6 coppers to take him down or 1 member of the public with his bike? 
 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

It deportation in certain cases - its the wholeblanket statement to cover everyone and every situation that is too simplistic a position, and it seems that's what Labour wanted , and that isn't and never will be the case.

Fixed it for you 

7 minutes ago, royal white said:

Fixed it for you 

No idea why you keep adding Labour into it. I've given my personal view on the matter.

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Everything is this government's fault. Irrespective of when laws, policies or whatever we're introduced, its like the premier league, UK governance only started in 2010.

Quite right about skin colour too. The default position of social engineers- bring race into it- the most patronising and disrespectful way to treat the very folk they're purport to defend.

Jesus 😆

My point was that once someone has right to remain/British citizenship then in law they are treated equally to everyone. That's not bringing race into it to make an argument, it's simply stating the current justice system. But do carry on with your social engineering bollocks 💗 

It's irrelevant whether the policy started with Labour or not, I've no idea why folk on here keep mentioning it. The policy is complex and doesn't work for everyone. Of course illegals who've travelled far and wide to be involved in crime need deporting. For those who've lived here far longer and have families, it's more complex and should be handled case by case. That's what human rights lawyers are for.

Moving criminals around should be done carefully to ensure things aren't made worse. Not done in a way to please Express reading gammons who naively think a yob has been shipped off to an El Salvadorian prison and that's it we're all safe again. 
 

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by London Wanderer

7 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Jesus 😆

My point was that once someone has right to remain/British citizenship then in law they are treated equally to everyone. That's not bringing race into it to make an argument, it's simply stating the current justice system. But do carry on with your social engineering bollocks 💗 

It's irrelevant whether the policy started with Labour or not, I've no idea why folk on here keep mentioning it. The policy is complex and doesn't work for everyone. Of course illegals who've travelled far and wide to be involved in crime need deporting. For those who've lived here far longer and have families, it's more complex and should be handled case by case. That's what human rights lawyers are for.

Moving criminals around should be done carefully to ensure things aren't made worse. Not done in a way to please Express reading gammons who naively think a yob has been shipped off to an El Salvadorian prison and that's it we're all safe again. 

 

It's irrelevant whether the policy started with Labour or not, I've no idea why folk on here keep mentioning it.
 

also you 🤦🏻
 

“not ‘tough policies’ that achieve fuck all other than giving a few gammons a hard on. Policies that are brought to you by Tories who’ve decimated the public services that were making an impact”

So everyone that is eligible to be deported for crimes committed here should be on the first plane back to wherever they came from?

We all ok Shamima Begum being sent back here then?

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

So everyone that is eligible to be deported for crimes committed here should be on the first plane back to wherever they came from?

We all ok Shamima Begum being sent back here then?

Obviously not, we should just make shit up as and when it suits us.

And by 'us' I obviously mean white folk. 

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by DazBob

10 minutes ago, gonzo said:

So everyone that is eligible to be deported for crimes committed here should be on the first plane back to wherever they came from?

We all ok Shamima Begum being sent back here then?

No, they should serve their term first then be deported after. 
 

 

2 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

Their car broke down near Farnworth. Imagine that not being the worst thing that happend in your day.

Near the Anchor Lane bridge, Highfield!

1 hour ago, royal white said:

 

It's irrelevant whether the policy started with Labour or not, I've no idea why folk on here keep mentioning it.
 

also you 🤦🏻
 

“not ‘tough policies’ that achieve fuck all other than giving a few gammons a hard on. Policies that are brought to you by Tories who’ve decimated the public services that were making an impact”

We're going in circles mate - you're just looking to get one over on someone rather that actually discussing it. Trolling through every last word to try and find a straw to clutch so you can 'win' on a footy forum. 

The Tories have chosen to perpetuate and extend these policies over investing in public services and prevention. That please the daily express readers, but it doesn't solve the problem. Where that policy started is irrelevant, I never made this a Tory vs Labour thing, you did. 

I'm sure you'll be welcoming Shamima back with open arms x 

 

4 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

We're going in circles mate - you're just looking to get one over on someone rather that actually discussing it. Trolling through every last word to try and find a straw to clutch so you can 'win' on a footy forum. 

The Tories have chosen to perpetuate and extend these policies over investing in public services and prevention. That please the daily express readers, but it doesn't solve the problem. Where that policy started is irrelevant, I never made this a Tory vs Labour thing, you did. 

I'm sure you'll be welcoming Shamima back with open arms x 

 

I would if she had served a sentence abroad and was a U.K. citizen but unfortunately she’s hasn’t/isn’t.

You were the one bringing parties into it saying gammons and Tory policies, not knowing it was a Labour policy, like you thought he was a child when he came over yet he wasn’t. You’ve got quite a lot of the main parts of the argument wrong, but we all mistakes. 
 

It’s not about winning, it’s about opinions. You’re happy with criminals staying in the country (and in this case  going on to murder someone and other cases rape kids) whilst I would prefer they are moved to the country they come from. As per the rules. 
 

Each to their own. 

1 hour ago, royal white said:

No, they should serve their term first then be deported after. 
 

 

I've completely lost the thread of this discussion since the initial post yesterday, but it boils down to that for me

if someone commits a crime in whatever country, be tried in in that country and face their laws and justice, then once they are free, the country can if they wish send them back to their country of origin / citizenship and not let them back in - they had a chance to live there, they fucked it, so piss off home

 

9 minutes ago, royal white said:

I would if she had served a sentence abroad and was a U.K. citizen but unfortunately she’s hasn’t/isn’t.

You were the one bringing parties into it saying gammons and Tory policies, not knowing it was a Labour policy, like you thought he was a child when he came over yet he wasn’t. You’ve got quite a lot of the main parts of the argument wrong, but we all mistakes. 
 

It’s not about winning, it’s about opinions. You’re happy with criminals staying in the country (and in this case  going on to murder someone and other cases rape kids) whilst I would prefer they are moved to the country they come from. As per the rules. 
 

Each to their own. 

To be fair to LW, that's not what he's written. There is much more to it than what you've put there.

But as he says, you're going round in circles, so its probably best just to leave it as its not a debate at the moment.

1 minute ago, Not in Crawley said:

To be fair to LW, that's not what he's written. There is much more to it than what you've put there.

But as he says, you're going round in circles, so its probably best just to leave it as its not a debate at the moment.

Off you pop then 

Just now, royal white said:

Off you pop then 

That's not very nice now, is it?

I was just saying you were wrongly paraphrasing someone else for your own ends, which is probably a good place to end the discussion as LW rightly pointed out it often ends with  point scoring without really listening to what the other person is saying. As someone far brighter than me once stated,''to say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.

3 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

That's not very nice now, is it?

I was just saying you were wrongly paraphrasing someone else for your own ends, which is probably a good place to end the discussion as LW rightly pointed out it often ends with  point scoring without really listening to what the other person is saying. As someone far brighter than me once stated,''to say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.

Thanks for your help but I don’t need you to tell me when to end a discussion.
 

As a top bell end once said

 

“Honestly, I swear some folk just wander round looking for things to be bothered by that have actually very little impact on their lives”

22 minutes ago, Zico said:

I've completely lost the thread of this discussion since the initial post yesterday, but it boils down to that for me

if someone commits a crime in whatever country, be tried in in that country and face their laws and justice, then once they are free, the country can if they wish send them back to their country of origin / citizenship and not let them back in - they had a chance to live there, they fucked it, so piss off home

 

👍

Just now, royal white said:

Thanks for your help but I don’t need you to tell me when to end a discussion.
 

As a top bell end once said

 

“Honestly, I swear some folk just wander round looking for things to be bothered by that have actually very little impact on their lives”

It was simply a suggestion, I'm not telling you to do anything. No need to get all name-calling now is there?

I'm not bothered by the discussion, again I was just simply pointing out where you've wrongly distilled someone's position to support your position - its a type of debating technique called a Gish Gallop, and its become very popular over social media - and by certain populist poloticians.

 

1 hour ago, royal white said:

It’s not about winning, it’s about opinions. You’re happy with criminals staying in the country (and in this case  going on to murder someone and other cases rape kids) whilst I would prefer they are moved to the country they come from. As per the rules. 
 

Each to their own. 

That you’ve come to that conclusion just shows how little effort you put into reading what other people post.

pointless circles 😂

There is something really strange about this, that poor baby 🥺

BBC News - Baby couple on gross negligence manslaughter charge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64830159

She reminds me of Alice out of Luther.

10 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Everything is this government's fault. Irrespective of when laws, policies or whatever we're introduced, its like the premier league, UK governance only started in 2010.

Quite right about skin colour too. The default position of social engineers- bring race into it- the most patronising and disrespectful way to treat the very folk they're purport to defend.

Patronising and disrespectful because they are the true racists. They think that way. Those who scream 'racist' at the least thing are compensating for their own feelings IMO.

8 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Jesus 😆

 

Can you desist with the blasphemy please mate. Sir Preachalot won't like it.

8 hours ago, DazBob said:

Obviously not, we should just make shit up as and when it suits us.

And by 'us' I obviously mean white folk. 

Boom! Point proven.

19 hours ago, Spider said:

👍

Same rules apply 

17 hours ago, Winchester White said:

There is something really strange about this, that poor baby 🥺

BBC News - Baby couple on gross negligence manslaughter charge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64830159

Apart from Killing a Baby 

car Breaking down on the M61 

what have they done Wrong 

Why did they go on the Run When there car Broke down ????????