I'm a committed European through and through but piece of news must be extremely worrying for UK citizens.
Rapists, murderers, Class A drug dealers - the worst dregs of society are all open to come to the UK and live off the State and even be paid for the privilege.
Last year, President Sarkozy was castigated for running similar miscreants from Romania out of the Country. He totally ignored Strasbourg and suggested not only where they could put their ruling but how far up it should be inserted. It died a death. The Romanians were bundled in to a plane and sent back where they belonged. If Strasbourg imposed a fine for France ignoring it's ruling, it just got added to the billions of Euro it already owes and which it will never pay.
Why can't the UK Government do the same? What teeth do Strasbourg actually have to prevent it from happening?
Bundle the miscreants on a plane and throw them out at 30,000 feet with a threadbare parachute.
They deserve nothing better for their evil crimes but the general population deserves better protection from them by it's Government.
Can we not just offer them free accomodation in Strasbourg??
When the judges fear for their own safety they might change their take on the law.
This goverment has not got the bollocks to do it...........................
sounds like a typical case of immigration scaremongering to me.
last stats I saw demonstrated that immigrants - ESPECIALLY illegal ones - were in fact MORE law abiding than the average brit - presumably for the simple reason that they have a great deal more to lose if they are caught.
I say let them in and send the malingering dole scrounging scumbags in my local council estate (who I strongly suspect of stealing my motorbike) to Romania instead - they can't be any worse than them - who knows they might have a modicum of appreciation for this fine country of ours
I do however have to agree that this does smack of typical media scaremongering
No G there is more than a little element of scaremongering present here.
I am I admit conflicted here .... whilst I fully agree with the ruling that no-one should be deported into harms way...there is the problem that the asylum claim of one of those mentioned has already been denied. As I say conflicted
I have to conclude that though I agree with the ruling on deportation I do not know enough about the specific cases to jump one way or another on them....I know it's a cop out but it's the best I can do for now
Obviously there is a much different debate regarding immigration and the problems or perceived problems this generates, my points here only relate to the increasingly dictatorial and self serving decisions coming from Strasbourg.
They seem intent on alienating themselves from all but their own little world where they never have to deal directly with the people they are there to represent, not repress their collective wishes.
Anyone actually arguing an illegal immigrant convicted of a serious crime deserves the protection of assylum??
The thing that gets me wound up is.............
We can't deport an ilegal/legal imigrant back to where they came from if thier life is going to be in danger, so WTF do they commit crime when they get here?
IMO, an imigrant, legal or not, should be model citizens, after all, it was thier choice to come here...............
I see nothing wrong in Staggs posts and he puts accross one side of the argument eloquently.
He does argue his point well which appears to nark some of the opposing "views" whose arguments then appear to loose credence when they resort to name calling and accusations of foul play
I for one enjoy his posts ... and the measured replies from one or two of his opponents.
The reason i don't post on the forum and only observe is not for fear of bullying but the feeling that it would just be a case of banging one's head against a brick wall
May reasoned debate continue .. or possibly start .. and the name calling and petty obsessions with trying to prove someone "wrong" cease.
There are always differing views to current affairs and as someone with a keen interest in history and politics i like to see these
Maybe a swingers forum isn't the place for me to find these debates !!
Being a european is one thing, being fucked over by every other EU member country is another, as long as the government(s) allow us to be used the way we are then we should not be in europe
What does being a member of the EU do for us (bearing in mind the millions we pay into it each month
Does being a member mean that other EU members will trade with us (France still refuses to sell British Beef in most supermarkets).
Will BMW, Citroen, Volkswagon, Mercedes, Peugeot, Fiat, Skoda and all the other EU car manufacturers refuse to sell thier cars in Britain, will all EU members refuse to sell thier products in this country, not in a million years, they could not afford to stop exporting to Britain, neither can they do without many of the products manufactured here.
Switzerland is the RICHEST country in the world, the world not just europe, situated in the heart of europe, surrounded by France, Germany, Italy and Austria, they are NOT members of the EU, yet based on lifestyle and disposable income the Swiss are the richest, forget a few rich Russians or a few rich Arabs, everyone in Switzerland is better off than anyone else in the world pro rata to job, status etc.
It's time to ask ourselves - do we want to be in the EU, do the benefits outweigh the negatives, is being a member still cost effective, do we want to choose the size of our bananas ourselves or have it dictated to us by the EU
Don't get me started on Europe ....... I'd kick seven shades out of the lot of you , so just admit I'm right now and I'll let you all off