There Are Very Many Not ‘Conducive To The Public Good’, Why Single Out Donald Trump?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12074314/Government-may-exclude-Donald-Trump-after-565000-sign-petition-calling-for-UK-entry-ban.html

So after only 560,000 people signed a petition asking for the banning of Donald Trump's entry into the UK, Mrs May declared that she ‘may exclude’ people who are not ‘conducive to the public good’.

There are many more who should be considered not ‘conducive to the public good’, before you get to Mr Trump, Home Secretary.

/// The Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. ///

She will 'continue' to use the powers available,

'CONTINUE'???????????????????

When did she start?

[Svejk]

50 muslims signed 10,000X. Fact.

[bednobs]

possibly because 1/2 a million people don't sign petitions about the others. Personally i agree with her stance
"coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values. "
although i wouldn't put DT in that category

[ichkeria]

The Home Secretary has NOT singled out Mr Trump if the article is correct. In fact she has made a point of not commenting on his specific case.
The govt does exclude people it genuinely considers to be a threat to national security or high profile figures whose presence is deemed likely to cause unrest. The latter case is hopefully used only very rarely as usually the ban only affords more publicity to the person concerned.
Much as I deplore Mr Trump, it would be ridiculous to waste parliament's time with a debate on the matter. If every time someone says something controversial we have to go through this rigmarole then God help us.

[Old_Geezer]

I thought we already had powers to refuse entry.

It's an interesting stance to hold if you have an unenlightened society and don't wish folk to rock the status quo you've personally done so well in.

[Zacs-Master]

Donald Trump hasn't been singled out. She said the Gov't ‘may exclude’ people. So DT hasn't been singled out as you claim. Same old same old.

[anotheoldgit]

ichkeria

/// The Home Secretary has NOT singled out Mr Trump if the article is correct. In fact she has made a point of not commenting on his specific case. ///

From the article.

*** The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong. ***

[ichkeria]

Yes but she has not commented on the likelihood of him being banned.

[anotheoldgit]

Zacs-Master

/// Donald Trump hasn't been singled out. She said the Gov't ‘may exclude’ people. So DT hasn't been singled out as you claim. ///

I haven't 'CLAIMED' anything, only commenting on what I read.

*** Donald Trump could be banned from entering the UK after Theresa May, the Home Secretary, declared that she ‘may exclude’ people who are not ‘conducive to the public good’. ***

Same old, same old, Zacs-Master.

[TheChair]

You have claimed something AOG. You claimed that he has been singled out.

[Mosaic]

Maybe she's pulling a double bluff and really after saving the cost to the UK of providing security. It's not like he's a head of state or anything.
But yes, it certainly doesn't sit well with recent events.

[Zacs-Master]

AOG, I would refer you to TheChair's reply. Another classic case of you tripping yourself up with your own headline.

[anotheoldgit]

TheChair

/// You have claimed something AOG. You claimed that he has been singled out. ///

No I have not, if I had I would have put "Donald Trump has been singled out" or similar.

But the Telegraph's reporter has, when he put,

*** Donald Trump could be banned from entering the UK after Theresa May, the Home Secretary, declared that she ‘may exclude’ people who are not ‘conducive to the public good’. ***

I was merely asking "Why Single Out Donald Trump"?

Won't be long for you now, the new term starts soon.

[jomifl]

So, something might happen, should it be banned or should a ban be banned...who knows ..or cares.

[anotheoldgit]

Zacs-Master

Are you two in the same class?

[mikey4444]

I had the same email this morning.

I had no real belief that this pillock would be banned from entering Britain when I signed the petition, but signed more as protest. I look forward to registering my further protest, should this man ever arrive anywhere near South Wales in the future.

Interesting last couple of paragraphs in the email ::::

"The Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong.

The Government recognises the strength of feeling against these remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect"

But I have thought of another, much easier way of declining him entry. Just ban the importations of hamsters and we have it done.

[Zacs-Master]

You put 'why single out Donald Trump'. That's a claim that he was singled out (just in case you were confused). He hasn't been singled out. I don't know how I can put it any simpler. And please don't scrabble around within the article for vague reasons why he was singled out. Your comment was directly followed by a link to the article which is about excluding people from Britain,and clearly referred to it. If you didn't mean to refer directly to it, then your headline followed by the link was equally badly worded.

[anotheoldgit]

/// You put 'why single out Donald Trump'. That's a claim that he was singled out (just in case you were confused). He hasn't been singled out. ///

*** 560,000 people signed a petition asking for the banning of Donald Trump's entry into the UK, ***

Seems to me he has been singled out.

So my headline is perfectly valid.

[mikey4444]

AOG ...your thread includes the words "So after only 560,000"

But the Telegraph article says "by more than 560,000"

Its quite clear what your own personal view is here, which of course you are entitled to hold.

[Bazile]

She's only equalising the no entry business , when that muslim family was refused entry to the US

[Zacs-Master]

Oh, and in relation to your outrage (CONTINUE????????????). Have a read of this list of people banned from the UK:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom#Home_Office_list