Human Rights Act to be retained

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Funny how so often being the "good guys" ends up translating to being a doormat.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

But that's my point. It should not be *OUR* responsibility to find a country to take them. If you had a guest in your house that abused your hospitality you would require them to leave. In exactly the same way, if someone abuses our country's welcome we should require them to leave. The logistics of where and how they go should not be our concern.

Ok, think of it like this with your analogy, they can't go outside there is no "outside" all they can do is leave your house and directly enter someone else's house.
Now if that other house refuses to let them in, the only place they can go is back to your house.
You can try to refuse to let them in, but then you get the situation like the Terminal, or are you expecting them to live off the airline?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Well, seeing as we will never know, as there won't be any trial, all we have is our own conclusions.

Using the term 'murdering' implies you DO know however. It implies you know he was deliberately killed but thanks for clarifying that you don't know any such thing and that the title of that thread:

Blair Peach murderer esapes justice

.. was therefore wholly inappropriate and its main assertion unfair.

[Dai]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ok, think of it like this with your analogy, they can't go outside there is no "outside" all they can do is leave your house and directly enter someone else's house.
Now if that other house refuses to let them in, the only place they can go is back to your house.
You can try to refuse to let them in, but then you get the situation like the Terminal, or are you expecting them to live off the airline?

I understand what you are saying. However, in the majority of cases the offenders will have travelled through many other countries to get to the UK. If they were able to make that journey then I see no reason why they should not set off travelling again until they find someone to take them in.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

I understand what you are saying. However, in the majority of cases the offenders will have travelled through many other countries to get to the UK. If they were able to make that journey then I see no reason why they should not set off travelling again until they find someone to take them in.

Because you cannot force another country to allow them entry.
It's not a case of put them on a boat or a plane and say goodbye, then expect them to be allowed through passport control to go on their merry way never to return.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

.... If you had a guest in your house that abused your hospitality you would require them to leave. In exactly the same way, if someone abuses our country's welcome we should require them to leave. ...

The flaw in this (and Xaccers') analogy is, as BBKing pointed out, that you have neglected to include the jail sentence, which is the punishment for the crime.

For some reason, many people seem to think that those not born here should be punished twice - once in a court of law, and again by "banishment". How can you defend that as "justice"?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

The flaw in this (and Xaccers') analogy is, as BBKing pointed out, that you have neglected to include the jail sentence, which is the punishment for the crime.

For some reason, many people seem to think that those not born here should be punished twice - once in a court of law, and again by "banishment". How can you defend that as "justice"?

Quite easily.
The prison sentence is punishment for committing a serious crime.
The deportation is punishment for abusing the gift of residence in our nation by breaking the law.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

..the gift of residence in our nation ....

Did you forget the smiley at the end of that post?

How can it be a gift if it comes with the requirement to pay taxes?

Again I'll ask - is it justice for "immigrants" to be punished twice for a crime?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Did you forget the smiley at the end of that post?

How can it be a gift if it comes with the requirement to pay taxes?

Again I'll ask - is it justice for "immigrants" to be punished twice for a crime?

Two seperate crimes. One the serious crime against an individual or individuals such as murder, rape, abuse. One the crime of abusing the gift of being allowed to live here.
To use the house analogy, you allow someone into your home, they buy you a takeaway, then smash up your TV. They're found guilty of criminal damage and spend a week in prison. Is it really unjust for you to then not let them into your home again?
Ok, I'm probably going to have to give you the answer to that as you're probably going to get it wrong
No of course it isn't unjust. They abused your gift of allowing them into your home.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

.... They abused your gift of allowing them into your home.

You are abusing the term "gift".

A more apt analogy would be: you take a lodger into your home, he pays you rent; he commits a crime, he is punished for that crime; then when he comes back to his rented accommodation he finds that you have put his belongings in a pile on a muddy patch at the end of the garden.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

You are abusing the term "gift".

A more apt analogy would be: you take a lodger into your home, he pays you rent; he commits a crime, he is punished for that crime; then when he comes back to his rented accommodation he finds that you have put his belongings in a pile on a muddy patch at the end of the garden.

So you believe it would be unjust to refuse to rent a room in your home to a convicted murderer/rapist/child molester?

I think a home and a country are not really comparable are they.

Originally Posted by Damien

I think a home and a country are not really comparable are they.

Because if they were, I think the bailiffs would be repossessing the UK at the moment.