How effing stupid are we?
-
digital man wrote:
Leaves me speechless with anger and disbelief.
That people were arrested without charges and released only to be deported?
From the article: "The ruling effectively means that MI5's case against two of the men has been supported by the courts even though neither of them was ever charged with a criminal offence."
Distind wrote:
That people were arrested without charges and released only to be deported?
I'd rather err on the side of caution and send them back where they'd plainly rather be than leave them here to begin plotting more damage and murder.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
From the article: "The ruling effectively means that MI5's case against two of the men has been supported by the courts even though neither of them was ever charged with a criminal offence."
Distind wrote:
That people were arrested without charges and released only to be deported?
I'd rather err on the side of caution and send them back where they'd plainly rather be than leave them here to begin plotting more damage and murder.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
Here's the problem, this is where CSS charges in with accusations of people just lying down for the government in the name of safety and I can't argue with him. Perhaps I'm missing something critical here, but the courts supporting the case doesn't mean squat unless they're actually charged with something. If they could actually prove he was plotting something, sure, but that would certainly entail some form of criminal charges. This is the kind of crap that alienates people enough to consider killing others in the first place. If he was a native what would they be doing with him? Can't just deport him. But hey, let's deport him and remind people they can be deported for no provable reason. That certainly won't cause any further tension.
-
Here's the problem, this is where CSS charges in with accusations of people just lying down for the government in the name of safety and I can't argue with him. Perhaps I'm missing something critical here, but the courts supporting the case doesn't mean squat unless they're actually charged with something. If they could actually prove he was plotting something, sure, but that would certainly entail some form of criminal charges. This is the kind of crap that alienates people enough to consider killing others in the first place. If he was a native what would they be doing with him? Can't just deport him. But hey, let's deport him and remind people they can be deported for no provable reason. That certainly won't cause any further tension.
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck. And I'd still rather err on the side of caution and a) deport or b) lock up and throw away the key (if he was bore here). However, even those that are born here would rather turn this into 14th century Englandistan so I don't think sending them to where they'd really rather be is that much of a hardship and I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck. And I'd still rather err on the side of caution and a) deport or b) lock up and throw away the key (if he was bore here). However, even those that are born here would rather turn this into 14th century Englandistan so I don't think sending them to where they'd really rather be is that much of a hardship and I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck.
Of course the fact that they refuse to prove it is a duck and charge it with being a duck. Saying "well, we know it is a duck" is a cop out. How would you like to be told you are a duck, be given no chance to prove you are not a duck, and be thrown in jail without a key?
digital man wrote:
If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
Strawman. You are equating giving the person a place to stay with giving them a fair trial where the state proves its case and legal action should be taken after it has done so. The first is not reasonable since he does not know the person and is might believe the charges true, the second is not reasonable because it does not allow someone to dispute the charges against them, a hard examining of the evidence and the process by which things are vetted to happen. When a state can decide it doesn't need to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges it brings up against you, that state is well on the way to tyranny. NO ONE, should condone this just to feel safe. Americans need to wake up about this and apparently so do the Brits.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Here's the problem, this is where CSS charges in with accusations of people just lying down for the government in the name of safety and I can't argue with him. Perhaps I'm missing something critical here, but the courts supporting the case doesn't mean squat unless they're actually charged with something. If they could actually prove he was plotting something, sure, but that would certainly entail some form of criminal charges. This is the kind of crap that alienates people enough to consider killing others in the first place. If he was a native what would they be doing with him? Can't just deport him. But hey, let's deport him and remind people they can be deported for no provable reason. That certainly won't cause any further tension.
They are still immigrants, not citizens, and this country is so hog tied by the Eurocrap that is has no say in who resides here.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
digital man wrote:
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck.
Of course the fact that they refuse to prove it is a duck and charge it with being a duck. Saying "well, we know it is a duck" is a cop out. How would you like to be told you are a duck, be given no chance to prove you are not a duck, and be thrown in jail without a key?
digital man wrote:
If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
Strawman. You are equating giving the person a place to stay with giving them a fair trial where the state proves its case and legal action should be taken after it has done so. The first is not reasonable since he does not know the person and is might believe the charges true, the second is not reasonable because it does not allow someone to dispute the charges against them, a hard examining of the evidence and the process by which things are vetted to happen. When a state can decide it doesn't need to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges it brings up against you, that state is well on the way to tyranny. NO ONE, should condone this just to feel safe. Americans need to wake up about this and apparently so do the Brits.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
How would you like to be told you are a duck, be given no chance to prove you are not a duck, and be thrown in jail without a key?
I wouldn't but I don't act like a duck and I'm not advocating that the UK should become a muslim state.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Strawman. You are equating giving the person a place to stay with giving them a fair trial where the state proves its case and legal action should be taken after it has done so.
Nonsense: I was challenging him to accept the fact that there comes a point where any government has to make some decisions that appear to go against common sense and justice. If he is that convinced that they pose no threat, regardless of the legal status, let him shelter them rather than have them deported. It's real easy for people to moan about these seemingly draconian measures but I'd rather they did that and made a few mistakes than risk innocent people being blown up or rolling over and giving into to extremist islam.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When a state can decide it doesn't need to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges it brings up against you, that state is well on the way to tyranny. NO ONE, should condone this just to feel safe. Americans need to wake up about this and apparently so do the Brits.
Most of the time I would stand right behind you with this. But these are not normal times: there are many people we have welcomed to these shores who would see it destroyed. I doubt they'll succeed but I'm damned if I'm going to hog-tie those that we charge with protecting us just to make some liberals feel all warm and cosy.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
How would you like to be told you are a duck, be given no chance to prove you are not a duck, and be thrown in jail without a key?
I wouldn't but I don't act like a duck and I'm not advocating that the UK should become a muslim state.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Strawman. You are equating giving the person a place to stay with giving them a fair trial where the state proves its case and legal action should be taken after it has done so.
Nonsense: I was challenging him to accept the fact that there comes a point where any government has to make some decisions that appear to go against common sense and justice. If he is that convinced that they pose no threat, regardless of the legal status, let him shelter them rather than have them deported. It's real easy for people to moan about these seemingly draconian measures but I'd rather they did that and made a few mistakes than risk innocent people being blown up or rolling over and giving into to extremist islam.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When a state can decide it doesn't need to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges it brings up against you, that state is well on the way to tyranny. NO ONE, should condone this just to feel safe. Americans need to wake up about this and apparently so do the Brits.
Most of the time I would stand right behind you with this. But these are not normal times: there are many people we have welcomed to these shores who would see it destroyed. I doubt they'll succeed but I'm damned if I'm going to hog-tie those that we charge with protecting us just to make some liberals feel all warm and cosy.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
But these are not normal times: there are many people we have welcomed to these shores who would see it destroyed. I doubt they'll succeed but I'm damned if I'm going to hog-tie those that we charge with protecting us just to make some liberals feel all warm and cosy.
Are you looking for a legal derogation?
-
digital man wrote:
But these are not normal times: there are many people we have welcomed to these shores who would see it destroyed. I doubt they'll succeed but I'm damned if I'm going to hog-tie those that we charge with protecting us just to make some liberals feel all warm and cosy.
Are you looking for a legal derogation?
No, I would ask to completely repeal the EHRA. If France wants them, let France keep them, but the British should be able to say "GO!"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
No, I would ask to completely repeal the EHRA. If France wants them, let France keep them, but the British should be able to say "GO!"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
digital man wrote:
But these are not normal times: there are many people we have welcomed to these shores who would see it destroyed. I doubt they'll succeed but I'm damned if I'm going to hog-tie those that we charge with protecting us just to make some liberals feel all warm and cosy.
Are you looking for a legal derogation?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Are you looking for a legal derogation?
In which respect? The current law as it pertains to terrorism or incoming EU laws that tie our hands with respect to immigration?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
No, I would ask to completely repeal the EHRA.
What would you replace it with? There has to be something enshrined into law that restricts what the authorities can do to you as an individual.
I would replace it with the "Foreign Subjects Visiting or Residing in UK Act" That will tell them that they must obey the laws and customs of this country, and if they don't like it they can fuck off. If that means repatriating them to shithole regimes where they can be tortured and killed, then so be it. The flight back will be long enough for them to reflect on their folly of coming to Britain with evil intentions. British Subjects already have enough in law to protect them, and part of that protection is to be protected from foreign enemies. Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted should be deported in the national interest. They can fight the case via their embassies and governments. The first duty of any government is to protect it's people, and even if there is not enough proof, a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I would replace it with the "Foreign Subjects Visiting or Residing in UK Act" That will tell them that they must obey the laws and customs of this country, and if they don't like it they can fuck off. If that means repatriating them to shithole regimes where they can be tortured and killed, then so be it. The flight back will be long enough for them to reflect on their folly of coming to Britain with evil intentions. British Subjects already have enough in law to protect them, and part of that protection is to be protected from foreign enemies. Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted should be deported in the national interest. They can fight the case via their embassies and governments. The first duty of any government is to protect it's people, and even if there is not enough proof, a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Very well put: I particularly like: "That will tell them that they must obey the laws and customs of this country, and if they don't like it they can f*** off." If only we had politicians with the nads to say that.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Are you looking for a legal derogation?
In which respect? The current law as it pertains to terrorism or incoming EU laws that tie our hands with respect to immigration?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
Enshrined into UK law - Human Rights Act 1998 - The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a 39 page pdf, defines the extent of derogation in Article 15 states [quote] In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law. [/quote]. Terrorism no doubt is a reason to apply such a derogation. However, in the UK Act, AFAIK, it refers to anti-terrorism measures but as this act was written in the times when Northern Ireland was an issue. Perhaps other Statutory Instruments exist which amend that clause of said act to encompass further examples of terrorism.
-
digital man wrote:
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck.
Of course the fact that they refuse to prove it is a duck and charge it with being a duck. Saying "well, we know it is a duck" is a cop out. How would you like to be told you are a duck, be given no chance to prove you are not a duck, and be thrown in jail without a key?
digital man wrote:
If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
Strawman. You are equating giving the person a place to stay with giving them a fair trial where the state proves its case and legal action should be taken after it has done so. The first is not reasonable since he does not know the person and is might believe the charges true, the second is not reasonable because it does not allow someone to dispute the charges against them, a hard examining of the evidence and the process by which things are vetted to happen. When a state can decide it doesn't need to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges it brings up against you, that state is well on the way to tyranny. NO ONE, should condone this just to feel safe. Americans need to wake up about this and apparently so do the Brits.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Remember that whole mess where Dubya was holding people in Gitmo without trial... Suspended habeus corpus and all that? Looks like it's the Brits' turn to tackle that issue.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Enshrined into UK law - Human Rights Act 1998 - The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a 39 page pdf, defines the extent of derogation in Article 15 states [quote] In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law. [/quote]. Terrorism no doubt is a reason to apply such a derogation. However, in the UK Act, AFAIK, it refers to anti-terrorism measures but as this act was written in the times when Northern Ireland was an issue. Perhaps other Statutory Instruments exist which amend that clause of said act to encompass further examples of terrorism.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Terrorism no doubt is a reason to apply such a derogation. However, in the UK Act, AFAIK, it refers to anti-terrorism measures but as this act was written in the times when Northern Ireland was an issue. Perhaps other Statutory Instruments exist which amend that clause of said act to encompass further examples of terrorism.
I guess that would depend upon how one defines terrorism in respect of the act. Was it tightly bound to a specific need (as in NI) or can it be more widely interpreted to encompass any anti-terror measures as deemed fit by the government of the day? Interesting.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
I would replace it with the "Foreign Subjects Visiting or Residing in UK Act" That will tell them that they must obey the laws and customs of this country, and if they don't like it they can fuck off. If that means repatriating them to shithole regimes where they can be tortured and killed, then so be it. The flight back will be long enough for them to reflect on their folly of coming to Britain with evil intentions. British Subjects already have enough in law to protect them, and part of that protection is to be protected from foreign enemies. Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted should be deported in the national interest. They can fight the case via their embassies and governments. The first duty of any government is to protect it's people, and even if there is not enough proof, a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
That will tell them that they must obey the laws and customs of this country, and if they don't like it they can f*** off.
Including the concept of "Innocent until proven Guilty"?
No, including the principal of "We do not Fuck about with the safety of our citizens".
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I would replace it with the "Foreign Subjects Visiting or Residing in UK Act" That will tell them that they must obey the laws and customs of this country, and if they don't like it they can fuck off. If that means repatriating them to shithole regimes where they can be tortured and killed, then so be it. The flight back will be long enough for them to reflect on their folly of coming to Britain with evil intentions. British Subjects already have enough in law to protect them, and part of that protection is to be protected from foreign enemies. Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted should be deported in the national interest. They can fight the case via their embassies and governments. The first duty of any government is to protect it's people, and even if there is not enough proof, a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
evil intentions
How do you know what their intentions are? You haven't proved they were even involved.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted
If they're not convicted, how do you know they're criminals and terrorists? Maybe the cops just picked them up because they're Arabs, and happened to be within ten city blocks of where the bomb was supposed to go off.
Dalek Dave wrote:
a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
Dave... All I can say is... Orwell would be proud of you. Seriously, guys... You're really toeing the line between law and ThoughtCrime. You want to deport people just because you think they might be involved in something? Obviously I don't want to sound like Pillowpants here, but this is a slippery slope. If you let the government deport foreigners or lock them up just because they MIGHT be involved in something, you're basically giving your politicians free reign to do whatever they want to anyone who isn't a citizen. Now, it could be argued that the bar for "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Or whatever the UK equivalent) could be set a bit lower for foreigners, but there should still be some form of real evidence required for the government to act against someone.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
evil intentions
How do you know what their intentions are? You haven't proved they were even involved.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Criminals and Terrorists, even if not convicted
If they're not convicted, how do you know they're criminals and terrorists? Maybe the cops just picked them up because they're Arabs, and happened to be within ten city blocks of where the bomb was supposed to go off.
Dalek Dave wrote:
a foreigner must be deported even at the suspicion of involvement so as to ensure that the thought does not become the deed.
Dave... All I can say is... Orwell would be proud of you. Seriously, guys... You're really toeing the line between law and ThoughtCrime. You want to deport people just because you think they might be involved in something? Obviously I don't want to sound like Pillowpants here, but this is a slippery slope. If you let the government deport foreigners or lock them up just because they MIGHT be involved in something, you're basically giving your politicians free reign to do whatever they want to anyone who isn't a citizen. Now, it could be argued that the bar for "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Or whatever the UK equivalent) could be set a bit lower for foreigners, but there should still be some form of real evidence required for the government to act against someone.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)In reality, this case showed intent and proof, however owing to the nature of the proof (Intelligence Sources) it could not come to trial, but it would be safe to say that there was enough here to warrent the deportation, even the court agreed with that, it just found itself tied by the EHRA. The police and authorities aren't going to go to all that trouble over an argument in a restaurant or a traffic violation, but it gives them the right to do this if enough intelligence take is available, even if that is under the OSA so it cannot be stated in open court. We do not live in a police state (not yet), and they will not deport simply because of race, religion or ethnicity. They would, though, if there were serious questions of intent. OK, we do not live in a perfect world, deal with it. But I want a state that errs on the side of caution than risk of offence. When you are lying there in the remains of a blown up building, minus a leg and with your dead children around you, will your first thought be of the human rights of these animals?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck. And I'd still rather err on the side of caution and a) deport or b) lock up and throw away the key (if he was bore here). However, even those that are born here would rather turn this into 14th century Englandistan so I don't think sending them to where they'd really rather be is that much of a hardship and I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck
but if it weighs the same as a duck then it's a witch! I agree with a) but the problem I see is that they were concerned with what would happen to him if he was deported. On an intellectual level, I'd still be saying it's not your issue what happens to him when he got sent back but then that only leaves b) which would be paid for by..well...me. Which I wouldn't want to agree to.