People who should be deported

[Spiderman]

Somewhat, it is geographical selection in terms of where the court is. Also, you can only be called if you are on the electoral register.

And certain jobs are exempt.

 

[HKOwen]

And certain jobs are exempt.

That may well be, I am not well informed to that extent, a quick check shows the exempt and ineligible, no surprises. I would also exclude all foreign nationals regardless of residence status and electoral registration.

There should also be some test of comprehension of English and a basic intelligence test.

 

[Spiderman]

Yeah I think I agree. Difficult to know really either way but think I fall down on this side rather than 12 jurors with little to no legal knowledge or experience.

I have never understood how these long drawn out fraud cases are held before a jury. Do they ever understand anything that is being said/claimed? Not meant to be disparaging to jury members

 

[Spindle]

For someone who has picked me up on my words before I did not say 'rascist'.

Do you have a guilty conscience? You know this is true.

It's 'racist' btw 😉

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

It's a bit of a theme how you pretty much always answer a question with a question and don't really directly answer what I've asked you.

I've made my stance very clear on removal previously that I support deportations of foreign national offenders. You are just trying to change the direction of the conversation because I'm being a bit challenging on what you mean exactly by 'Anti-British activities'.

To deport people of 'anti-British activities' you do need a legal definition in an act of Parliament to do that and clear examples of what qualifies and what doesn't. But you've not answered whether you consider that to be what is currently a criminal offence to be the line for that (like incitement for example) or if you think it's wider and stuff not covered by criminal law currently?

What are you, a f***ing lawyer?

You aren't going to divert from the pathetic inability of our government to protect our security by wittering on about details. It's an old leftist ploy.

The specifics would be determined by a government prepared to deal with the current crisis. My opinion on what they should be is not important, other than to you it seems.

 

[Eagle One]

What are you, a f***ing lawyer?

You aren't going to divert from the pathetic inability of our government to protect our security by wittering on about details. It's an old leftist ploy.

The specifics would be determined by a government prepared to deal with the current crisis. My opinion on what they should be is not important, other than to you it seems.

Another counter question again. Nope, wrong again.

And I wasn't trying to defend the government. What part of what I have said is trying to defend the government? In this exchange you've asked me if I'm anti-British, pro-government, anti-taking action against migrant criminals and obsessed with Tommy Robinson, all to avoid answering a simple b****y question.

To reiterate all I was just trying to get you to say what you actually mean by 'Anti-British activities'. It comes across that you want to deport first and second generation for more than what is currently deemed to be an existing criminal offence, like incitement, simply because it fits what you deem to be 'anti-British activities', which you can't define or refuse to say what you actually mean by this term.

Still it's OK, if you don't want to answer the question that's fine.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Another counter question again. Nope, wrong again.

And I wasn't trying to defend the government. What part of what I have said is trying to defend the government? In this exchange you've asked me if I'm anti-British, pro-government, anti-taking action against migrant criminals and obsessed with Tommy Robinson, all to avoid answering a simple b****y question.

To reiterate all I was just trying to get you to say what you actually mean by 'Anti-British activities'. It comes across that you want to deport first and second generation for more than what is currently deemed to be an existing criminal offence, like incitement, simply because it fits what you deem to be 'anti-British activities', which you can't define or refuse to say what you actually mean by this term.

Still it's OK, if you don't want to answer the question that's fine.

This is the last time I'm going to say this. The details of any policy or new law will be down to the government prepared to tackle the problem. What they determine as anti British activity is likely already covered by current definitions around terrorism and related activities. They might be subject to interpretation.

I have already given you an outline of what anti British activity might be. I assume, in your typical leftist way, you are trying to get me to say something that makes you wet your knickers with outrage, but you are wasting your time.

Parliament is not in the habit of passing extremist laws. The current laws aren't necessarily the problem. It's how they are being interpreted and by whom. The best outcome might be that we replace some of the current judiciary and ignore the ECHR where it conflicts with Britain's interests.
The main parties have failed to act and, in fact, have encouraged the problem. We need a change of political direction and those elected will be tasked with making policy where needed. I will not be in that government, so I will not be invited to cabinet meetings to give my input.

 

[Irisheagle87]

Chained together with Gary Lineker, Russel Brand and Lilly Allen. 😀

No not Lilly. Always liked our Lilly

 

[Eagle One]

This is the last time I'm going to say this. The details of any policy or new law will be down to the government prepared to tackle the problem. What they determine as anti British activity is likely already covered by current definitions around terrorism and related activities. They might be subject to interpretation.

I have already given you an outline of what anti British activity might be. I assume, in your typical leftist way, you are trying to get me to say something that makes you wet your knickers with outrage, but you are wasting your time.

Parliament is not in the habit of passing extremist laws. The current laws aren't necessarily the problem. It's how they are being interpreted and by whom. The best outcome might be that we replace some of the current judiciary and ignore the ECHR where it conflicts with Britain's interests.
The main parties have failed to act and, in fact, have encouraged the problem. We need a change of political direction and those elected will be tasked with making policy where needed. I will not be in that government, so I will not be invited to cabinet meetings to give my input.

Last time I'm coming back on this also. Interesting you now put the definition of anti-British on the government and Parliament. 'Anti-British activities' is a term you came up with, I've never heard the Government or Parliament use it. But admittedly I don't read Hansard.

All I did was ask what you meant by 'Anti-British activities', your personal reason for saying that because you came up with the phrase. Why? Because that terms sounds like you mean it to be much broader than an existing criminal offence, otherwise going back to you very first post on this you could have just simply said your strawman is a 1st and 2nd generation convicted of a criminal offence, rather than use a term that's open to much broader interpretation.

And there's not need to use the wet knickers term, just because don't like being pressed. If I'd have said that I'm sure you'd have made a less than complimentary response.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Last time I'm coming back on this also. Interesting you now put the definition of anti-British on the government and Parliament. 'Anti-British activities' is a term you came up with, I've never heard the Government or Parliament use it. But admittedly I don't read Hansard.

All I did was ask what you meant by 'Anti-British activities', your personal reason for saying that because you came up with the phrase. Why? Because that terms sounds like you mean it to be much broader than an existing criminal offence, otherwise going back to you very first post on this you could have just simply said your strawman is a 1st and 2nd generation convicted of a criminal offence, rather than use a term that's open to much broader interpretation.

And there's not need to use the wet knickers term, just because don't like being pressed. If I'd have said that I'm sure you'd have made a less than complimentary response.

I know exactly why you asked the question because people like you are always predictable.

Just for fun, while I drink my coffee, off the top of my head, these are criteria that I would advocate for.

Criminality. Harboring criminals, including illegal immigrants. Perverting the course of justice and tax evasion. Leaching from our welfare system while contributing nothing. Terrorism and conspiracy against the state and its institutions. Threatening national security, inciting religious violence. That should be good for quite a number.

Please don't ask me to go into detail on these, because I have better things to do than waste time on things that aren't in my job description. My job description is currently retired and loving it, by the way.

 

[Eagle One]

I know exactly why you asked the question because people like you are always predictable.

Just for fun, while I drink my coffee, off the top of my head, these are criteria that I would advocate for.

Criminality. Harboring criminals, including illegal immigrants. Perverting the course of justice and tax evasion. Leaching from our welfare system while contributing nothing. Terrorism and conspiracy against the state and its institutions. Threatening national security, inciting religious violence. That should be good for quite a number.

Please don't ask me to go into detail on these, because I have better things to do than waste time on things that aren't in my job description. My job description is currently retired and loving it, by the way.

And there you go again with the snide reference at the start. Just unnecessary, but to use your own word 'predictable'.

What you describe actually answers my original question and all of those fall into the realm of criminality. I don't disagree with any of them. Had you just said that at the start instead of trying to get constantly distract away from what I asked it might have been a different exchange.

 

[Eagle One]

Do you have a guilty conscience? You know this is true.

It's 'racist' btw 😉

Just because I can't effin type accurately Hmmpphhh....

Ps I had to go back and correct 'accurately'.

And no I don't, not on this anyway.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

And there you go again with the snide reference at the start. Just unnecessary, but to use your own word 'predictable'.

What you describe actually answers my original question and all of those fall into the realm of criminality. I don't disagree with any of them. Had you just said that at the start instead of trying to get constantly distract away from what I asked it might have been a different exchange.

I'm on to you.

You weren't supposed to be replying anymore. I knew I'd reel you back in with that one.

 

[Eagle One]

I'm on to you.

You weren't supposed to be replying anymore. I knew I'd reel you back in with that one.

Fair play, game over. 😉

 

[Glazier#1]

I know exactly why you asked the question because people like you are always predictable.

Just for fun, while I drink my coffee, off the top of my head, these are criteria that I would advocate for.

Criminality. Harboring criminals, including illegal immigrants. Perverting the course of justice and tax evasion. Leaching from our welfare system while contributing nothing. Terrorism and conspiracy against the state and its institutions. Threatening national security, inciting religious violence. That should be good for quite a number.

Please don't ask me to go into detail on these, because I have better things to do than waste time on things that aren't in my job description. My job description is currently retired and loving it, by the way.

'People like you'

Not made your mind up, then?