NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who don't know, there's been a lot of stuff over here in the news over a major government screw up. Basically the government allowed foreign prisoners to be released after their sentences when they should have been immediately deported. It turns out that some of the prisoners were released after the Home Secretary realised what was going on. A few of them are murderers and rapists and are now walking the streets. One of the prisoners who was released without being considered for deportation is now wanted for the murder of a policewoman. They didn't deport him back to Somalia because of the danger he might face back there (Boo hoo).

Charles Clarke, our incompetent Home Secretary is now trying to have the 1,023 released criminals tracked down and deported in a desperate attempt to save his career. Tony Blair has also pledged to introduce laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4967592.stm) which will automatically deport all foreign criminals who are convicted of an offence which carries a prison sentence. But I don't really think this is going to achieve anything. Due to the government surrendering our sovereignty under human rights law and the UN Refugee Convention, we still won't be able to deport criminals back to countries where they may face mistreatment such as execution. Even if they're a murderer or a rapist.

The only thing our government should be doing is withdrawing from our obligations under international refugee conventions and human rights law. I don't see why a load of overpaid foreign bureaucrats should be able to dictate that we let dangerous foreign criminals wander our streets. We should deport all foreign criminals and if that means they get brutalised back home, so be it.

For more info on the whole thing, clicky. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4939376.stm)

Basically the government allowed foreign prisoners to be released after their sentences when they should have been immediately deported.

As I understand it, they were eligible for deportation. That is incredibly different from what you claim.

Due to the government surrendering our sovereignty under human rights law[...]

The only thing our government should be doing is withdrawing from our obligations under international refugee conventions and human rights law.

Jolly good of you to voice your true, vile opinion so soon. It saves me so much time knowing I may dismiss you at once without risking missing anything of value.

So some foreign criminals who were eligible to be deported (but may or may not have been deported) weren't deported, I felt this story was a bit overblown, since they're no more dangerous than british criminals released.


But I don't condone sending people back to countries where they'll be tortured/executed.

where did your understanding come from?

With regard to the 2cnd post

But I don't condone sending people back to countries where they'll be tortured/executed.

Well, -somewhere- would only condone that as long as his country doesn't allow executing or torturing criminals. If they just changed that part of the law, I'm pretty sure he'd be happy with it.

where did your understanding come from?

With regard to the 2cnd post

From the very article the poster linked to: "Foreign citizens face the prospect of deportation from the UK".

Jolly good of you to voice your true, vile opinion so soon. It saves me so much time knowing I may dismiss you at once without risking missing anything of value.
So tell me, why do you think that foreign criminals should be allowed to wander our streets? Why should we let them stay when they're a danger?

From the very article the poster linked to: "Foreign citizens face the prospect of deportation from the UK".
Sorry, I should have clarified that properly.

But I don't condone sending people back to countries where they'll be tortured/executed.
We let these people into our country, keep them safe from persecution and throw welfare benefits at them. And they repay us by commiting crimes. They deserve everything they get.

Well, -somewhere- would only condone that as long as his country doesn't allow executing or torturing criminals. If they just changed that part of the law, I'm pretty sure he'd be happy with it.
I agree with the death penalty for muder, but wouldn't want to see torture legalised here. So I wouldn't want to see the law changed to allow torture. All I would want is for the law to be changed so we wouldn't be obligated to harbour dangerous criminals just because of torture or execution back home.

So tell me, why do you think that foreign criminals should be allowed to wander our streets? Why should we let them stay when they're a danger?
Fass was objecting to, quite rightly I might add, your suggestion that the UK should not offer people refuge from war and persecution.


Sorry, I should have clarified that properly.

I'd say you deliberately mislead.

The only thing our government should be doing is withdrawing from our obligations under international refugee conventions and human rights law.

This is the good bit. The only thing.

So tell me, why do you think that foreign criminals should be allowed to wander our streets? Why should we let them stay when they're a danger?

Why should you be such a weak nation as to let a few criminals undermine your commitment to human rights? But, yeah, I don't expect you to understand, seeing as you seem to be the type of person who thinks that "human rights" is what is wrong with the world.

We let these people into our country, keep them safe from persecution and throw welfare benefits at them. And they repay us by commiting crimes. They deserve everything they get.
Where did the welfare benefits bit come from? Or are you just assuming/making that up to support your argument?

A thief deserves execution?

[QUOTE=-Somewhere-] One of the prisoners who was released without being considered for deportation is now wanted for the murder of a policewoman. They didn't deport him back to Somalia because of the danger he might face back there (Boo hoo).

That is incorrect, he WAS considered for deportation, but wasn't on the basis that country is in a civil war.

Why should you be such a weak nation as to let a few criminals undermine your commitment to human rights? But, yeah, I don't expect you to understand, seeing as you seem to be the type of person who thinks that "human rights" is what is wrong with the world.
The only weakness I see is this government letting laws drafted by foreign bureaucrats force us to keep dangerous criminals wandering our streets. To prevent this from happening would show strength, that we have a government that is willing to keep our people safe no matter what the ivory-towered liberal elite think.

Where did the welfare benefits bit come from? Or are you just assuming/making that up to support your argument?

A thief deserves execution?
As far as I know, asylum seekers and refugees get government benefits. As for deserving execution, I don't think a thief deserves execution. But we wouldn't be carrying it out. All I think is that if they come here to commit crimes, they don't deserve our protection.

The government is going to get into deep shit because of this. One of the released criminals is a suspect in the killing of the PC Beshenivsky in Bradford.

Also whilst all were eligible for deportation the government was going to attempt to deport about half of them, but they were released by accident.

So all in all, huge mistake.

The only weakness I see is this government letting laws drafted by foreign bureaucrats force us to keep dangerous criminals wandering our streets.
Sure does suck to be part of the international community... or planet earth as it is commonly called.


To prevent this from happening would show strength, that we have a government that is willing to keep our people safe no matter what the ivory-towered liberal elite think.

Whats sad is... you actually believe that.

Some people's views and the ideologies they subscribe to scare me... withdrawing from human rights laws? That could lead the nation down a very dark path indeed.

Saying all immigrants get benefits is akin to saying all Brits sit around drinking tea and eating crumpets. It's rubbish. It's a stereotype, and it's wrong. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, on the Internet and from political parties - if a human being was involved in delivering the information, it's almost certainly biased :p

And I agree with those comments above - this has been blown out of proportion. If these prisoners had escaped, or been randomly released, THEN I'd be worried. But as they served their sentences, they're technically as free as me or you. This has been going on for decades, remember, and the previous government is just as much to blame as the current one - it's just that it emerged under Labour so they're taking the flak for it.

The only weakness I see is this government letting laws drafted by foreign bureaucrats force us to keep dangerous criminals wandering our streets. To prevent this from happening would show strength, that we have a government that is willing to keep our people safe no matter what the ivory-towered liberal elite think.

As I said, thank you for proving again that your immediate dismissal led to not missing anything of value.

The only weakness I see is this government letting laws drafted by foreign bureaucrats force us to keep dangerous criminals wandering our streets. To prevent this from happening would show strength, that we have a government that is willing to keep our people safe no matter what the ivory-towered liberal elite think.


As far as I know, asylum seekers and refugees get government benefits. As for deserving execution, I don't think a thief deserves execution. But we wouldn't be carrying it out. All I think is that if they come here to commit crimes, they don't deserve our protection.
They're eligible for benefits, not all of them get them. Plus are all of these people asylum seekers, or are some of them at least economic migrants?


btw. What's so bad about Ivory Towers? I'd love an Ivory Tower, cost a lot to wash and all, but it'd be teh cool:D

The problem is not with the laws - non-EU foreign nationals who commit crimes face automatic deportation - the problem is with the fact that the man in charge is a scrotum.

For those of you who don't know, there's been a lot of stuff over here in the news over a major government screw up. Basically the government allowed foreign prisoners to be released after their sentences when they should have been immediately deported. It turns out that some of the prisoners were released after the Home Secretary realised what was going on. A few of them are murderers and rapists and are now walking the streets. One of the prisoners who was released without being considered for deportation is now wanted for the murder of a policewoman. They didn't deport him back to Somalia because of the danger he might face back there (Boo hoo).

Charles Clarke, our incompetent Home Secretary is now trying to have the 1,023 released criminals tracked down and deported in a desperate attempt to save his career. Tony Blair has also pledged to introduce laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4967592.stm) which will automatically deport all foreign criminals who are convicted of an offence which carries a prison sentence. But I don't really think this is going to achieve anything. Due to the government surrendering our sovereignty under human rights law and the UN Refugee Convention, we still won't be able to deport criminals back to countries where they may face mistreatment such as execution. Even if they're a murderer or a rapist.

The only thing our government should be doing is withdrawing from our obligations under international refugee conventions and human rights law. I don't see why a load of overpaid foreign bureaucrats should be able to dictate that we let dangerous foreign criminals wander our streets. We should deport all foreign criminals and if that means they get brutalised back home, so be it.

For more info on the whole thing, clicky. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4939376.stm)


Ok, in that case, lets get out of those Human Rights agreements. Therefore once you speak one slight word against a government they'll take you away, torture you for information then kill you for treason.

Over the top? Maybe.

But it could happen if we do get rid of it.

Exactly. Everyone on this forum makes excellent use of their rights to freedom of speech (I guess we all take it for granted too, having not lived under oppressive regimes). I can criticise my government without fear of some secret police officer kicking down my door and taking me away. We have a wide range of political views on this forum... imagine if someone came along and banned them all. We simply can't allow that to happen, and the human rights laws are part of the barrier protecting our democracy.

Ok, in that case, lets get out of those Human Rights agreements. Therefore once you speak one slight word against a government they'll take you away, torture you for information then kill you for treason.

Over the top? Maybe.

But it could happen if we do get rid of it.
You're being melodramatic. These human right laws are only a reatively recent thing. Ironically, we actually had more freedoms before these human rights laws came into place than we do now. Britain has done fine without these laws, we've had more freedoms than than the vast majority of countries with codified constitutions. Why do we need these laws now?