|
Post by seasidestokie on Feb 8, 2012 17:22:36 GMT
I visited the webpage it said... "understandably, the bereaved father is outraged. He has therefore campaigned over the years for Ibrahim to be deported. The immigration tribunal, which just ruled that Ibrahim should be allowed to stay in the UK, went out of it's way to spell out that had deportation been sought at the end of Ibrahim's prison sentence. it would certainly have been allowed. Again, it is not the fault of the HRA that the authorities chose not to make this obvious request at the time." This killer served just 4 months, while all the seven years of wrangling were going on this killer married a UK citizen and had two children and acquired 2 step children. "The Human rights act embodies the European Human rights convention, article 8 of which protects the right to family rights. The impact that his expulsion would have on these members of Ibrahim's family is what kept him here. It is the right of innocent children to have their father that the tribunal has upheld". "The judges decided, rightly or wrongly, they had to put the family first. To defend the HRA is not to defend Ibrahim's appalling conduct. Sound to me this disgusting creature has been saved by the HRA.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Feb 8, 2012 17:25:47 GMT
The term right wing in the report was judged to mean social conservatism and authoritarianism. "In both the NCDS and the BCS, socially conservative ideology was assessed in terms of respect for and submission to authority (7 items in the NCDS and 10 items in the BCS; e.g., “Give law breakers stiffer sentences” and “Schools should teach children to obey authority”) and support for conventional (i.e., unequal) sex roles (6 items in both studies; e.g., “Family life suffers if mum is working fulltime”); scale reliabilities ranged from .63 to .68 (Deary et al., 2008; Schoon et al., 2010). These measures tap socially conservative values, including desire for law and order, punitive reactions toward wrongdoers, adherence to social conventions or traditions, and social control" Seems reasonable to me. does a desire for law and order really make you conservative? That's a very complex question in a very simplistic form! But people who bang on about the rule of law as a justification for prejudiced and poorly thought out philosophies are definitely right-wing Is right -wing the same as conservative......well I guess in within the terms of the study it would appear to be defined as such .
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 8, 2012 17:31:16 GMT
I visited the webpage it said... "understandably, the bereaved father is outraged. He has therefore campaigned over the years for Ibrahim to be deported. The immigration tribunal, which just ruled that Ibrahim should be allowed to stay in the UK, went out of it's way to spell out that had deportation been sought at the end of Ibrahim's prison sentence. it would certainly have been allowed. Again, it is not the fault of the HRA that the authorities chose not to make this obvious request at the time." This killer served just 4 months, while all the seven years of wrangling were going on this killer married a UK citizen and had two children and acquired 2 step children. "The Human rights act embodies the European Human rights convention, article 8 of which protects the right to family rights. The impact that his expulsion would have on these members of Ibrahim's family is what kept him here. It is the right of innocent children to have their father that the tribunal has upheld". "The judges decided, rightly or wrongly, they had to put the family first. To defend the HRA is not to defend Ibrahim's appalling conduct. Sound to me this disgusting creature has been saved by the HRA. If he had been tried for murder or manslaughter then we would have had absolutely no problem deporting him. The reason he was allowed to stay is because the CPS only prosecuted him for fleeing the scene and driving without a license. Since this is all that he was legally guilty of, he was able to make a strong case under the human rights act that his family lived here and shouldn't be deported. It seems to me to be a failure of the criminal justice system in this case, rather than the HRA. Of course, that doesn't make as good a news story.
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Feb 8, 2012 17:39:58 GMT
I visited the webpage it said... "understandably, the bereaved father is outraged. He has therefore campaigned over the years for Ibrahim to be deported. The immigration tribunal, which just ruled that Ibrahim should be allowed to stay in the UK, went out of it's way to spell out that had deportation been sought at the end of Ibrahim's prison sentence. it would certainly have been allowed. Again, it is not the fault of the HRA that the authorities chose not to make this obvious request at the time." This killer served just 4 months, while all the seven years of wrangling were going on this killer married a UK citizen and had two children and acquired 2 step children. "The Human rights act embodies the European Human rights convention, article 8 of which protects the right to family rights. The impact that his expulsion would have on these members of Ibrahim's family is what kept him here. It is the right of innocent children to have their father that the tribunal has upheld". "The judges decided, rightly or wrongly, they had to put the family first. To defend the HRA is not to defend Ibrahim's appalling conduct. Sound to me this disgusting creature has been saved by the HRA. If he had been tried for murder or manslaughter then we would have had absolutely no problem deporting him. The reason he was allowed to stay is because the CPS only prosecuted him for fleeing the scene and driving without a license. Since this is all that he was legally guilty of, he was able to make a strong case under the human rights act that his family lived here and shouldn't be deported. It seems to me to be a failure of the criminal justice system in this case, rather than the HRA. Of course, that doesn't make as good a news story. It would have made a better news story... and the killer is only here because of the HRA
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 8, 2012 17:43:04 GMT
No, he's here because the we didn't prosecute him for murder or manslaughter. He is not, in the eyes of the law at least, a killer.
The HRA act stopped a man with a wife and family being deported for driving without a license.
I don't think that's a flagrant abuse of the HRA.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 17:54:12 GMT
"The Bush administration showed the same financial incompetence as New Labour." At last, someone (other than from the right) with the balls to admit that the last labour government was incompetent. Refreshing. If you also come clean and admit that you voted them every time, and in particular at the last election, a more honest debate could ensue. The problem on here has always been that whilst the left-wing posters spend hours defending the last government, they wont admit to voting for them post 97, presumably because they think they would lose all credibility on here by being associated with what, as you have pointed out, was 13 years of incompetence. You do love to jump to an ill-thought through conclusion, redstriper! I didn't vote for anyone at the last election. I've voted Conservative in the past. I've voted Labour too. It depends on lots of different factors, rather than some non-thinking blind allegiance , but mainly on what I think is best for the country as a whole at the time. You also seem to have missed Philm87's point about New Labour, which you insist was a socialist government ;D, basically carrying on the free market monetarist policies such as financial deregulation set in train by the right in the early 80s. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Feb 8, 2012 18:46:59 GMT
Blind Allegiance, hmm - I've voted in 7 elections, and only voted tory twice (the first and the last). So now who is jumping to ill thought out conclusions ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 18:49:36 GMT
And when did I say you voted Tory all the time through blind allegiance?
Do you actually understand what I write?
Can you answer the question I asked you please re Philm87's post?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Feb 8, 2012 20:18:46 GMT
You clearly implied it in the post above. But you can never take it when you are exposed as possessing the exact same prejudices that you chastise everyone else on here for.
If you quit the with superior, holier-than-thou attitude and accept that you show all the same tendencies you claim to despise then I'll answer your question.
I'm not holding my breath though..
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 8, 2012 20:22:12 GMT
I think Matty is brighter than Jermaine
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Feb 8, 2012 20:27:13 GMT
No, he's here because the we didn't prosecute him for murder or manslaughter. He is not, in the eyes of the law at least, a killer. The HRA act stopped a man with a wife and family being deported for driving without a license. I don't think that's a flagrant abuse of the HRA. JUST driving without a license! you're having a laugh. this is a useless piece of foreign scum... he killed the girl, ran away leaving her under the wheels of his car... Mohammed Ibrahim... 2002. Cautioned for criminal damage. Jan 2003, fined for driving without insurance and having no driving license. June 2003. Six month ban for the same offense. Oct 2003. banned for further nine months for driving without insurance, having no driving license and insufficient tyre tread . Nov, 2003. driving while banned he hits Amy Houston and KILLS her, sentenced to 4 months in prison. 2004 Convicted for possession of cannabis. 2005. Cautioned for burglary and theft. 2006. Convicted for driving while disqualified and without insurance, given a 2 year supervision order, banned from driving and given a curfew. 2009 Convicted of harassment. This is a piece of scum we can do without, he should be deported... unless you could give him a bed at your place.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 8, 2012 20:46:17 GMT
No, he's here because the we didn't prosecute him for murder or manslaughter. He is not, in the eyes of the law at least, a killer. The HRA act stopped a man with a wife and family being deported for driving without a license. I don't think that's a flagrant abuse of the HRA. JUST driving without a license! you're having a laugh. this is a useless piece of foreign scum... he killed the girl, ran away leaving her under the wheels of his car... Mohammed Ibrahim... 2002. Cautioned for criminal damage. Jan 2003, fined for driving without insurance and having no driving license. June 2003. Six month ban for the same offense. Oct 2003. banned for further nine months for driving without insurance, having no driving license and insufficient tyre tread . Nov, 2003. driving while banned he hits Amy Houston and KILLS her, sentenced to 4 months in prison. 2004 Convicted for possession of cannabis. 2005. Cautioned for burglary and theft. 2006. Convicted for driving while disqualified and without insurance, given a 2 year supervision order, banned from driving and given a curfew. 2009 Convicted of harassment. This is a piece of scum we can do without, he should be deported... unless you could give him a bed at your place. and some English woman opened her legs for him, they should both be deported, she's made her bed and laid in it.
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Feb 8, 2012 20:54:32 GMT
Are you putting words in my mouth Mr. Northwich ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 21:06:35 GMT
You clearly implied it in the post above. But you can never take it when you are exposed as possessing the exact same prejudices that you chastise everyone else on here for. If you quit the with superior, holier-than-thou attitude and accept that you show all the same tendencies you claim to despise then I'll answer your question. I'm not holding my breath though.. OK, to be fair, perhaps you genuinely didn't understand that I was actually taking the piss out of myself since you said that I "voted them [Labour] every time and in particular at the last election" as that would indeed constitute blind allegiance, if it were at all accurate, which sadly it isn't. See this is what I mean. You repeatedly jump to conclusions, based on not much information, inaccurate information (e.g. McCartney) and your prejudices of what you assume about me. In all seriousness, this is exactly what that article was about. What did you make of Philm87's post?
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 8, 2012 21:22:09 GMT
JUST driving without a license! you're having a laugh. this is a useless piece of foreign scum... he killed the girl, ran away leaving her under the wheels of his car... Mohammed Ibrahim... 2002. Cautioned for criminal damage. Jan 2003, fined for driving without insurance and having no driving license. June 2003. Six month ban for the same offense. Oct 2003. banned for further nine months for driving without insurance, having no driving license and insufficient tyre tread . Nov, 2003. driving while banned he hits Amy Houston and KILLS her, sentenced to 4 months in prison. 2004 Convicted for possession of cannabis. 2005. Cautioned for burglary and theft. 2006. Convicted for driving while disqualified and without insurance, given a 2 year supervision order, banned from driving and given a curfew. 2009 Convicted of harassment. This is a piece of scum we can do without, he should be deported... unless you could give him a bed at your place. I'm not standing up for him. I won't argue with you that he appears to be a scumbag but that wasn't the point. The point was about the merits of the Human Rights Act He wasn't prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. If he did indeed kill the young girl then that's a failure of the CPS, not the Human Rights Act.
|
|
|
Post by LH_SCFC on Feb 8, 2012 21:23:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Feb 8, 2012 21:49:20 GMT
Left and Right thinkers are clueless to see the false dichotomy mind prison they thoughts are trapped in.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Feb 8, 2012 22:01:29 GMT
Ok, I thought it a beautifully written and constructed piece which was compelling to read. A pity that the main premise and subsequent conclusion were undermined somewhat by the fact he admitted himslef half a minute later in a subsequent post that it was bollocks. A rare admission on here, fair play to him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 13:06:54 GMT
Ok, I thought it a beautifully written and constructed piece which was compelling to read. A pity that the main premise and subsequent conclusion were undermined somewhat by the fact he admitted himslef half a minute later in a subsequent post that it was bollocks. A rare admission on here, fair play to him. ;D Ok, redstriper, joke's over, be serious for a second. You reached the above conclusion based on what? This? "...so the argument still works". ??? It doesn't say it was bollocks at all, unless you close your eyes and pretend the second sentence isn't there ;D Do you wonder why I query your reasoning ability? This is basically how you derive your opinions time after time.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Feb 9, 2012 17:12:22 GMT
"The Bush administration showed the same financial incompetence as New Labour." At last, someone (other than from the right) with the balls to admit that the last labour government was incompetent. Refreshing. If you also come clean and admit that you voted them every time, and in particular at the last election, a more honest debate could ensue. The problem on here has always been that whilst the left-wing posters spend hours defending the last government, they wont admit to voting for them post 97, presumably because they think they would lose all credibility on here by being associated with what, as you have pointed out, was 13 years of incompetence. Didn't vote for them. Never have never will. But I definitely won't vote for the Tories either. Why would I want those privately educated millionaires telling me 'We're all in this together'?
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Feb 9, 2012 17:21:37 GMT
Ok, I thought it a beautifully written and constructed piece which was compelling to read. A pity that the main premise and subsequent conclusion were undermined somewhat by the fact he admitted himslef half a minute later in a subsequent post that it was bollocks. A rare admission on here, fair play to him. Not the main premise... the main premise was that Labour's economic policies were basically right-wing. The bit that was wrong was the bit about acceptance of the neoliberal paradigm leading to higher government spending, because neoliberals are ideologically opposed to high government spending. The rest of it works. You could also argue that because governmental spending requires borrowing then deregulating financial markets created the conditions in which government could run up massive deficits. Again right-wing policies. Although I will openly admit that Labour under Blair and Brown were shite and I doubt the new lot are any better.
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Feb 10, 2012 16:09:10 GMT
JUST driving without a license! you're having a laugh. this is a useless piece of foreign scum... he killed the girl, ran away leaving her under the wheels of his car... Mohammed Ibrahim... 2002. Cautioned for criminal damage. Jan 2003, fined for driving without insurance and having no driving license. June 2003. Six month ban for the same offense. Oct 2003. banned for further nine months for driving without insurance, having no driving license and insufficient tyre tread . Nov, 2003. driving while banned he hits Amy Houston and KILLS her, sentenced to 4 months in prison. 2004 Convicted for possession of cannabis. 2005. Cautioned for burglary and theft. 2006. Convicted for driving while disqualified and without insurance, given a 2 year supervision order, banned from driving and given a curfew. 2009 Convicted of harassment. This is a piece of scum we can do without, he should be deported... unless you could give him a bed at your place. I'm not standing up for him. I won't argue with you that he appears to be a scumbag but that wasn't the point. The point was about the merits of the Human Rights Act He wasn't prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. If he did indeed kill the young girl then that's a failure of the CPS, not the Human Rights Act. It was the HRA!... Quote!... "The judges decided, rightly or wrongly, that they had to put THE FAMILY FIRST. To defend the HRA is not to defend Ibrahim's appalling conduct". In other words they were in no way defending him but defending his family under the HRA, so he WAS NOT deported, because he had a family! And for you to say, "IF he did indeed kill the young girl", is a disgrace, he DID kill that young girl, even your leftie papers say that.
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 10, 2012 16:24:59 GMT
It was the HRA!... Quote!... "The judges decided, rightly or wrongly, that they had to put THE FAMILY FIRST. To defend the HRA is not to defend Ibrahim's appalling conduct". In other words they were in no way defending him but defending his family under the HRA, so he WAS NOT deported, because he had a family! And for you to say, "IF he did indeed kill the young girl", is a disgrace, he DID kill that young girl, even your leftie papers say that. You cannot deport someone for murder if they haven't been convicted of it. You cannot deport someone for manslaughter if you have not been convicted of it. We tried to have him deported on the basis of driving offences, and he appealed under the HRA on his right to family life, and was allowed to stay. This is not the HRA letting killers stay.
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Feb 10, 2012 16:33:17 GMT
It was the HRA!... Quote!... "The judges decided, rightly or wrongly, that they had to put THE FAMILY FIRST. To defend the HRA is not to defend Ibrahim's appalling conduct". In other words they were in no way defending him but defending his family under the HRA, so he WAS NOT deported, because he had a family! And for you to say, "IF he did indeed kill the young girl", is a disgrace, he DID kill that young girl, even your leftie papers say that. You cannot deport someone for murder if they haven't been convicted of it. You cannot deport someone for manslaughter if you have not been convicted of it. We tried to have him deported on the basis of driving offences, and he appealed under the HRA on his right to family life, and was allowed to stay. This is not the HRA letting killers stay. He's a foreign criminal and should have been deported! but the HRA got him off the hook! no matter what the crime! Read that fucking article again!
|
|
|
Post by rhodesy on Feb 10, 2012 22:53:01 GMT
Left wingers are poorer than right wingers.
|
|
|
Post by frasier99 on Feb 10, 2012 23:00:33 GMT
Left wingers are poorer than right wingers. and a bit special really
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 11, 2012 0:02:57 GMT
Left wingers are poorer than right wingers. In the wallet maybe, in the mind no. As your posts frequently demonstrate.
|
|
|
Post by mistersausage on Feb 11, 2012 9:13:45 GMT
Some right wingers are reet thick fuckers.
Those who live in 2 up 2 down houses and have to look at their bank balances before buying a new car and voted tory are the thickest .... Utter fucking lemmings who should be stoned in public.
|
|
|
Post by jonah77 on Feb 11, 2012 10:21:06 GMT
Some right wingers are reet thick fuckers. Those who live in 2 up 2 down houses and have to look at their bank balances before buying a new car and voted tory are the thickest .... Utter fucking lemmings who should be stoned in public. who did you vote for?
|
|
|
Post by mistersausage on Feb 11, 2012 10:28:59 GMT
Some right wingers are reet thick fuckers. Those who live in 2 up 2 down houses and have to look at their bank balances before buying a new car and voted tory are the thickest .... Utter fucking lemmings who should be stoned in public. who did you vote for? I never ask anyone directly who they voted for and I never tell anyone who I voted for. The question, and indeed the answer to your own question is .... Where is the socialist alternative to centre right politics in this country?
|
|