The EU debate - Part III

How did you get that from what I posted?
Given that these are refugees from Syria though, how confident are you in their legal system?

Nope. Total non-sequitur though, as nobody's being asked to do so, are they?

 

Of course he is.

 

I'm quite willing to help people get away from war zones and ensure they have somewhere safe to live but beyond that I dont see why millions of people work hard to get on in life whether they live in UK, Iraq, Malawi or anywhere else yet other people refuse to work hard at making a living and decide to ignore rules and/or lie and cheat to travel hundreds of miles across safe country after another safe country until they reach the country that will give them more money for nothing.

 

As power explained, in a situation like this it's inevitable that a few bad apples will attach themselves to genuine refugees. Does that mean we should refuse them all.?

In your sanctimonious approach to this, it might help if you stopped to remind yourself who helped **** their country up so badly that they've had no option but to flee for their lives!...

 

well if you think that people get found not guilty "because they have a good lawyer" and you disapprove I wondered what your preference was. I set out the options but you seemed to not think the options were reasonable. Can you tell me why?
I dont think that Syrian refugees stabbing and raping people in France would face Syrian justice. I would expect them to face justice in France. Maybe you can explain why you think they are likely to be tried in Syria?

 

I'm 100% behind helping people in need and I know we're not the only destination. Ultimately the focus needs to be on reducing the situations that create the need in the first place, but if it's simply about safety, it begs at least a couple of questions.

How far into that safety zone have they got before they reach this damp soggy Isle?

How many safe zones that have a more familiar language, climate and culture have they passed through on route here?

There's evidence to show that the poor souls are abused along route, so surely the less travel, the safer they'll be?

According to some reports, one of the most dangerous places in France is the camp near Calais.


That's not saying we take none, we should help all the needy, it's suggesting we're not the obvious first choice as the optimum safe haven.

 

Are you seriously denying that good legal representation doesn't lower the chance of conviction?
I seriously doubt that's the case.

You're asking for these people to be prevented from coming over in the first place.
If you're going to weed out those who want to go on a stabbing or raping spree, then you'd have to do that before they reached the EU, wouldn't you?
That would require them to have already picked up those convictions, wouldn't it?

 

Our previous involvement in several ME countries means that their second language is likely to be English, which would make the UK a destination of choice.

 

'Leave the UK or die': Shop worker pleads guilty to sending Angela Eagle death threat after she made bid to oust Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...icked-toxic-activists-took-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

<<<Steven King, 45, sent an email which warned: 'If you become leader of the Labour party... you will die you Bitch.'
He also wrote: 'Next time you see me I'll be with a real gun or knife cutting your life to an end.'>>>

 

And this has what to do with current debate?

 

I didnt say that. Are you saying that even if these people are found innocent we should assume they are guilty? That is what you seem to be implying.

 

Corbyn's always wanted to leave the EU. I assume that's why you've posted this.

 

Only in your head.

 

Or French...

I guess we'll save a few bob on the translation schemes we seemingly don't need. Mind you , they don't provide them in many mainland countries Europe already, so maybe we're just catching up.

 

What you said is total nonsense. If they commit stabbings and rapes in France or Germany why should we say we can't do anything because they didn't have any convictions before entering the EU?
If they commit any crimes while in the EU they should be deported to the refugee camps near Syria once they have served their sentences. We don't want foreign criminals in the EU.

 

Where the **** did you get any of that from?

 

I posted it to show that there are some crazy left wing loonys about. NB Jo Cox's alleged killer just seemed to be a loony.

 

French will be a second language in many of the African countries and they probably go to France.

 

Let's work this through logically:
People are innocent unless proven guilty - we've rightly designed a legal system that means that some criminals get away with it in because we don't want to convict innocent people.
Our legal system is adversarial so having a better lawyer makes it more likely for you to be found not guilty.
Rich people can afford better lawyers so are more likely to get away with crimes than poor people.
This is good because.......???

 

it's pretty obvious. I answered your comment. It would appear that you cant refute what I said because it explains the lack of logic in your comment.

 

If they've been convicted of stabbing and raping someone (and we of course know that every person who is a bit brown and in France or Germany is doing those things on an hourly basis) wouldn't they be in prison?

I'm surprised you weren't in Croydon booing the refugees and demanding dental tests. It's only a brisk waddle from your house.