On 01/07/2016 21:50, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 01/07/2016 21:28, Hils wrote:
On 30/06/16 18:21, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:21:22 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London, are any major schemes about to be cancelled?

Good grief. :-(

Indeed. Most of the population of the Middle East are staying in the
Middle East. It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless
who are moving to Europe.

So nobody fleeing for their lives in the face of murderous onslaughts by
Assad or IS then?

I assume Hils is a supporter of Assad, as they appear to share many of the
same policies.


A little unfair on Assad…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 01/07/16 21:28, Hils wrote:
It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless who are
moving to Europe.

It seems most unlikely that those with learning disabilities and the
feckless would have the means and enterprise to make their way across
several thousand miles to Europe. Do you have any evidence to support
this remarkable assertion?

Ian

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:10:48 on Fri, 1 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked:

So Farage's infamous poster had no effect at all? What a waste of his
money.

Which of Farage's posters said "Vote leave and the queues of people
trying to *illegally* enter Britain will disappear?"

The one you claimed not to have seen.

why do you doubt that claim?

I don't doubt the claim, I'm just a bit surprised that someone who is
therefore so out of touch with current affairs feels his opinions should
be taken seriously.

you are being ridiculous

I didn't see the picture, so what?

I did see all the media coverage of it

how does that make me out of touch?

Brexit is all about legal immigrants, the people queuing up at Calais
are illegals

Er, no. Brexit is also about (or so the leave voters were told) reducing
legal immigrants,

Yeah, that's what I said

as well as being able to come down harder on illegal immigrants.

Oh no it's not

See the poster dear Liza.

The discussion was on Brexit's (expected) impact on immigration

see above "Brexit is all about legal immigrants"

Not what the poster said.

It has been claimed many times that some of the posters bore no relationship
to the (overall) argument (often with reason). Why have you suddenly
decided that one of the posters (and the one that got the most flack) should
be taken at face value just because it suits your minuscule little debating
point.

tim




--
Roland Perry

On 1 Jul 2016 16:42:24 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
wrote:
Well hopefully once the law is re-adjusted and we no longer have to cowtow to
that ****ing human rights act then once these illegals are found they can be
booted out ASAP instead of parasite lawyers dragging the process out for
years
with some variation on right to family life or BS a`bout being tortured if
they're sent back.

The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human
Rights, which is separate from the EU...

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights

To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving
that no longer applies.

--
Spud

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 10:34:50 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Its hard to convey quite how sick I am of hearing these moral
equivalence stories based on what someones ancestors might have
thought or felt. Its 2016, not 1939 and I somehow doubt your parents
were economic refugees.

Nor are the Syrian you moron.

You think that rabble at Calais are Syrians? There's also an entire camp
of albanians at dieppe. Hang wringing muppets like you are the reason so
many try to get here in the first place because they know once they're in
its very difficult to boot them out again.

--
Spud

In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul
2016, d remarked:
The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human
Rights, which is separate from the EU...

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights

To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving
that no longer applies.

Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A
completely different body.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul
2016, d remarked:
The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human
Rights, which is separate from the EU...

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights

To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving
that no longer applies.

Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A
completely different body.

It's not wrong in that it is an EU requirement. The EU requirement isn't
the only reason it is required, though. Given that we wrote it, though, it
would seem rather inappropriate not to conform to it.

Robin

d writes:

You think that rabble at Calais are Syrians? There's also an entire camp
of albanians at dieppe. Hang wringing muppets like you are the reason so
many try to get here in the first place because they know once they're in
its very difficult to boot them out again.

Which is why you don't let them in but stop them at the border and
return them to whence they came. The carrier (airline, ferry company
etc) delivering them not only having to bear the expense of returning
them but being fined for delivering someone who is refused entry. Do not
treat them as asylum seekers, as international law/convention is that
asylum should be sought in the first safe country.

On 02/07/2016 13:52, bob wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul
2016, d remarked:
The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human
Rights, which is separate from the EU...

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights

To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving
that no longer applies.

Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A
completely different body.

It's not wrong in that it is an EU requirement. The EU requirement isn't
the only reason it is required, though. Given that we wrote it, though, it
would seem rather inappropriate not to conform to it.

Whether we are conforming to it should be a matter only for British courts.

JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2016 13:52, bob wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul
2016, d remarked:
The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human
Rights, which is separate from the EU...

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights

To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving
that no longer applies.

Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A
completely different body.

It's not wrong in that it is an EU requirement. The EU requirement isn't
the only reason it is required, though. Given that we wrote it, though, it
would seem rather inappropriate not to conform to it.

Whether we are conforming to it should be a matter only for British courts.


No, that's decided by the European Court of Human Rights (nothing to do
with the EU, by the way)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...f_Human_Rights

Of course, the Labour government made decisions about compliance with the
Convention a matter for the British courts, so fewer cases from Britain go
to the European Court of Human Rights now.

--
Jeremy Double