years.

The people of Britain have begged the government to do something - Labour didn't just ignore the people but branded them racists.

At least the Conservatives are trying.

by ALLAKAKA Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:53 pm

nicko wrote:veya,you don't like the british do you? you seem to like running us down. don't forget one of your ancestors may have been hung for sheep stealing.

More likely Kiddie Fiddling.

by nicko Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:56 pm

I do n't know much about what goes on in the uk,and I don't really care".if that's the case keep your mouth shut and pass opinions on things you know nothing about! typical yank all mouth and trousers.

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:58 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Ah, you guys can throw up bullshit that doesn't matter all day, it still doesn't change the fundamental right of the accused to be tried for guilt before any punishment is given out.

I don't know much about what goes on in the U.K., nor do I really care that much, but it sounds a lot like Cameron can't run anything and that a lot of the citizenry believes reverting to some sort of "law of the jungle" mentality would be preferable.

Yeah you DONT know much about goes on here

So wind it in

What a counter, bravo, that really told him.

Not

://?roflmao?/:

I can see his point and his counter is based on sense, where most against here are emotive.

To me we should be able to remove what we know to be terrorist suspects or even those who promote extremists view like Anjem Choudary who has no wish to conform to democracy and proof is mounting to links he has with known convicted terrorists.

Most of the terrorist suspects are know to back the extremists views, so to me they should go to countries where they get their wish to live under a theology and allow the decent Muslims to get on with their lives

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:58 pm

nicko wrote:I do n't know much about what goes on in the uk,and I don't really care".if that's the case keep your mouth shut and pass opinions on things you know nothing about! typical yank all mouth and trousers.

Nicko, chill out, no need for that

by nicko Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:59 pm

should read don't pass opinions

by nicko Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:00 pm

sorry, bad day,

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:00 pm

Again chill out

by ALLAKAKA Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:02 pm

nicko wrote:I do n't know much about what goes on in the uk,and I don't really care".if that's the case keep your mouth shut and pass opinions on things you know nothing about! typical yank all mouth and trousers.

IN TOTAL AGREEMENT.

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Yeah you DONT know much about goes on here

So wind it in

What a counter, bravo, that really told him.

Not

://?roflmao?/:

I can see his point and his counter is based on sense, where most against here are emotive.

To me we should be able to remove what we know to be terrorist suspects or even those who promote extremists view like Anjem Choudary who has no wish to conform to democracy and proof is mounting to links he has with known convicted terrorists.

Most of the terrorist suspects are know to back the extremists views, so to me they should go to countries where they get their wish to live under a theology and allow the decent Muslims to get on with their lives

What stupidity

Where would you remove anjem choudary to??

Choudary is not the problem, ISLAM is the problem

And Unless Islam is muzzled and defanged through state monitoring,legislation and regulation then removing the likes of choudary will only result in ten more springing up in his place

This is nothing more than the Tory wing of the party, making noises to boost their popularity amongst the plebs and placate their rowdy backbenchers

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:14 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

What a counter, bravo, that really told him.

Not

://?roflmao?/:

I can see his point and his counter is based on sense, where most against here are emotive.

To me we should be able to remove what we know to be terrorist suspects or even those who promote extremists view like Anjem Choudary who has no wish to conform to democracy and proof is mounting to links he has with known convicted terrorists.

Most of the terrorist suspects are know to back the extremists views, so to me they should go to countries where they get their wish to live under a theology and allow the decent Muslims to get on with their lives

What stupidity

Where would you remove anjem choudary to??
Your house

Choudary is not the problem, ISLAM is the problem
He is a problem
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/am/

And Unless Islam is muzzled and defanged through state monitoring,legislation and regulation then removing the likes of choudary will only result in ten more springing up in his place
Oh dear, here we go again back to absurd notions on the religion itself, not that there are many cases of neologism as there are with all faiths.
He has no wish to follow democracy and wants to install extremist beliefs, so to me he can have the first available plane ticket to go to a theocracy and any who spout the same, can do the same

This is nothing more than the Tory wing of the party, making noises to boost their popularity amongst the plebs and placate their rowdy backbenchers

Hilarious, and you place stock in the British Numpty Party, says it all really

by Sponsored content