Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Another threat to Britain allowed to stay here.
23 Answers
http://www.dailymail....transport-London.html
Yet another of the worlds trash allowed to sponge off the nation he plotted against.
When are these judges going to think about victim's human rights?
They say they cannot deport him because he could face ‘inhumane treatment or punishment’.
What about his intended victims and now any future victims,was he or would he be bothered about their ‘inhumane treatment'?
Yet another of the worlds trash allowed to sponge off the nation he plotted against.
When are these judges going to think about victim's human rights?
They say they cannot deport him because he could face ‘inhumane treatment or punishment’.
What about his intended victims and now any future victims,was he or would he be bothered about their ‘inhumane treatment'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG - as you and I know of old, judges are obliged to stand by the letter of the law, regardless of their human feelings in the matter.
In this case, it would be hard to find anyone who would not argue with this decision, but it is the law, and as such, it must be obeyed.
Laws are designed to protect people - and ufortunately it means that for every innocent individual who remains safe from harm under this legislation, sooner or later, someone like this is also covered, and able to take advantage.
The legal system does not work on the basis of 'we enforce the law, unless we decide that someone is not deserving or its protection - in which case we do not enforce it in that case.
That would render all law utterly unworkable.
So, although in this case, application of the law appears wrong, it is still right in the wider sense, and this must be the way the legal system works until someone finds a better way - and simply arbitrarily deciding who does and who does not get protection based on what they may do, is not a basis for a workable legal system.
In this case, it would be hard to find anyone who would not argue with this decision, but it is the law, and as such, it must be obeyed.
Laws are designed to protect people - and ufortunately it means that for every innocent individual who remains safe from harm under this legislation, sooner or later, someone like this is also covered, and able to take advantage.
The legal system does not work on the basis of 'we enforce the law, unless we decide that someone is not deserving or its protection - in which case we do not enforce it in that case.
That would render all law utterly unworkable.
So, although in this case, application of the law appears wrong, it is still right in the wider sense, and this must be the way the legal system works until someone finds a better way - and simply arbitrarily deciding who does and who does not get protection based on what they may do, is not a basis for a workable legal system.
I think oldNitro and JoeLuke ought to go live in a country like China for a while where people do 'disappear'.
Robespierre was a great one for arbitary justice and just shortcutting proper justice too.
Now what ever became of him?
Sadly the only thing we learn from history is that people don't learn from it.
Trying to short cut the law:
http://media.myspacep...oples/peoples_194.gif
Robespierre was a great one for arbitary justice and just shortcutting proper justice too.
Now what ever became of him?
Sadly the only thing we learn from history is that people don't learn from it.
Trying to short cut the law:
http://media.myspacep...oples/peoples_194.gif
-- answer removed --
It's amazing to me how so many people circumvent the law and get away with it. Yet in these cases, one sniff of being deported, they are off to the nearest legal aid ambulance chaser citing human rights. I would like to know just when the law will be changed, if that what it takes, so these people cannot under any circumstances remain in Britain. They may get prison, tagged even, but that is useless for the most part, they are still here, and at tax payers expense. If they fear retribution from their home countries well so much the better. If you hate a place, the way they seem to why do they want to stay.
Jake, believe it or not there is a war being waged against terror, and this guy and others like him are the enemy. I have yet to see or hear of any war that was won on the basis of political correctness or following the so called rules of war. These people don`t care about how dirty it gets and if we are going to beat them then we have to be dirtier
As Naomi24 says, ."If the penalty was always instant deportation, and they really feared retribution in their home countries instead of using it as an excuse, perhaps they'd think twice"
Why do they come here in the first place? are they not looking for a safe haven?
The EU country's are to soft on these people, they're all woried about being PC, I'd have more respect for our goverments if they'd admit what we all know.
Why do they come here in the first place? are they not looking for a safe haven?
The EU country's are to soft on these people, they're all woried about being PC, I'd have more respect for our goverments if they'd admit what we all know.
-- answer removed --
oldnitro - it is not the fight against terrorist activities that I object to, obviously, it is the need to tie it up in a 'one-phrase-fits-all' soundbite by a man who thinks he has a mandate to force his belief in a system of government on another nation by military invasion.
The notion of who is a terrorist depends entirely on where you live, and whose rifle barrel you get to stare down.
It is the flippant attitude of Mr Bush which is reprehensible, not the actual need to fight against terrorism.
'War on terrorism' - necessary action to maintain a free world. 'War on terror' - meaningless nonsense.
It's not the concept I have issues with, it's the media manipulation.
Nowhere did I suggest that I would hope for terrorism to go away - and at fifty-six with four grandchildren, I am beyond being called 'Son' even in a third party quote, and I have no problem with dealing with the truth.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding between us.
The notion of who is a terrorist depends entirely on where you live, and whose rifle barrel you get to stare down.
It is the flippant attitude of Mr Bush which is reprehensible, not the actual need to fight against terrorism.
'War on terrorism' - necessary action to maintain a free world. 'War on terror' - meaningless nonsense.
It's not the concept I have issues with, it's the media manipulation.
Nowhere did I suggest that I would hope for terrorism to go away - and at fifty-six with four grandchildren, I am beyond being called 'Son' even in a third party quote, and I have no problem with dealing with the truth.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding between us.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.