Off Topic European Debate Thread

Yes, because of the layers of humans rights laws that prevent us from deporting criminals and illegals due to the numerous and massively costly appeals that an American type legal system in this country that has now developed here, has taken advantage of. The exact reason why it took us 10 years to deport a known terrorist in Abu Hamza to the USA, this is not a one off case, it is common knowledge our courts are swamped with this on a daily basis.

It is very simple Rob.. no benefits they won't come!

Every chance of being deported swiftly -- they won't come!

If we're not mugs why do these migrants travel across countries like France and Spain to set up work, it won't be a language barrier as half of them don't speak English anyway.

 

The problem with the police now is the amount of paperwork involved. My ex wife's brother is a policeman and so is my cousin and the amount of paperwork they have to do normally takes the whole shift. So one arrest loses one copper, and then the force becomes undermanned. The funding they get now goes towards covering the cost of any thing going tits up and the cost of paperwork involved. The Human rights law being yet again exploited.
We live in a blame culture where if everything is not documented to the final full stop the lawyers get them off. Or the bastards then put in a claim for compensation against the force.
Me and loads on here remember when we had a local copper, who was your best friend till you overstepped your mark with a clip round the ear. Believe it or not that was a deterrent to loads I know.

 

Is your answer to everything to throw taxpayers money at it???

Its not the funding its the system and as I stated previously this is being undermined by an 'ambulance chasing' legal system that has been put in place, due to misplaced 'human rights laws'.. another EU imposition that certain people are becoming rich from.

 

Fair enough, makes sense. I still think we should have a proper consideration process for these people, including appeals, but there's evidently a problem if it's costing a fortune and if it's taking us that long to deport a known terrorist. We absolutely shouldn't sacrifice our human rights and our judicial ideology though, as, believe it or not, it is definitely one of the best in the world.

I disagree on the bold bit entirely to be honest, but that's just me. These people are travelling a long way, presumably because they have nothing. It's ultimately an all-or-nothing shot, so having a big chance of being deported swiftly won't deter them. And most can't claim benefits anyway as they don't have any 'existence' given that they're illegals.

And I hear what you're saying about not speaking English, but it's still one of the most spoken languages in the world, so even if they can't outright speak it, you'll probably find a lot of them at least have some sort of understanding of it, even if just in passing, which provides that 'advantage' to them, which is present whether we are in the EU or not.

 

Why should what is effectively a criminal, some one who has entered our country illegally, be entitled to a series of ongoing appeals??

If they enter illegally they should be instantly removed! Like pretty much all the other countries in the world would do.

Like I said we are mugs and I want it to end now. Then maybe we can bring some migrants in from ALL around the world who will bring something to the party and then we might also be able to afford to accommodate some more of the desperate Mother and child refugees rather than spend all our time chasing after eastern european criminals who are coming here to mug is off.. it is that simple and I find it unbelievable that people can make excuses for it.!!

 

I don't think we're far off agreeing in all honesty. But as a nation we give ourselves the right to a fair trial and it's only correct that we do that to whoever we deem necessary to be judged. Agreed on a series of ongoing appeals though, there's no doubt it needs to be streamlined.

You might think I'm too soft, but the example you gave is exactly the reason why we do need some sort of judicial process. If I was a mother with a child in a war-torn country, and I'm offered the opportunity to move illegally to a wealthy country, with (let's say) a 40% chance of getting away with it, and to protect my kids, I'm sorry but I'm almost certain I'd take that punt.

I know the vast majority of illegals aren't like the above but the fact that they do exist shows why we need the proper judicial process. It would be hypocritical as a nation to not have it. We just need to make it much less expensive and more effective.

 

Why do you need a set process of removing a criminal? If they are a criminal then they should be removed first hurdle and if they want to appeal the decision, then do that in the comfort of their own country.
You see this is the issue with PC correctness and Human Rights, it has made you put a barrier up by questioning the reason why. But if they are criminals or preach hate against this country then they should be removed to protect the people trying to protect them.
Also who is the ones who pay the court cost, holding cost whilst these take years to get to the decision that was more than likely the same as the first one years ago? It's us that pay reducing the funding that could go towards more police on the streets etc.

 

The bold bit is simple. It's a case of common decency, whether they're a criminal or not. You can say that, but in many of these cases, you send them back to their country, and they're dead before you can make a decision. It's not PC gone mad, it's making sure those that have a genuine reason for escaping are given due consideration, and those that are here for pure greed are told to do one. You can use the preaching hate as an extreme view but it's in the vast minority.

And yes, we pay the court cost, it's the cost of having a proper society and the right to a fair trial is what differs us from those countries in the Middle East. People get so angry over this and yet the money that could be saved from this is a pittance in comparison. If you're really worried about finances, you should be looking at a hell of a lot of other areas first.

 

But do they show common decency towards this country? And I'm not really talking about Muslims etc more to do with organised crime. But to be honest with you if there was a chance that I would be killed if returned home then I would probably use that as a deterrent to not inflame hatred and try and live peacefully and quietly.
You keep getting aggressive like saying "if you're really worried about finances, you should be looking at a hell of a lot of other area's" I do but at the moment we are talking about evicting criminals.

 

This is where I am with the referendum vote.

 

Another way to think of it is that by staying things won't really change and it can't get worse. By leaving no-one knows what will happen the chances are that we will not be better off by leaving.

For me the best case scenario in the event of leaving is having the same laws and regulations as we have now and the same relationship with the Eu but not having a say in the Eu parliament.
Now that is even more undemocratic.

 

Apologies, I don't mean to come across like that. I know what you're saying, but I think the majority do show common decency, it's the minority that ruin it, as always. I mentioned the finances because you brought up the court costs as an argument against it.

 

No need to apologise, but if you've a classroom of kids, and some running amok which then has a knock on effect creating other kids to join in. If you show that this won't be tolerated by punishing the main ones straight away. You then prevent the knock on effect and stop it at source.
Sometimes being too strict goes to far, but it also makes people think about something before it happens.
If we sent a few straight back, without anyone hiding behind human rights law you can bet that they will think about it not being a easy country to come to. It will take time but once started it will improve.

 

Sorry you'd still want the government to not be able to bail out the steel industry?

 

I see the logic, and I don't have anything to back it up, but I really don't think it will work. If you're desperate enough to leave and come here, you're not going to change your mind just because the chances of staying have diminished slightly. And as I say, a fair judicial process is the base of human rights law, it's not something we can or should remove.

 

You're confusing the desperate to leave a situation to those who choose to come to create crime.

Best thing that ever happened in this country was "zero tolerance". You announce that the city centre has adopted zero tolerance for drinkers on nights out. People think **** if I start something tonight I'm busted. But when you really think about it if you started something before they would of arrested you anyway. But put the words "zero tolerance" and big majority of people listen and think about it.

 

EXACTLY

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

 

If you go to Glastonbury without a ticket and manage to get in without completing the diligence that everybody has had to do, you will
Be removed immediately and quite rightly!

It's very simple.

 

HAVE YOU READ THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

Take a look at it and I think you'll see why we can't get rid of it.

Topical! Won't be the same if/when it moves to Longleat . Less than 3 weeks, can't wait.

 

I'd want the best option for Britain and I'd rather us cooperate with the Eu than go back to the stoneage just for a bit of sovereignty