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

 

 

Well at least they were up front!

Although he wasn't my choice, when Sunak got the gig, we just had to go with it. 

On deals and agreements- business type stuff- he initially did OK.

But it's unravelling now, as the mask has slipped, and it appears he has no guts or actual belief in what the issue is.

Stupid thing is though, that so many of the issues come back to overpopulation and simply too much immigration, yet he seems toothless.

Clearly certain forces working against them, but there is little evidence that they want to tackle the issues. Start with the cunting civil service.

29 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

There's previously been a convicted sex offender from Afghanistan being granting leave to remain on the basis that people in Afghanistan don't take kindly to sex offenders and so might attack them on their return 🤦‍♂️

I find the easiest way to avoid being attacked for being a sex offender is to not be a sex offender (or at least not get caught 😉 )

19 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Judges can only act within the law, and as stated previously; folk think the laws are too weak.

That said, some of the sentences handed out do appear lenient, even when the guidelines are being followed.

You don't need legal expertise to observe and form an opinion, though clearly it helps to consider all aspects in reaching one.

Strangely, on many many aspects of society, folk tend not to consider the big picture, and politicians utilise that.

Those same politicians who will introduce legislation that judges and lawyers have to follow.

 

Just watched a programme about the non league football stabbed in brum Boxing Day 2022. Why do you get 25 years for stabbing but the lads in Liverpool who shot folk got 38. I get the not the intended target bit but surely stabbing someone as planned is as bad as shooting 

Could be argued it’s worse. It’s up close and personal.
 

Shooting someone does have a sense of detachment. 

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

His raison d'etre. No context, no consideration. Everything the government's fault.

 

he'd be on moaning that the government was breaching international law and was racist blah, blah blah.

Seems you struggle a bit to have an open discussion with someone who has different views to you. So revert to making stuff up. Try reading comments before posting next time👍

“Fwiw I’m not putting this all on the government”

I’ve also never suggested concerns over immigration are racist. Neither have I said wanting to deport convicted criminals is racist. I’ve said numerous times he should be deported & that there’s an issue here 🤦‍♂️

Obviously folk like your good self do have a wee habit of blaming all your woes on foreigners. Your raison d'etre so to speak😉 but that discussions for another day.

 All I’ve done is try to understand why these laws are in place & why judges are making these decisions.

 

1 hour ago, Big E said:

Just watched a programme about the non league football stabbed in brum Boxing Day 2022. Why do you get 25 years for stabbing but the lads in Liverpool who shot folk got 38. I get the not the intended target bit but surely stabbing someone as planned is as bad as shooting 

The sentencing guidelines have a higher starting point for the use of firearms in public 

And probably rightly so

36 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

The sentencing guidelines have a higher starting point for the use of firearms in public 

And probably rightly so

I disagree. They should be the same. A knife is as deadly as a gun and if anything more personal. Both should be very long sentences 

15 minutes ago, Big E said:

I disagree. They should be the same. A knife is as deadly as a gun and if anything more personal. Both should be very long sentences 

Firing a gun in a public place where innocent people could easily be hit instead demonstrates an increased recklessness/indifference and dangerousness

It's for that reason a longer sentence is handed down

The stabbing job was a revenge attack over essentially nothing, and pre-planned.

Don't know the sentencing details, but maybe it's a minimum of 25 years?

Certainly should be a bloody long time given the efforts they made to do it.

10 hours ago, frank_spencer said:

All three wards in Camden voted for Corbyn's Labour party by a wide margin.

Can't remember the last artsy event I went to that had fizz on offer. I'm missing out on the launch night of the new David Hoyle exhibition at Factory International tonight I'll get the missus to report back on the fanciness of the drink on offer.

I shall wait with bated breath.

17 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

The stabbing job was a revenge attack over essentially nothing, and pre-planned.

Don't know the sentencing details, but maybe it's a minimum of 25 years?

Certainly should be a bloody long time given the efforts they made to do it.

correct the planning is ridiculous. especially over a few cross words in a popworld

17 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Firing a gun in a public place where innocent people could easily be hit instead demonstrates an increased recklessness/indifference and dangerousness

It's for that reason a longer sentence is handed down

i agree it is wreckless and should be a heavy sentence but i think knife crime should be held in similar vein. 

 

5 minutes ago, Big E said:

correct the planning is ridiculous. especially over a few cross words in a popworld

i agree it is wreckless and should be a heavy sentence but i think knife crime should be held in similar vein. 

 

Was there any previous wrong doing with the convicted that played a role?

16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Was there any previous wrong doing with the convicted that played a role?

Stabbing was just a row.

the shootings in liverpool were a long standing feud between cunts. could be argued if the girl didn't live with a drug dealer she would have avoided the bullets.

Question

Are we legally allowed to deport without a returns agreement?

Or is that not relevant

Is it maybe the ECHR that stops deprtation

Just interested

34 minutes ago, Casino said:

Question

Are we legally allowed to deport without a returns agreement?

Or is that not relevant

Is it maybe the ECHR that stops deprtation

Just interested

not sure but i know it is very hard to do anything regarding removal. the asylum seeker who trashed my neighbours car and two vans (wrote the car off) was arrested then when released return to the center across the road. apparently he wasn't violent. the police and serco people didn't like me asking if i had to wait until he raped someone before they did anything 

5 hours ago, Casino said:

Question

Are we legally allowed to deport without a returns agreement?

Or is that not relevant

Is it maybe the ECHR that stops deprtation

Just interested

Yes, but the difficulty is that Article 3 of the ECHR prevents deportations of the person is "likely to be subjected to torture, or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

The threshold for the above definition is subjective and caan often be very low, depending on the judge hearing the case

It's why there's been a spike of asylum seekers from majority Muslim countries claiming to have converted to Christianity, because Christians in their home countries are persecuted

Abdul Azedi, the Clapham acid attacker, claimed to have converted to Christianity in his third asylum claim and was granted asylum on that basis (after having previously been convicted of sexual assault), only to have a Muslim burial after he was found dead

Similarly, Enzo Almeni claimed to have converted to Christianity on his third application for asylum before blowing himself up while attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on Rememberance Sunday

We also experience isssues deporting criminals convicted of sexual offences because they would possibly suffer ill-treatment on their return due to their country's attitudes towards sex offenders

If you're interested, there's quite a good article on the impact of the ECHR on the ability of countries to deport non-nationals here: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-3-of-the-echr/#:~:text=3 imposes an obligation not,cannot be taken into account.

Also, Article 6 and the right to a fair trial can be a barrier to deporting people charged with criminal offences elsewhere if it can be argued that that country's legal system is inadequate

3 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Yes, but the difficulty is that Article 3 of the ECHR prevents deportations of the person is "likely to be subjected to torture, or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

The threshold for the above definition is subjective and caan often be very low, depending on the judge hearing the case

It's why there's been a spike of asylum seekers from majority Muslim countries claiming to have converted to Christianity, because Christians in their home countries are persecuted

Abdul Azedi, the Clapham acid attacker, claimed to have converted to Christianity in his third asylum claim and was granted asylum on that basis (after having previously been convicted of sexual assault), only to have a Muslim burial after he was found dead

Similarly, Enzo Almeni claimed to have converted to Christianity on his third application for asylum before blowing himself up while attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on Rememberance Sunday

We also experience isssues deporting criminals convicted of sexual offences because they would possibly suffer ill-treatment on their return due to their country's attitudes towards sex offenders

If you're interested, there's quite a good article on the impact of the ECHR on the ability of countries to deport non-nationals here: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-3-of-the-echr/#:~:text=3 imposes an obligation not,cannot be taken into account.

good post

 Bit of a mess really. I’m sure there are plenty innocent people who are saved from genuine persecution back home. Chancers making a mockery of the system only makes it harder for the rest. 

Edited April 11, 20242 yr by London Wanderer

At least we have arrived at the gist of the matter. The ECHR. Totally unfit for purpose 70 years on and been commandeered as a vehicle for overbearing EU nannyism.

7 hours ago, bolty58 said:

At least we have arrived at the gist of the matter. The ECHR. Totally unfit for purpose 70 years on and been commandeered as a vehicle for overbearing EU nannyism.

I think the EU may get to know the ECHR a little bit better with their new Migration Pact. 
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/21/eus-migration-pact-disaster-migrants-and-asylum-seekers

1 hour ago, BobyBrno said:

I think the EU may get to know the ECHR a little bit better with their new Migration Pact. 
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/21/eus-migration-pact-disaster-migrants-and-asylum-seekers

Exactly. EU experiencing the dawning of reality, so the ECHR will take up the mantle of overbearing "middle class lefties" to borrow a Labour phrase.

And after we join Russia and Belarus by leaving the ECHR, what do we leave next? The UN? NATO? The WHO? Do we start looking at our domestic institutions? Maybe look at getting rid of the entire British Justice System? Start disbanding our Police Forces? Dismantle the NHS? 

16 minutes ago, Cheese said:

And after we join Russia and Belarus by leaving the ECHR, what do we leave next? The UN? NATO? The WHO? Do we start looking at our domestic institutions? Maybe look at getting rid of the entire British Justice System? Start disbanding our Police Forces? Dismantle the NHS? 

 

3 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

 

Won't get fooled again...

32 minutes ago, Cheese said:

And after we join Russia and Belarus by leaving the ECHR, what do we leave next? The UN? NATO? The WHO? Do we start looking at our domestic institutions? Maybe look at getting rid of the entire British Justice System? Start disbanding our Police Forces? Dismantle the NHS? 

Quite a reach.