NationStates Jolt Archive

So the UK is rolling out the unwelcome mat. So do you think this is the right thing to do? How say you.


Most notable is US talk show host Michael Savage.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/05/uk.ban.list/index.html

anyone fancy playing fancy dress at the airport :)

also everything is illegal now surely you've heard that?

Of course they have the right. More power to them.
I wonder about the 6 not officially listed. Bush administration types maybe ?

Good, I wish we could get them out of my Country too...

Savage is a dick, I hate listening to him....of course I do anyway cause its either that or NPR and NPR is boring as hell, :$:(...


Schnitt's sometimes okay, but, Savage is so far Right, I think he can touch Stalin from behind, :p..

I'm all for it. I'm suppressive like that.

Most notable is US talk show host Dan Savage

You've got your Savages confused. Michael Savage(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator) ) is the incendiary radio host. Dan Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage) is a sex-advice columnist and professional hedonist.

Schnitt's sometimes okay, but, Savage is so far Right, I think he can touch Stalin from behind, :p..

I don't know that Stalin would be the poster-boy for extreme right-wing. He remains a convenient boogey-man though, doesn't he?

Entry to a nation is a privilege. I think the UK has been unusually open about a list every country has, but generally keeps secret.

You've got your Savages confused. Michael Savage(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator) ) is the incendiary radio host. Dan Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage) is a sex-advice columnist and professional hedonist.

Thank you... I was shocked and confused...

Thank you... I was shocked and confused...

England is about due for another round of Victorian prudeness.

Thank you... I was shocked and confused...

I could see how both of them might be different kinds of offensive to different segments of society, but I wouldn't deny either of them entry to a country that I was in charge of.

I don't know that Stalin would be the poster-boy for extreme right-wing. He remains a convenient boogey-man though, doesn't he?

Well, it was supposed to imply that he was so far right, it circled back around...

Stalin was actually the poster boy for extreme left in my mind, lol, :p

Hell, I think this is great. Those backwards individuals who waste their lives advocating suppression of various minority groups deserve this sort of treatment. Nothing like taking a dose of your own medicine!

Too bad those kinds of people don't know shame.

You've got your Savages confused. Michael Savage(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator) ) is the incendiary radio host. Dan Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage) is a sex-advice columnist and professional hedonist.



Sorry, my major screw up. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed. ;)

Well, it was supposed to imply that he was so far right, it circled back around...Stalin was actually the poster boy for extreme left in my mind, lol, :p

I got'cha now. Kind of like, 'so drunk, you're approaching sober from the other end.'

It's fantastic that we have someone like Jacqui Smith looking out for our best interests. Yet another proper function of government discovered and implemented. Kudos to you Jacqui.

How is Michael Savage any worse than Rush Limbaugh? :confused:

LOOK HERE!

Now that I have your attention, apparently Michael Savage is suing the British Government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8035114.stm

His real name is Michael Weiner? And he renamed himself Savage? Hilarious overcompensation.

Good for the UK, btw. I think it's a good message at what really makes someone an undesireable...it's not your ethnicity, your religion, your nation of origin...it's your ugly, slimy, disgusting mind and the filth you spew from your putrid mouth.

You've got your Savages confused. Michael Savage(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator) ) is the incendiary radio host. Dan Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage) is a sex-advice columnist and professional hedonist.

One's got wiener in his name, one's got wiener for his game.

Gotcha.

Dan Savage is my hero, btw.

His real name is Michael Weiner? And he renamed himself Savage? Hilarious overcompensation.

Good for the UK, btw. I think it's a good message at what really makes someone an undesireable...it's not your ethnicity, your religion, your nation of origin...it's your ugly, slimy, disgusting mind and the filth you spew from your putrid mouth.

Yeah, I lol'd the first time too.

His real name is Michael Weiner? And he renamed himself Savage? Hilarious overcompensation.

It is not pronounced how you think it is--or maybe it is.

It is not pronounced how you think it is--or maybe it is.
I don't care, in my mind, it's pronounced precisely the way I think it is.

How is Michael Savage any worse than Rush Limbaugh? :confused:

Considering how bad Rush is, I'll admit that it's hard to believe anyone could be worse, but Weiner is worse. A lot worse. Sadly, there are others even worse than him, but said others are so bad I can't even name them without throwing up.

It is not pronounced how you think it is--or maybe it is.

It's pronounced "whiner," which is appropriate enough, in my opinion.

His real name is Michael Weiner? And he renamed himself Savage? Hilarious overcompensation.

Good for the UK, btw. I think it's a good message at what really makes someone an undesireable...it's not your ethnicity, your religion, your nation of origin...it's your ugly, slimy, disgusting mind and the filth you spew from your putrid mouth.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is so awesome, because the USA allow these people to spew their putrid hatred. I honestly believe without Freedom of Speech, the people on these list would just be driven underground and pose a serious threat instead of them making asses out of themselves on TV, radio, and internet.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is so awesome, because the USA allow these people to spew their putrid hatred. I honestly believe without Freedom of Speech, the people on these list would just be driven underground and pose a serious threat instead of them making asses out of themselves on TV, radio, and internet.

My sentiments exactly. Well said, Wilgrove. :)

Dan Savage is my hero, btw.

I like the guy too. That is probably why I initially put his name on the list when I meant Michael. Sex on the brain I guess. :p

How is Michael Savage any worse than Rush Limbaugh? :confused:

Did Rush Limbaugh ever say a woman volunteering at a homeless shelter was hoping to get raped by a homeless man ??? Also suggesting Elizabeth Smart was asking for it.
Or say that all Muslims need deportation ?
the list goes on.

Considering how bad Rush is, I'll admit that it's hard to believe anyone could be worse, but Weiner is worse. A lot worse.

Hell, at least he was willing to impugn Bush.

Sadly, there are others even worse than him, but said others are so bad I can't even name them without throwing up.

Really (http://www.liddyshow.com/)?

It's pronounced "whiner," which is appropriate enough, in my opinion.

That is what I meant by "or maybe it is". ;)

Or say that all Muslims need deportation ?

How did he phrase it, exactly?

Hell, at least he was willing to impugn Bush.

Not for good reasons, though.

Really (http://www.liddyshow.com/)?

I'm thinking of someone worse. Much, much worse.

How did he phrase it, exactly?

From Wikipedia:

Savage was quoted as saying, Muslims, "need deportation"; and that adherents of Islam would do well to “take your religion and shove it up your behind” because "I’m sick of you."[45]

Not for good reasons, though.

And he said said anti-evolution creationalists were "morons".

I'm thinking of someone worse. Much, much worse.

There are enough of them.

From Wikipedia:

Probably the way Rush actually feels, but I now agree that Savage is far worse in this way.

It is wrong. We should beat the UK and make them take him and all his brain dead listeners!

I agree with all of those choices, I wouldn't let any of those faux-humans into my home either.

I think its right that we don't let in morally suspicious, authoritarian people with ridiculous views into our country. We've got enough of that sort sitting on the Commons frontbenches.

Good for the UK, btw. I think it's a good message at what really makes someone an undesireable...it's not your ethnicity, your religion, your nation of origin...it's your ugly, slimy, disgusting mind and the filth you spew from your putrid mouth.

That's something I noted from the list - it covered people from all political extremes and religions.

My view is yes, a sovereign country has the right to stop undesirables from entering their territory (possible exceptions around the EU, I'm not certain on that one). I think the fact the government is making the list known is surprisingly open and more than most countries are doing (and I'm pretty certain all countries have a list).

Which is why Freedom of Speech is so awesome, because the USA allow these people to spew their putrid hatred. I honestly believe without Freedom of Speech, the people on these list would just be driven underground and pose a serious threat instead of them making asses out of themselves on TV, radio, and internet.

Yes. You allow people to spew hatred and influence others. Well done.

I think its right that we don't let in morally suspicious, authoritarian people with ridiculous views into our country. We've got enough of that sort sitting on the Commons frontbenches.

*ba tum tish*

So the UK is rolling out the unwelcome mat. So do you think this is the right thing to do? How say you.


Most notable is US talk show host Michael Savage.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/05/uk.ban.list/index.html

Don't see anything wrong with it, really.
Their country, they get to say who they let in and who not.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is so awesome, because the USA allow these people to spew their putrid hatred. I honestly believe without Freedom of Speech, the people on these list would just be driven underground and pose a serious threat instead of them making asses out of themselves on TV, radio, and internet.

He is welcome to say what he wants in the US - but why should he be allowed to export it to other countries? We have enough extremist morons of our own, they can say what they want here but I am pretty sure the US would not allow some of them in.

I seem to remember that Russell Brand and Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) have both been refused entry to the US.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is so awesome, because the USA allow these people to spew their putrid hatred. I honestly believe without Freedom of Speech, the people on these list would just be driven underground and pose a serious threat instead of them making asses out of themselves on TV, radio, and internet.

Yes freedom of speach is a good thing, yet I still believe that we are doing the correct thing by banning these people from our country, let them speak elswhere.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is so awesome, because the USA allow these people to spew their putrid hatred. I honestly believe without Freedom of Speech, the people on these list would just be driven underground and pose a serious threat instead of them making asses out of themselves on TV, radio, and internet.

Freedom of speech is not equal to freedom of the consequences, not even in the USA.

Yes. You allow people to spew hatred and influence others. Well done.

So you don't believe in free speech?

"You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms."

So you don't believe in free speech?

Believe it or not, it does exist.
Only some people are known to refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their words... and some countries decide that they're better of without those kind of people,

So you don't believe in free speech?

Hold on to your hat but, a lot of people in the world don't believe in unfettered speech.

Probably the way Rush actually feels, but I now agree that Savage is far worse in this way.

regardless how Rush feel he doesn't go as far verbally.

So the UK is rolling out the unwelcome mat. So do you think this is the right thing to do? How say you.


Most notable is US talk show host Michael Savage.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/05/uk.ban.list/index.html

No, the most notable is Fred Phelps. You know, the guy who hates gays, democrats, communists, kittens, catholics, sweden, jews, mahatma gandhi, the irish, the american flag, mother theresa, every muslim leader except sadda hussein, the laramie project....

No, the most notable is Fred Phelps. You know, the guy who hates gays, democrats, communists, kittens, catholics, sweden, jews, mahatma gandhi, the irish, the american flag, mother theresa, every muslim leader except sadda hussein, the laramie project....

Yeah, but face it the only reason why americans complain about us not letting *him* in is because they want to close their own borders to him as soon as he's out the country and let someone else deal with him for a while.

We had to put up with his lunacy for 76 years -- it's someone else's turn!

Hold on to your hat but, a lot of people in the world don't believe in unfettered speech.

The US has restrictions on speech. It just doesn't restrict it based on content. Which is the right thing to do.

So the UK is rolling out the unwelcome mat. So do you think this is the right thing to do? How say you.

As a UK citizen, I say it's good. I don't see why we should let just anyone into our country.

Hold on to your hat but, a lot of people in the world don't believe in unfettered speech.

I do. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

Hold on to your hat but, a lot of people in the world don't believe in unfettered speech.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfettered

Same thing.

Yes. You allow people to spew hatred and influence others. Well done.



*ba tum tish*

It's idiots leading the idiots.

He is welcome to say what he wants in the US - but why should he be allowed to export it to other countries? We have enough extremist morons of our own, they can say what they want here but I am pretty sure the US would not allow some of them in.

I seem to remember that Russell Brand and Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) have both been refused entry to the US.

I never said that the UK had to let them in, but what I am saying is that freedom of speech expose these people for who they are, and allows them to be banned from the UK. If they didn't have the comfort of freedom of speech, would they be on the list? Would there even be a list?

Yes freedom of speach is a good thing, yet I still believe that we are doing the correct thing by banning these people from our country, let them speak elswhere.

Not arguing that, UK has a right to ban people from their country if they want to.

Freedom of speech is not equal to freedom of the consequences, not even in the USA.

See my references to the speakers making asses of themselves and opening themselves for mocking and ridicule.

It's fantastic that we have someone like Jacqui Smith looking out for our best interests. Yet another proper function of government discovered and implemented. Kudos to you Jacqui.

Um...I know its always fun to be sarky and sarcastic but I'm fairly certain that controlling the borders is a fairly major function of the goverment.

I never said that the UK had to let them in, but what I am saying is that freedom of speech expose these people for who they are, and allows them to be banned from the UK. If they didn't have the comfort of freedom of speech, would they be on the list? Would there even be a list?





But we don't know who he is. Why would we want to be exposed to him? We already have John Gaunt and Richard Littlejohn. We already have plenty of arseholes..

Savage lashed out at Smith on his Web site, calling her a "witch" and asking how she knew of his show when it isn't syndicated in England.

Apparenty Mr Savage has never heard of the internet or that your published material can be read by people worldwide.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is so awesome, because the USA allow these people to spew their putrid hatred. I honestly believe without Freedom of Speech, the people on these list would just be driven underground and pose a serious threat instead of them making asses out of themselves on TV, radio, and internet.
^This. Blocking them just gives them a forbidden fruit effect.

However, I think Britain has the right to do this according to their laws and government. Might be wrong, I'm no expert on the UK's government.

^This. Blocking them just gives them a forbidden fruit effect.


I reckon that anyone who'd look at the reasons why he was banned and then sought to find more about him probably already agree with a lot of things he's said. Most other people wouldn't give a flying fuck..

It's worth noting that it's only the publishing of this list that is recent, not its creation. It's entirely possible that this "Savage" guy was banned before Jacqui Smith became Home Secretary.

I reckon that anyone who'd look at the reasons why he was banned and then sought to find more about him probably already agree with a lot of things he's said. Most other people wouldn't give a flying fuck..

Then why not let him in? All they're doing is encouraging the Right-wing loonies in the country to get even more foolish ideas. After all, unless the UK is planning on going the way of China and Australia, they can still find out about him, listen to him, et cetera, with ease.

Then why not let him in? All they're doing is encouraging the Right-wing loonies in the country to get even more foolish ideas. After all, unless the UK is planning on going the way of China and Australia, they can still find out about him, listen to him, et cetera, with ease.

Exactly.. He doesn't even have to be here for people to find out about him so why let him in?

It amuses us who don't like him to see him bitch about it..

Besides, the loonies don't need encouragement. They are actually quite good at doing what they do.

Exactly.. He doesn't even have to be here for people to find out about him so why let him in?


So why not let him in? They aren't able to stop his ideas and words from getting through, why stop his physical body?

It amuses us who don't like him to see him bitch about it..

If that's the basis for UK government policies, because they like to see total loonies bitch about strange and unfair treatment, I'm scared.

Besides, the loonies don't need encouragement. They are actually quite good at doing what they do.
Indeed. So they can bitch and whine about how they're being oppressed now, and almost have a semi-legitimate point. Almost.

Kind of bullshit, it's a bit like infringing on the right to freedom of travel.


Wait, it is the UK:$

Kind of bullshit, it's a bit like infringing on the right to freedom of travel.

Yeah, next they'll be trying to stop the criminally insane from visiting nursery schools. Where will it end????

What a bunch of crap.

People need to grow a thicker skin. If you don't like what they say fine- don't listen! But to ban people you disagree with from entering your country...wtf?!

What a bunch of crap.

People need to grow a thicker skin. If you don't like what they say fine- don't listen! But to ban people you disagree with from entering your country...wtf?!

unless they're mexican, amirite?

unless they're mexican, amirite?

:p You beat me to it.

Also, who cares?

unless they're mexican, amirite?

You hit the nail right on the fathead.

Kind of bullshit, it's a bit like infringing on the right to freedom of travel.


Wait, it is the UK:$

Says the guy from a country with about 45000 names on the no-fly list. What was that line about planks and specks?

unless they're mexican, amirite?

Uh, no.

So you don't believe in free speech?

Eh... We can hear him well enough from over there.

I now have a new goal in life. I want to be the UK's least wanted person of all time, even moreso than Gerd von Rundstedt or Napoleon.

I now have a new goal in life. I want to be the UK's least wanted person of all time, even moreso than Gerd von Rundstedt or Napoleon.

Ha!

Seems like all you have to do is say un-PC things and they don't want you, so it shouldn't be too hard to get on their unwelcome list. You might have to do something more drastic to be the least wanted...

I do. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.
But you do have the right to live a life with dignity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfettered

Same thing.
Slander and libel are both expressions of free speech. Incorrect factually, but still expressions of it. Because a definition is found in an English dictionary doesn't mean it translates legally, no. A lot of democratic Western societies find it sensible to impose some parameters on what can and cannot be said - especially if it has the potential to cause social disorder and strife.

Mmm. Funny. I seem to remember a neocon's reaction to my remarks on Iraq being more or less:

"If you don't like the US, don't ever come here."

So, forgive me if I don't shed any tears over Michael Savage, the man who calls liberals sexual predators.

And by the way? Around 57th and 6th, south side, one block or two from Central Park, there is a great seafood restaurant.

Mmm. Funny. I seem to remember a neocon's reaction to my remarks on Iraq being more or less:

"If you don't like the US, don't ever come here."

So, forgive me if I don't shed any tears over Michael Savage, the man who calls liberals sexual predators.

And by the way? Around 57th and 6th, south side, one block or two from Central Park, there is a great seafood restaurant.

I don't remember Michael Savage saying he doesn't like the UK, though I don't listen too him often. He's a riot to listen too every now and then though.

I don't remember Michael Savage saying he doesn't like the UK, though I don't listen too him often. He's a riot to listen too every now and then though.

I didn't say I liked or disliked America back then either, and I got the aforementioned treatment.

So, no, I don't give a damn about Savage. The guy that called liberals sexual predators is a neocon, the exact kind who would have all Muslims blacklisted and banned from entering the US, the exact kind who would gladly see extradicted people who disagree with Bush. And HE complains about not being allowed in another, sovereign, country? Cry me the River Styx!

I didn't say I liked or disliked America back then either, and I got the aforementioned treatment.

So, no, I don't give a damn about Savage. The guy that called liberals sexual predators is a neocon, the exact kind who would have all Muslims blacklisted and banned from entering the US, the exact kind who would gladly see extradicted people who disagree with Bush. And HE complains about not being allowed in another, sovereign, country? Cry me the River Styx!

It is a ironic, and a bit funny that this happened to him, though.

I didn't say I liked or disliked America back then either, and I got the aforementioned treatment.

So, no, I don't give a damn about Savage. The guy that called liberals sexual predators is a neocon, the exact kind who would have all Muslims blacklisted and banned from entering the US, the exact kind who would gladly see extradicted people who disagree with Bush. And HE complains about not being allowed in another, sovereign, country? Cry me the River Styx!

I wouldn't use the label neocon on him. He is just a deuce. While many Neocons take me ans xenophobes his words are far beyond any but the fringes of the political spectrum.

Yeah, next they'll be trying to stop the criminally insane from visiting nursery schools. Where will it end????

The criminally insane obviously committed crimes though.

What were these people's crimes? Saying something people don't like? That definitely should be a crime.

Nice try.

Says the guy from a country with about 45000 names on the no-fly list. What was that line about planks and specks?

How do you even know that I agree with the no-fly list?

Oh, that's right. You don't.

See my references to the speakers making asses of themselves and opening themselves for mocking and ridicule.

That's only one possible consequence.
Other consequences include lawsuits for libel, or not being welcome in some institutions or countries any more. Would you begrudge a church to not admit Richard Dawkins?

Would you begrudge a church to not admit Richard Dawkins?

If it was the church of england, yes. Him being english, living there and it being an established church. (Provided he wasn't disrupting the service or such).

If it was the church of england, yes. Him being english, living there and it being an established church. (Provided he wasn't disrupting the service or such).

What if he had a history of disrupting services? Like the Phelbs have, for example?

What if he had a history of disrupting services? Like the Phelbs have, for example?

But he doesn't.

But he doesn't.

He isn't banned from the UK, either. Because while his views might be controversial, he knows to behave enough not to cause trouble.
Which the folks on the list of people not welcome in the UK just don't.

One could argue it's not so much about the right to say what you like, it's more about how say it, and with what intentions.

So the UK is rolling out the unwelcome mat. So do you think this is the right thing to do? How say you.


I don't see problems with the UK not wanting hatemongers on British territory - by the way, for a list of just 22 personae non gratae, I'd say much ado about nothing.
Actually, I'm more scared when british workers strike against the EU rules of free trade-free movement.

Kind of bullshit, it's a bit like infringing on the right to freedom of travel.


Wait, it is the UK:$

So why did the US stop Cat Stevens entering the US, oh yes he was on some list of people the US didn't want entering the country.

So why did the US stop Cat Stevens entering the US, oh yes he was on some list of people the US didn't want entering the country.

Yah, that was pretty stupid too.

He isn't banned from the UK, either. Because while his views might be controversial, he knows to behave enough not to cause trouble.
Which the folks on the list of people not welcome in the UK just don't.

One could argue it's not so much about the right to say what you like, it's more about how say it, and with what intentions.

Well the only people I recognize on the list are the phelps and savage. The phelps are known trouble makers, but I'm not sure what trouble savage has actually caused. Sure he's a douchebag, but I'm not sure what trouble he's really caused.

I have no problems with reasonable restrictions on the time manner and place of speech, but just because someone says stupid and offensive stuff on the radio hardly seems to me like a good reason for excluding them. (Or saying stupid stuff on the internet or in general).

Anyway, the main complaint seems to be that he's offensive about other people's religions. I thought this was thrashed out back in the Mary Whitehouse days.

Well the only people I recognize on the list are the phelps and savage. The phelps are known trouble makers, but I'm not sure what trouble savage has actually caused. Sure he's a douchebag, but I'm not sure what trouble he's really caused.

I have no problems with reasonable restrictions on the time manner and place of speech, but just because someone says stupid and offensive stuff on the radio hardly seems to me like a good reason for excluding them. (Or saying stupid stuff on the internet or in general).

Anyway, the main complaint seems to be that he's offensive about other people's religions. I thought this was thrashed out back in the Mary Whitehouse days.

I'm not sure about the particulars, but hasn't Savage in the past actually called for people to be killed?
Sounds enough of a troublemaker to me, and way past simply douchbaggery.

I think what also plays into it is notoriety. Brian Murphy down the road could hold speeches to friends and family at his pub about how he thinks all gays ought to be culled, that's not very likely to get him into any sort of trouble with the law. It's only once he reaches a significant audience that things can turn nasty...

I'm not sure about the particulars, but hasn't Savage in the past actually called for people to be killed?
Sounds enough of a troublemaker to me, and way past simply douchbaggery.

I really don't know. I doubt it because inciting a felony is illegal in the US too. He might have made disinterested statements along the lines of "x" deserves to be killed, but that's not really the same thing. I have honestly never listened to anything he's ever said though, so I could be wrong. I know of him by reputation only.

I think what also plays into it is notoriety. Brian Murphy down the road could hold speeches to friends and family at his pub about how he thinks all gays ought to be culled, that's not very likely to get him into any sort of trouble with the law. It's only once he reaches a significant audience that things can turn nasty...

Not sure I agree with that. I don't think the opinions should be judged by the size of the audience. If anything a greater degree of notoriety probably makes it less likely that anything untoward will happen. It usually little unmonitored groups that actually go out and commit the crimes.

Not sure I agree with that. I don't think the opinions should be judged by the size of the audience. If anything a greater degree of notoriety probably makes it less likely that anything untoward will happen. It usually little unmonitored groups that actually go out and commit the crimes.

But that's the thing... I don't think the UK government released the list because it finds the opinions of those people objectionable. If that were the case, surely they'd initiate laws within the UK itself making it illegal to express such opinions. For all I know, they haven't done that.
The aim of that list is to prevent people who are likely to cause a lot of trouble (not even necessarily through their supporters, you might well be looking at demonstrations of people with opposing views turning violent) from entering the UK.
That in no way forces the people in question under ground... after all, they can still publish there, they can broadcast (if a channel would be willing to be the host), and they can still make their views known on the internet.
It just prevents them from attending any live events in the UK.

But that's the thing... I don't think the UK government released the list because it finds the opinions of those people objectionable. If that were the case, surely they'd initiate laws within the UK itself making it illegal to express such opinions. For all I know, they haven't done that.
The aim of that list is to prevent people who are likely to cause a lot of trouble (not even necessarily through their supporters, you might well be looking at demonstrations of people with opposing views turning violent) from entering the UK.
That in no way forces the people in question under ground... after all, they can still publish there, they can broadcast (if a channel would be willing to be the host), and they can still make their views known on the internet.
It just prevents them from attending any live events in the UK.

Well Jacqui Smith should make that clearer. Because it sounds like she is excluding people because she doesn't like their viewpoints, not really because she's worried about public safety. (Well there is the bit about "might lead to inter-community violence" whatever that is).

I mean, it's fine, she can do whatever she wants I suppose. The whole thing just strikes me as a bit politically motivated because she was caught fiddling her expenses to pay for her husbands porn.

Well Jacqui Smith should make that clearer. Because it sounds like she is excluding people because she doesn't like their viewpoints, not really because she's worried about public safety. (Well there is the bit about "might lead to inter-community violence" whatever that is).

I mean, it's fine, she can do whatever she wants I suppose. The whole thing just strikes me as a bit politically motivated because she was caught fiddling her expenses to pay for her husbands porn.

It's politician talk for "might cause troubles and riots".

Not sure I hold that against Jacqui Smith... it was a small enough sum, and if you weren't in the habit of actually double-checking each item on your expenses claims you might fall into a trap like that. If I was her, I would have given that husband the dressing down of his life, though. Surely he's got the internet for that? What's he doing watching porn at taxpayers' expenses?

Not sure I hold that against Jacqui Smith... it was a small enough sum, and if you weren't in the habit of actually double-checking each item on your expenses claims you might fall into a trap like that. If I was her, I would have given that husband the dressing down of his life, though. Surely he's got the internet for that? What's he doing watching porn at taxpayers' expenses?

I admit the thing that shocked me the most about that was that he actually *paid* for porn :eek:. I thought that went out with the advent of the internet!

I admit the thing that shocked me the most about that was that he actually *paid* for porn :eek:. I thought that went out with the advent of the internet!

Same here. It was quite a *lol* wut? moment...

I never quite got the massive outrage about it. It was, what, £ 30? And there's people out there claiming expenses for 3 different houses they don't even live in. It just seems a bit disproportionate.

It's politician talk for "might cause troubles and riots".

Well she should say that then instead of banging on about 'abusing standards' and 'fostering extremist views'.

Not sure I hold that against Jacqui Smith... it was a small enough sum, and if you weren't in the habit of actually double-checking each item on your expenses claims you might fall into a trap like that. If I was her, I would have given that husband the dressing down of his life, though. Surely he's got the internet for that? What's he doing watching porn at taxpayers' expenses?

Well there is also the 20,000 pounds a year she was claiming for a second home allowance while using the spare bedroom at her sisters house. I suppose she could have failed to double check that too, but it seems rather unlikely.

Well she should say that then instead of banging on about 'abusing standards' and 'fostering extremist views'.

Nah, then she wouldn't be a politician. You've got to keep up appearances, after all.



Well there is also the 20,000 pounds a year she was claiming for a second home allowance while using the spare bedroom at her sisters house. I suppose she could have failed to double check that too, but it seems rather unlikely.

Just goes to show... I hadn't even heard of that. I had heard of other parliamentarians doing this, but with her is was always those couple quid for the porn for the husband...

Just goes to show... I hadn't even heard of that. I had heard of other parliamentarians doing this, but with her is was always those couple quid for the porn for the husband...

And the thing with that was how stupid to put that in as claim in the first place, 20 fuckin' quid! I'm sure she can afford that outa her own pocket.

And the thing with that was how stupid to put that in as claim in the first place, 20 fuckin' quid! I'm sure she can afford that outa her own pocket.

That's why I believed her when she claimed it was accidental and she hadn't known about it...
Second home allowance, now, that's another matter altogether.

Didn't she also want to lock people up for 42 days without trial and have the government keep a log of everyone's phone calls?

Not sure this woman is right in the head TBH.

Still no matter, I doubt she'll keep her seat at the next election.

Didn't she also want to lock people up for 42 days without trial and have the government keep a log of everyone's phone calls?

Not sure this woman is right in the head TBH.

Still no matter, I doubt she'll keep her seat at the next election.

That's Anti terrorism legislation which has been on the books in one form or another since the Anti terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_1

Before her time, but people were (rightly) outraged at those things anyway - most were deemed illegal under UK and European law and reversed.