|
||||||||
more scum that shouldn't be here |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
|
Quote:
The Law as it stands fits the vast majority of travellers, so from that point of view it is "fit for purpose ". That's not to say that things can't be improved, but that's the case with so many bits of Law and legislation.
Quote:
The point is that as the Law currently stands there are no requirements for checks AFAIK. So it's not a question of being more thorough, there just isn't the mechanisms in place to check the backgrounds of every single traveller (which is what it would take unless the Law was changed to include a "risk register") and still maintain the volumes of travellers passing through all the UK's ports of entry.
This is way too weak, and why we did the right thing by breaking free of an organisation which frankly is terrorist/criminal friendly. Quote:
Even if a new arrival does have a known conviction, they cannot automatically be picked up and refused entry. I'm not sure what the precise mechanics of the US system is, but they seem to be pretty effective at keeping out criminals, terrorists and murderers. Maybe we should be learning lesons from them. Normally, a person can be excluded from the UK only if they pose ‘a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat’ to society and the public. This means that it is not enough for an EU citizen to have a serious criminal conviction – if it is some time in the past, the UK may fall foul of Brussels directives if they refuse to allow that person into the country. Quote:
I can understand you being pissed off. What I would say is that there's a lot of people posting in this thread who haven't really considered the logistics involved in providing the sort of security checks required to catch an individual like this with any degree of certainty.
It should be possible. Quote:
That's precisely the point. This guy had already got in, so you're allowing the DM to get you angry about something that's already happened, and that you have no control over, and they have no control over, and that there's no chance of it being changed by you or by them. So really you're pissing in the wind. If you hadn't read the article or this thread he'd have still got in and you'd have been none the wiser but perhaps a little less aggravated.
Being aggravated is a natural traction to an event as irritating as this. For me, it's better that we know exactly what is going on, rather than it being hushed up. Quote:
It's not condescension to point out they're pressing your buttons.
My buttons would be pressed on this one, wherever the information came from. What's the problem with that anyway?Quote:
Nor is it condescending to point out that DM readers fit a certain mould.
It's both condescending and utter bollocks.Quote:
If you really want to change the system then the first step is to contact your MP. Depending on the response you get it might also be worth starting an online petition. All you need is 10,000 signatures and it forces the Government to respond. I suspect though that the vast majority of people reading that DM story will have a good old grumble, and maybe talk about it for a couple of days, and then do.... precisely nothing..... because there'll be something else to get upset about. On and on goes the vicious cycle and the DM sells its newspapers. Who has won; you or them? I know who I'd bet on.
It's actually win win, if you think about it. At any rate it is for those who want to be kept informed as to what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
|
Quote:
There are restrictions on paedophiles travelling abroad, so why not on someone who has beheaded someone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Posts: 6,346
|
We should have a visa system where people who have committed serious crimes like beheading people or paedophilia, rape or any violent crime like murder don't get in. The only thing is that it would cost a lot of money and people lie about their criminal records. Some countries would give info on criminals so their passport would flag up but lots of countries won't. I don't know how else we could minimise the number of criminals or terrorists getting into Britain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,537
|
Whilst I not condoning the decision to let this man into the UK I do think we have to get a bit of perspective here.
We have plenty of home grown 'scum', paedophiles, rapists and murders with previous convictions who are currently living in countries abroad, free to enter those countries and potentially commit further crimes there as a result of the checks and controls in those countries not seeing these individuals as a risk. The ex husband of a friend is a convicted paedophile (she divorced him as soon as she found out about his crimes) who is currently living in Spain and running a hospitality business. He was allowed into Spain with the authorities fully knowing his background. I would suggest that there are many countries in the world, particularly in underdeveloped countries, that are a magnet to our 'scum' simply because they do not apply the same ongoing controls and checks we do to people with previous convictions (although yes this case shows we don't always get it right). So whilst I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't apply proper vetting to people coming into our country, we have to be careful not to recklessly point fingers because I'm sure there are plenty of UK born people in countries throughout the world who commit heinous crimes where they are living, we just never hear about them because that wouldn't make the sort of headlines that sell copies if the Daily Fail. Going one step further, if we repatriated every foreign born person with a conviction for murder, rape and paedophilia and every country in the world did likewise for U.K. born immigrants with similar convictions I'm not sure we would be in a better position. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
But he wasn't innocent.
He had been convicted and sentenced for beheading someone. Yes, he had been convicted of the crime and, importantly, had served the sentence imposed. Andrue's reference to innocence relates to any person being judged (profiled) about their likeliness to commit crimes in the future. IOW, someone bases their opinion of risk based on something very subjective such as the way someone they're looking at dresses/speaks/has their hair/their sex/their mannerisms etc. Quote:
In this country if he had ever been set free for that crime, he would have had a life sentence and his movements monitored for the rest of his life.
He may also have had restrictions preventing him from travelling abroad, due to the nature of the crime. Quote:
If he didn't adhere to his parole conditions he would have been recalled to prison.
Quote:
I'm no expert, but I reckon he would have got around 25 years or so for that offence here.
Quote:
In my opinion, he shouldn't have been free. Especially as he dosent seem to have been rehabilitated & the sentence for beheading given & served, is absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
It might come to that and as modern electronic technology advances it should be easier to have a worldwide common shared database of all known dangerous criminals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
Well I have to disagree with you there, Chris. Any law which is lax enough to allow in someone like this guy, is not fit for purpose.
Quote:
This is way too weak, and why we did the right thing by breaking free of an organisation which frankly is terrorist/criminal friendly.
Quote:
I'm not sure what the precise mechanics of the US system is, but they seem to be pretty effective at keeping out criminals, terrorists and murderers. Maybe we should be learning lesons from them.
Quote:
It should be possible. [re: checking every traveller's criminal history
Quote:
Being aggravated is a natural traction to an event as irritating as this. For me, it's better that we know exactly what is going on, rather than it being hushed up.
Quote:
My buttons would be pressed on this one, wherever the information came from. What's the problem with that anyway?
Quote:
It's both condescending and utter bollocks.[re: DM readers fitting a certain mould]
Quote:
It's actually win win, if you think about it. At any rate it is for those who want to be kept informed as to what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,381
|
Quote:
Again with Brexit like it's some kind of magic pill. The world is bigger than just the EU you know. You don't think there are violent criminals in countries outside the EU? .
Quote:
The US can't really stop criminals travelling from state to state. A person with a spent conviction for murder can travel from say New York to LA with no issues at all. That's exactly what happened with Piruz, but instead of NY to LA it was Holland to England..
And it's not exactly what happened with Piruz , we have a border control between us and the rest of the mainland EU member states, that's the difference. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56.


