Quizzes & Puzzles75 mins ago
appeals
The "alledged" terrorists from Pakistan have now all appealed against deportation, if we thought a trial too expensive as there would not have been enough evidence to convict them, what the hell is this going to cost the tax-payer? it may take months to hear their appeal, they are to be held in a detention centre until then, if they are innocent, is this legal?
Why can't they just be told they must return to Pakistan, if they do need to travel here, that, their documents should be in order, and lastly, they must have been under surveillance for quite some time,,,,why?
Why can't they just be told they must return to Pakistan, if they do need to travel here, that, their documents should be in order, and lastly, they must have been under surveillance for quite some time,,,,why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Joy11. 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.
rov1200
More than 42,000 student visas were issued to Pakistani students between 2004 and 2007 but it was only from this year that applications were checked against an expanded set of watch lists, including police and immigration databases.
In 2007-8, there were 9,544 student visas given out to Pakistani nationals. 98 per cent of applications for extension of leave to remain in Britain were granted in 2006.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/artic le6073135.ece
2000 bogus colleges? Another false number you have tried to mislead with.
The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills said trading standards officers found enough reason to drop 124 institutions from the list out of the 256 investigated.
Colleges that have been dropped from the list can no longer endorse visas, while trading standards officers may also impose fines or other penalties including putting them out of business.
The overall list includes some 2,000 private colleges ranging from legitimate, well-known universities to what were effectively front organisations supporting fraudulent visa applications.
So there are 2000 private colleges which can support visa applications of which 124 have been found to be bogus.
I am assuming the 500 pupils per college was a figure you just made up.
More than 42,000 student visas were issued to Pakistani students between 2004 and 2007 but it was only from this year that applications were checked against an expanded set of watch lists, including police and immigration databases.
In 2007-8, there were 9,544 student visas given out to Pakistani nationals. 98 per cent of applications for extension of leave to remain in Britain were granted in 2006.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/artic le6073135.ece
2000 bogus colleges? Another false number you have tried to mislead with.
The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills said trading standards officers found enough reason to drop 124 institutions from the list out of the 256 investigated.
Colleges that have been dropped from the list can no longer endorse visas, while trading standards officers may also impose fines or other penalties including putting them out of business.
The overall list includes some 2,000 private colleges ranging from legitimate, well-known universities to what were effectively front organisations supporting fraudulent visa applications.
So there are 2000 private colleges which can support visa applications of which 124 have been found to be bogus.
I am assuming the 500 pupils per college was a figure you just made up.
Gromit:
"shirks"? You're the one who shirks the fact that so far there are no facts whatsoever to substantiate this guy's allegations, for that's all there is in the public domain so far - allegations, i.e. unproved assertions or accusations.
"Their silence and inaction speaks volumes" Which means what? That they must be guilty? Pure speculation on your part, Gromit. You see, assuming that you live in the UK, we have a democratic process which decides guilt or innocence.
And it's not called "trial by media, rumour, innuendo or allegation".
"shirks"? You're the one who shirks the fact that so far there are no facts whatsoever to substantiate this guy's allegations, for that's all there is in the public domain so far - allegations, i.e. unproved assertions or accusations.
"Their silence and inaction speaks volumes" Which means what? That they must be guilty? Pure speculation on your part, Gromit. You see, assuming that you live in the UK, we have a democratic process which decides guilt or innocence.
And it's not called "trial by media, rumour, innuendo or allegation".
paraffin
Bit of a catch 22 going on. The Government are not saying anything and are even suppressing evidence, so the only information in the public domain is via the media.
Evidence of how a British resident held in the Guant�namo Bay detention camp was tortured, and what MI5 knew about it, must remain secret because of serious threats the US has made against the UK, the high court ruled today.
The judges made clear they were deeply unhappy with their decision, but said they had no alternative as a result of a statement by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that if the evidence was disclosed the US would stop sharing intelligence with Britain. That would directly threaten the UK's national security, Miliband had told the court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/gu antanamo-torture
So the Government have decided you are or I (or a jury) should not have the evidence to make our own minds up.
Bit of a catch 22 going on. The Government are not saying anything and are even suppressing evidence, so the only information in the public domain is via the media.
Evidence of how a British resident held in the Guant�namo Bay detention camp was tortured, and what MI5 knew about it, must remain secret because of serious threats the US has made against the UK, the high court ruled today.
The judges made clear they were deeply unhappy with their decision, but said they had no alternative as a result of a statement by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that if the evidence was disclosed the US would stop sharing intelligence with Britain. That would directly threaten the UK's national security, Miliband had told the court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/gu antanamo-torture
So the Government have decided you are or I (or a jury) should not have the evidence to make our own minds up.
Rov1200
we have 1,000,000 Pakistan students studying in Britain.
There aren't that many ethnic Pakistani people in the UK nevermind students. At the last census there were 747,285
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID =273
Your figures are a fantasy.
we have 1,000,000 Pakistan students studying in Britain.
There aren't that many ethnic Pakistani people in the UK nevermind students. At the last census there were 747,285
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID =273
Your figures are a fantasy.
Rov1200
From your link...
"More than 42,000 student visas were issued to Pakistani students between 2004 and 2007... In 2007-8, there were 9,544 student visas given out to Pakistani nationals."
Not quite 1,000,000 is it?
There are up to 2,000 such "bogus" institutions in the UK, according to the Home Office.
"Up to" means it is a guess. The actual number refused is around 460.
The UK Border Agency has turned down around 460 of more than 2,100 organisations under new rules intended to ensure that students coming to the UK from beyond the European Economic Area.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/3 1/overseas-student-rules
From your link...
"More than 42,000 student visas were issued to Pakistani students between 2004 and 2007... In 2007-8, there were 9,544 student visas given out to Pakistani nationals."
Not quite 1,000,000 is it?
There are up to 2,000 such "bogus" institutions in the UK, according to the Home Office.
"Up to" means it is a guess. The actual number refused is around 460.
The UK Border Agency has turned down around 460 of more than 2,100 organisations under new rules intended to ensure that students coming to the UK from beyond the European Economic Area.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/3 1/overseas-student-rules
Gromit:
"...the only information in the public domain is via the media."
That is exactly my point, vis-a-vis, "information" does not equal "evidence", does not equal guilt or innocence.
I, too, have access to television, internet, newspapers, radio, and am well aware of the millions of words spoken, written, broadcast, transmitted etc etc. But none of this hearsay, no matter how credible or cogent, can be deemed as anything but that. How often have you heard of people being convicted in Court on the strength of a newspaper report or a news bulletin?
You seem to choose to be in denial over the difference between hearsay and evidence, your head is firmly stuck in the sand and your argument is merely centred around all these media links you love to attach to your posts.
Wake up and smell the coffee. How would you like to be convicted on the strength of what the Guardian says?
"...the only information in the public domain is via the media."
That is exactly my point, vis-a-vis, "information" does not equal "evidence", does not equal guilt or innocence.
I, too, have access to television, internet, newspapers, radio, and am well aware of the millions of words spoken, written, broadcast, transmitted etc etc. But none of this hearsay, no matter how credible or cogent, can be deemed as anything but that. How often have you heard of people being convicted in Court on the strength of a newspaper report or a news bulletin?
You seem to choose to be in denial over the difference between hearsay and evidence, your head is firmly stuck in the sand and your argument is merely centred around all these media links you love to attach to your posts.
Wake up and smell the coffee. How would you like to be convicted on the strength of what the Guardian says?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank82 mins ago
ChatterBank100 mins ago
Crosswords101 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles103 mins ago
