The topic was the convicted terrorists winning their court battle on solitary confinement
Caller tried to say it was OK to murder a policeman if he entered his house or words to that effect
I was surprised that Nick let him talk so long
The next few callers I heard were also of the opinion he should forward the details to the police which Nick said he wasn't going to do
I'm sure he did a program not so long ago (probably around the time of the Lee Rigby killing) where he urged all law abiding citizens to inform the authorities if they suspected someone of being radicalised/brain-washed. Double standards Mr Ferrari
Using the word "dreadful" singularly isn't allowed here.
You have to say "dreadful, dreadful ladies and gentlemen"
Sorry, I forgot:D
On the nutter calling Nick, another caller said no wonder people were worried about 3 year olds being 'radicalised' (BTW I think the word is getting overused everywhere and is a get out for 'holding-extremely-nasty-views (but it wasn't me, guv, I was radicalised)'
If 3 year olds were being brought up by people like that.
8.32am due to the phone issues LBC are experiencing it seems they have gone into an emergency broadcast which is a pre-recorded interview with a police officer.
The topic was the convicted terrorists winning their court battle on solitary confinement
Caller tried to say it was OK to murder a policeman if he entered his house or words to that effect
I was surprised that Nick let him talk so long
The next few callers I heard were also of the opinion he should forward the details to the police which Nick said he wasn't going to do
I'm sure he did a program not so long ago (probably around the time of the Lee Rigby killing) where he urged all law abiding citizens to inform the authorities if they suspected someone of being radicalised/brain-washed. Double standards Mr Ferrari
I imagine LBC forwarded the call straight on to the police. If Nick had mentioned this on air it could inhibit other callers.
Agree totally. It is nothing short of torture. Summer guitar music? Madness
Kind of musical production that made a great Christmas present for Auntie Edith - a decision based purely on the 99p cost & it made a change from Des O Connor .
do you just like jumping to extremes or are you on the J. O'Brien fan list of slating Nigel as the first duty of any Government is to protect it's citizens. Surely they could lead the migrants away, make them claim asylum in the first country they land in or such. Why jump to killing?
Are you on the Jon Gaunt fan list of slating migrants? What would they be protecting the country from? Exactly, why jump to killing them as your messiah has said we should do?
Gobber has referred again to ' the world that Nigel built '. He presumably thinks this is a very clever comment but I am wondering why the management are letting him say it. I am no fan of Farage but I am beginning to feel offended on his behalf.
What would you call a couple of thousand people storming the Chunnel?
A failure by the UK government to own up to its responsibilities.
These people want to come to Britain: let them do so, and process their claim through the legal system.
Instead we adopt a typically british 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude which, as we can see, solves nothing and makes us look inept, or callous, or both.
A failure by the UK government to own up to its responsibilities.
These people want to come to Britain: let them do so, and process their claim through the legal system.
Instead we adopt a typically british 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude which, as we can see, solves nothing and makes us look inept, or callous, or both.
The fundamental problem with that is that the process takes too long, and the people whose claim is rejected abscond and become illegal. Not to mention the enourmous cost of course.
We already have juxtaposed immigration controls on the Eurostar terminals so the facilities for these people to present themselves to the UK authorities before crossing the channel are there, but they choose not to. Why? Because these are not genuine asylum seekers.
The fundamental problem with that is that the process takes too long, and the people whose claim is rejected abscond and become illegal. Not to mention the enourmous cost of course.
We already have juxtaposed immigration controls on the Eurostar terminals so the facilities for these people to present themselves to the UK authorities before crossing the channel are there, but they choose not to. Why? Because these are not genuine asylum seekers.
The fundamental problem with that is that the process takes too long, and the people whose claim is rejected abscond and become illegal. Not to mention the enourmous cost of course.
We already have juxtaposed immigration controls on the Eurostar terminals so the facilities for these people to present themselves to the UK authorities before crossing the channel are there, but they choose not to. Why? Because these are not genuine asylum seekers.
The evidence is that it is only a tiny proportion of failed asylum seekers that actually abscond :
A failure by the UK government to own up to its responsibilities.
These people want to come to Britain: let them do so, and process their claim through the legal system.
Instead we adopt a typically british 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude which, as we can see, solves nothing and makes us look inept, or callous, or both.
Absurd comment du jour (an invite like that would empty Africa and parts of the M E in one foul swoop)
Congrats
Edit - tho they could be processed in Calais with a ship waiting at the docks for instant deportation (paid for by the French)
Moreover the euro tunnel facilities are not designed to assess complex asylum claims.
Well it's rare thst we see an article by the DM offered as a reliable source of immigration data! Especially an article from 2010
The other aspect of this are the people who are given temporary permission to enter the country on the basis that they will represent themselves a few days later to be put on a plane home or interviewed further. There are insufficient facilities at our ports to accommodate these people so they have to be let in. High numbers of absconders there.
And of course the people on temporary visas who enter legally, but never show up at the airport when the visa expires, hence becoming illegal.
Comments
What happened, I'm intrigued!?
The topic was the convicted terrorists winning their court battle on solitary confinement
Caller tried to say it was OK to murder a policeman if he entered his house or words to that effect
I was surprised that Nick let him talk so long
The next few callers I heard were also of the opinion he should forward the details to the police which Nick said he wasn't going to do
I'm sure he did a program not so long ago (probably around the time of the Lee Rigby killing) where he urged all law abiding citizens to inform the authorities if they suspected someone of being radicalised/brain-washed. Double standards Mr Ferrari
Sorry, I forgot:D
On the nutter calling Nick, another caller said no wonder people were worried about 3 year olds being 'radicalised' (BTW I think the word is getting overused everywhere and is a get out for 'holding-extremely-nasty-views (but it wasn't me, guv, I was radicalised)'
If 3 year olds were being brought up by people like that.
I imagine LBC forwarded the call straight on to the police. If Nick had mentioned this on air it could inhibit other callers.
Morning all.
Agree totally. It is nothing short of torture. Summer guitar music? Madness
Kind of musical production that made a great Christmas present for Auntie Edith - a decision based purely on the 99p cost & it made a change from Des O Connor .
I should imagine there is a mass exodus of 'friends' whenever he goes to pick his guitar up.
You are joking, right?
Monster! You're worse than the man who killed Cecil the lion (according to Abbot).
Gobber, is that you?
Like Cacofonix !
And your patience was rewarded. Life is good, eh.
What would you call a couple of thousand people storming the Chunnel?
A failure by the UK government to own up to its responsibilities.
These people want to come to Britain: let them do so, and process their claim through the legal system.
Instead we adopt a typically british 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude which, as we can see, solves nothing and makes us look inept, or callous, or both.
The fundamental problem with that is that the process takes too long, and the people whose claim is rejected abscond and become illegal. Not to mention the enourmous cost of course.
We already have juxtaposed immigration controls on the Eurostar terminals so the facilities for these people to present themselves to the UK authorities before crossing the channel are there, but they choose not to. Why? Because these are not genuine asylum seekers.
Absolutely spot on.
The evidence is that it is only a tiny proportion of failed asylum seekers that actually abscond :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330777/Failed-asylum-seekers-100-gone-missing-months.html
Moreover the euro tunnel facilities are not designed to assess complex asylum claims.
Absurd comment du jour (an invite like that would empty Africa and parts of the M E in one foul swoop)
Congrats
Edit - tho they could be processed in Calais with a ship waiting at the docks for instant deportation (paid for by the French)
Article - UPDATED: 17:07, 18 November 2010
Sloppy bit of Googling ? ;-)
Well it's rare thst we see an article by the DM offered as a reliable source of immigration data!
The other aspect of this are the people who are given temporary permission to enter the country on the basis that they will represent themselves a few days later to be put on a plane home or interviewed further. There are insufficient facilities at our ports to accommodate these people so they have to be let in. High numbers of absconders there.
And of course the people on temporary visas who enter legally, but never show up at the airport when the visa expires, hence becoming illegal.