There are different categories of offences, if you are convicted of very serious crimes, this should prevent you from entering the UK.

I don’t see how any sane individual could argue against this.

Let’s just ask more questions. The US and Australians do. If the answers to those questions and our own enquiries throw up such criminal records you cannot come here to visit and certainly not to live and work. We need more checks and we need the laws to keep people out. If the EU rules prevent that they need to be changed.

@kimbers your post is interesting, the use of Strava to check cyclists. IMO this is a good reason why police should have more access to this sort of data and not just what is placed online publically. As for your Netanyahu post I’d just note the Gazan’s are still firing rockets even now, many less than the 1000’s fired in the past 6 months but they are still firing.

I don’t see how any sane individual could argue against this.

Stick around…….

Lots of ex-criminals come to the UK and lead perfectly decent lives and vice versa I’m sure. The problem with your argument is it implies a criminal cannot rehabilitate and I don’t accept that is true.

@jools, they can rehabilitate in their own country. That’s the US and Australians policy.

Yup, police effort should definitely be based on how British and photogenic you are.

So, a 14 year old child goes missing. They have no real financial support and cannot work full time, cannot really support themselves and foul play is suspected.

Which is the same as a 41 year old man, with a troubled background, who may of just thought **** it, I’m off.

Of course a 41 year old builder is just as vulnerable as a 14 year old school girl.

If you really believe that the same amount of police resource should be directed to each case then you are seriously confused.

So you contend that the US and Austraila are to be held up as examples of border controls done well?

On the face of it it looks a logical stance – Convicted criminals should not be allowed into the UK but it has quite a few holes in it, compassionate visits, long spent convictions so rehabilitated offenders, offenses commited under discredited governments (political crimes) and so on and so forth.

The very worst offenders who have intent are likely to enter the country illegally anyway and we have a process for that.

The US and Oz have their way of doing things and we have ours, I’m not so sure theirs is better.

It’s another potential erosion of freedom that just doesn’t sit well with me.

It’ll be ‘Latvian Paedophile Cyclist’ in the DM if he is found to be the culprit

It’ll be ‘Latvian Paedophile Cyclist’ in the DM if he is found to be the culprit

So if he is guilty:

Is he from Latvia? Yes.
Is he a paedo? Yes.
Does he ride a bicycle? Yes.

So “Latvian Paedophile Cyclist” would seem a reasonable description. 😀

Yup, police effort should definitely be based on how British and photogenic you are.

How many villages are without an idiot.

It’s another potential erosion of freedom that just doesn’t sit well with me.

@jools I’ve lived and worked in US and Singapore and with my parents we emigrated to Australia. In all cases I/we had to apply and go through a process. I don’t feel my civil liberties or freedom where impacted in any way. If I’d committed a serious crime and spent years in prison I would expect to find it difficult to travel, perhaps impossible.

So if he is guilty:

Is he from Latvia? Yes.
Is he a paedo? Yes.
Does he ride a bicycle? Yes.

One of those answers would be “No”

We are in the EC, so he has free access. Our convicted violent drunks seem to whizz off to Prague & Barca often enough.
He killed someone in Latvia a long time ago, for which the sentence was not harsh by our standards, so it’s reasonable to assume that in this country it would have been manslaughter – not a premeditated killing.

5 years ago he was arrested BUT NOT CHARGED about an alleged offence.
Since then, a blameless life.

I can’t see grounds for excluding him from the UK.

I can’t see grounds for excluding him from the UK.

The grounds are he murdered someone and served 7 years in Jail.

5 years ago he was arrested BUT NOT CHARGED about an alleged offence.
Since then, a blameless life.

Lack of evidence ? Who knows what other crimes he may have committed ? He is a suspect, he may be innocent. My point is he shouldn’t be here.

Convicted criminals should not be allowed into the UK but it has quite a few holes in it, compassionate visits, long spent convictions so rehabilitated offenders, offenses commited under discredited governments (political crimes) and so on and so forth.

Such cases could be subject to appeal, IMO they would comprise a tiny portion.

Someone with a spent conviction is still guilty and a criminal?
Why stop at internationa boundaries? Once convicted of an offence, an offender should not be allowed to cross the boundary of their constituent police force or ceremonial county or metropolitan authority. For life.
And they’ll always be guilty until proven innocent for all further instances where they may be an actual suspect or someone that needs to be interviewed in order to be ruled out of inquiries. 🙄

If you are convicted of a crime anywhere in Europe and receive a criminal record. Is that criminal record only relevant in its country of origin.

How did the police not have access to this information before the were specifically told by the Latvian authorities on request.
Does this mean our police service have no idea of any previous conviction any foreign eu national may have who they come in to contact with on a daily basis.

Does the government have any idea how many rapists and murderers are here.
If someone can be arrested for indecent assault without a previous murder conviction coming to light.

Are you asking a question.

Why, do you know the answer?

UK (and I think Ireland) do take part in the Schengen Information System for police and judicial cooperation, even if UK is not part of Schengen area for border control and immigration.

Looks like that system doesn’t record convictions, but does put alerts on people that are armed and/or violent.

How did the police not have access to this information before the were specifically told by the Latvian authorities on request.
Does this mean our police service have no idea of any previous conviction any foreign eu national may have who they come in to contact with on a daily basis.

The uk PNC system is not linked to the equivalent recording system in other eu states so the simple answer is no. an inquiry would have to be made either police to police, via a liaison officer or europol none of these is particularly fast for quotidian inquiries. Some light reading

http://www.acro.police.uk/ICCE_FAQs.aspx

Are you asking a question.

I counted 5.

Did you not spot any of them ?

I spotted that you were the only one to use a ? when asking a question

HTH

“Latvian Paedophile Cyclist”

The police should check who is KOM on that segment.

Malevolent geopolitical policies designed to facilitate a rise in state security at the expense of sovereignty and liberty – in a nutshell that’s why ‘they’ let them in ..

Well if they vote for independence we won’t have to… oh, wait…

One thing: Chris Jefferies in regard to the Jo Yates murder.

Obviously the media, the police and the public are still stuck in the “GUILTY WEIRDO FOREIGN CRIMINAL” mindset.

Ever met a murderer? Bet you couldn’t tell.

Obviously the media, the police and the public are still stuck in the “GUILTY WEIRDO FOREIGN CRIMINAL” mindset.

It’s not really his nationality that’s the issue, more the fact he’s a convicted murderer.

Too late to edit my Guardian Comments Comment which is hindsight, was PISH.

Back to referendum threads.

I know a convicted murderer well, I would describe him as a handfull.
I used to know a convicted attempted murderer in passing, very sociable but was involved with some serious people.
Met another convicted murderer once as he went to school with my brother, seemed nice enough .

None of them killed there wife and buried her in the woods like our Latvian friend.

Linky

I used to get a lift to scouts from my mate’s dad who shortly afterwards murdered his wife , chopped her up and distributed her in various wheelie bins in Costa del Sol. Even at 11, I knew he was a very bad man.

My dad sponsored a Chinese murderer on his release from a life sentence. He just seemed a bit dodgy.

7 years seems awfully light for murder

*draws up list of people to lure to Latvia*

My dad sponsored a Chinese murderer

50p a body?

The first life they take is the hardest. After that they either repent or rejoice at the leniency of modern society. I fear the worst for this poor girl 🙁 Evil people walk amongst us, I have had the misfortune of being aquainted to some years ago. Most of us are lucky not to cross their paths but some aren’t. Be as tolerant and understanding as you want but if you are one of the unfortunates it won’t help you.

I spotted that you were the only one to use a ? when asking a question
HTH

Are we really doing “lack of question mark” criticism to score pointless points.

That’s low even for here.

The first line was rhetorical I suppose, so I missed off the question mark, not sure if that’s right?

(That was an actual question so I included a question mark)

HTH

😯

Are we really doing “lack of question mark” criticism to score pointless points.

No I meant it as a light humoured comment and nothing else…even if it was a dig it was not at you anyway so not sure why it got that

Sorry nonetheless

As if I would start a grammar pedantry competition anywhere…glass houses and all that.

Very interesting how some have fixated on the words ‘these people’ to warp the thread into an argument about racism. Assuming the OP meant ‘convicted murderers and sex offenders who we could legislate to keep out’ (which I think I can assume), then I really don’t see a problem with posing that question and wanting something done about it.

It has nothing to do with race, nationality or anything else that ‘ism’ could be applied to. It is just not letting proven dangerous people into the country. Again, what sane person could argue against that?

How we have got into a situation where a significant number of people can hand-wring over something as clear cut and obvious as this beggars belief.

Sorry nonetheless

Not necessary 😉

I was confused by lifer’s post….

are you asking a question …

When it was obvious there were at least 5 questions asked.

Seemed a strange thing to post (unless he was criticising the lack of “?”) in which case that’s the “pointless point scoring” I was talking about.

Interesting how intolerance spreads.

I was particularly impressed by the reappearance of the phrase “window licking” in the early part of the thread.

It’s like the last 30 years of progress never happened round here some days 🙄

It has nothing to do with race, nationality or anything else that ‘ism’ could be applied to. It is just not letting proven dangerous people into the country. Again, what sane person could argue against that?

Seems reasonable enough, until you actually start thinking about how it would work in practice.

Firstly, it’s clear it would be reciprocal (at least in the EU). You fly from the UK to, say, Spain and you’ll be checked. No doubt the cost of that check will be passed directly on to the airlines, and indirectly on to the passengers.

Secondly, we need to define what we mean by “dangerous people” – what is a serious crime. It’s pretty clear that a contract murder would be one, but what about manslaughter? And is it for life? After 20 years is your record clean? Given the first point, how will different governments reach agreement on this?

Thirdly: will this mean a net reduction in criminals in the UK, or an increase? How many violent British drunks and crime bosses are there on the Spanish coast? If they’re not allowed into Spain (or can be easily deported without actually having committed any crime here) they’ll be stuck in the UK…

Finally, how would this be implemented? Automation looks like a bit of a non-starter, which basically means the same, old-fashioned stop-them-at-the-border type control. How many murderers are going to admit to their crimes 10 years later? None, at a guess, which means it’s a bit of a waste of time arguing we should change the rules.

(Should also point out that criminals convicted in the UK with sentences longer than 2 years (i.e. serious crimes) can be legally deported, even if they are from the EU).

Interesting how intolerance spreads.

Intolerance of what, though?

Intolerance of people who have done nothing wrong on the basis of race, nationality, age, sex etc = bad.

Intolerance of people who have done unspeakable things = good.

I think it rather depends on what you direct your intolerance towards, no?