Why do we let these people in ?

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

Not really.

Other countries deal with (and have to live with) their criminals, we have to deal with ours.

As for adding a few quid to air tickets, well, I already have to virtually get undressed to get on a plane anyway, so that doesn’t seem a problem.

As for adding a few quid to air tickets, well, I already have to virtually get undressed to get on a plane anyway, so that doesn’t seem a problem.

Yeah, but that’s getting on the plane. These extra border controls would be imposed at the destination.

It just seems a waste of time, I think it’s highly unlikely it would make any real difference to crime rates, and it comes with a cost we would all end up paying.

Sorry, I was being intolerant of people who use an outdated and abusive term for people with a type of disability to express their intolerance of people they disagree with.

MrsMC was born with that disability, and it’s a term that really annoys me.

All bickering aside, refusing entry to those with a serious criminal past has always seemed a reasonable proposition ‘in theory’ based on said individuals being known to local law enforcement and thus less likely to go ‘unnoticed’.

Being PC is wonderful but rarely does anyone volunteer to live near/with those such PC would afford equal rights. Just saying like.

Sorry, I was being intolerant of people who use an outdated and abusive term for people with a type of disability to express their intolerance of people they disagree with.

MrsMC was born with that disability, and it’s a term that really annoys me.

Ok. If it’s of any help to you, people who cannot express their intolerance without recourse to insults aren’t worth the bother anyway.

Usually these kind of people are the ones who hold views that they cannot hold if they objectively try to justify them. Either because they can’t (too thick) or won’t (too much of an arsehole).

For the record with regards to the comments along the lines of ‘it would be a bit tricky, so no point in trying’, well that has been used a lot of times to justify doing bugger all in the face of things that really shouldn’t be tolerated, with mixed result at best.

Sorry, I was being intolerant of people who use an outdated and abusive term for people with a type of disability to express their intolerance of people they disagree with.

The people I disagreed with I called numpties,
I referred to the people who let Rotherham happen as window lickers.

Don’t be so over sensitive.
Linky

Ok. If it’s of any help to you, people who cannot express their intolerance without recourse to insults aren’t worth the bother anyway.

(too thick)

(too much of an arsehole).

Genius 😀

Chip once you’d used the term window licker I think its safe to assume that everyone considers your posts to be irrelevant, I’d quit now.

I did not use window lickers, I said window licking duties.
I did not use it to describe any mentally or physically disabled children.

Of course my posts are irrelevant it’s a chat section on a cycling Internet forum.

Also chip, I’d be interested to hear your understanding of who “let” Rotherham happen and why (and what it’s all got to do with licking windows).

To bring it back to the topic…

Though I agree in principle with the idea that we could stop serious criminals getting in,I also agree with the idea that, if someone has served their punishment, they should be integrated back into the world.
Proper can of worms this…

If you read from the beginning you will see my point with Rotherham .

This poor girls bruised naked dead body is probably laying in a shallow grave and people seem to be more concerned with the fact this man who has been identified as a suspect has been labeled Latvian.
People are to busy worrying about looking for racism where it does not exist instead of recognising the real tragedy here.

So here’s a “real-life” scenario of how this type of border control actually works:

I live in Vancouver, Canada and one of my friends here has a boyfriend who lives in Seattle.
He was stopped from entering Canada when trying to visit her. He was travelling on his US passport and Canada & US share data – the US data flagged a DUI conviction from many years ago, which has been ‘spent’. He now cannot get back into Canada until he gets a pardon (which is a government scam to extort $2000 out of him).
Luckily for him, he has dual citizenship, so now uses his New Zealand passport when he traveling into Canada.

Another ‘real-life’ scenario – I was travelling down to the US with a Canadian friend. We were stopped at the US border as I had to get a visa as I was still on a UK passport at the time. I was expecting the usual grilling from the US border guards [purpose of trip, am I bringing guns/alcohol/drugs over the border, how long was my stay for etc] but, it turns out my buddy had a minor Canadian conviction from 18 years earlier and HE was the one that was grilled and threatened with refusal to enter the country.

Needless to say, he was very embarrassed about this [all of this questioning is done in an open office with other members of the public able to listen in]. Fortunately, it was only me he was travelling with and not one of his clients, or his boss, he was travelling with at the time…

So, for those wanting additional border controls, be very careful what you wish for…you’ll need to be whiter-than-white for your entire life next time you skip off to France or Spain on your summer hols or your business trip. And those real trouble makers who really want to get into the country won’t have any problems working around any restrictions we impose.

chip – Member
Ok. If it’s of any help to you, people who cannot express their intolerance without recourse to insults aren’t worth the bother anyway.
(too thick)
(too much of an arsehole).
Genius

I was hoping someone would point that out(!)

Anyhow, let’s hope that they find the girl, this Latvian man has not been involved, and we deport him ASAP.

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.

Yes @dannyh that’s exactly what I meant. I welcome anyone of any race, creed, colour or religion but not those with a serious criminal record.

Anyhow, let’s hope that they find the girl, this Latvian man has not been involved, and we deport him ASAP.

I too hope she’s found but the chances are very slim. Sadly we cannot deport him, he has a child in the UK with a new partner and even if convicted and jailed his lawyer will use the European Human Rights legislation to ensure he can remain

@markgraylish – DUI is very serious. In the UK it is frequently treated as gross misconduct and you lose your job too. If a country chooses to keep you out because of it that is their decision and I support it. They have offered him a solution via a pardon. Your other buddy was given a “hard time” but was allowed in.

Though I agree in principle with the idea that we could stop serious criminals getting in,I also agree with the idea that, if someone has served their punishment, they should be integrated back into the world.
Proper can of worms this..

@fin, they can integrate back into their world, ie their country. Such laws already exist around the world, we have plenty of examples to analyse before devising our own system.

Mark wins the thread with the most sensible post on here.

A DUI might be serious but plenty of people have them on their records in the States, it will get to a point that restrictions place undue economic burdens on a country as it will impede business. Keeping someone out for a DUI flies in the face of the idea that prison is to there to reform criminals.

what about homegrown murderers and should we chuck all them out too?

didnt we do that over 100 years ago?
now they just keep beating us at sport

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.

and the Israelis are still killing Gazans and stealing land…not as much as in the past 6 months but still doing it

nealglover – Member
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.

I was being flippant. Jeez.

The questions asked can be answered with a quick google. Annoys me when people spout off but can’t be bothered to look for themselves.

Also the phrase ‘just saying’ annoys me too. Have courage in your argument, don’t dismiss it straight away ffs.

dannyh – Member
this Latvian man has not been involved, and we deport him ASAP.

Deport him anyway?

Does the OP write for the daily mail?

http://www.thepaperboy.com/frontpages/current/Daily_Mail_newspaper_front_page.jpg

@kimbers it was such an obvious question, so obvious the Daily Mail asked it.

There was an interview with the mother of the wife he murdered, not surprisingly perhaps she said he was a very unpleasant and dangerous man and she thought he could kill again.

Mark wins the thread with the most sensible post on here

Sorry, I won’t let that happen again 😀

As governments start sharing more and more data <you have heard of Edward Snowden, haven’t you?>, it’s gonna be very ‘interesting’ how this develops, particularly anything which involves the US.

What will happen if something is perfectly legal in country A but rules differ in country B, where you un-wittingly break the law, get a record and are then refused entry to country C (I’m thinking age of consent here and stupid things you do as a teenager on holiday in a foreign country coming back to bite you in the arse 20 years later…)

@mark as I’ve said these laws and procedures have existed for the longest time around the world, its just a question of which countries they might apply to. The US initially refused Nigella Lawson a Visa as she admitted using cocaine, they subsequently revised that decision.

We cannot deport him whether he is guilty or innocent of this crime, he is an EU citizen and with a child here and he has a ECHR right to a family life.

We cannot deport him whether he is guilty or innocent of this crime, he is an UK citizen and with a child here and he has a UK right to a family life.

See what I did there? What happens if this guy happened to be Scottish (or Welsh, or from Northern Ireland)? I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to prove but I’m guessing you may be anti-EU?

Now I’m now expert so maybe someone else may want to Google this but are UK re-offending rates dramatically lower than Latvia so that the UK should have somehow fore-casted this and excluded Latvia from the EU membership?

What will happen if something is perfectly legal in country A but rules differ in country B, where you un-wittingly break the law, get a record and are then refused entry to country C (I’m thinking age of consent here and stupid things you do as a teenager on holiday in a foreign country coming back to bite you in the arse 20 years later…)

Well tough shit !
If you do the crime you really ought to do the time !

Now I’m now expert so maybe someone else may want to Google this but are UK re-offending rates dramatically lower than Latvia so that the UK should have somehow fore-casted this and excluded Latvia from the EU membership?

What a bizarre, pointless statement, nobody really cares that he is a Latvian, the point is, he has previous for murder and should he really be walking the streets of anywhere, has he been rehabilitated ? no-one knows, is seven years enough time to rehabilitate a murderer ?

Well tough shit !
If you do the crime you really ought to do the time !

Yes…and? Was I suggesting people should be able to skip countries to avoid justice?

nobody really cares that he is a Latvian

Whoosh!

Yes…and? Was I suggesting people should be able to skip countries to avoid justice?

No, I never suggested you were.

flies in the face of the idea that prison is to there to reform criminals.

Is it, though?

Is is not also to punish the perpetrator and act as a deterrent to others?

I would argue that the priority is:

Punishment (and the accompanying reassurance for victims that it is sufficient).
Deterrence to potential future criminals.
Rehabilitation (only within the framework of preventing future offending).

Sorry, but if you commit a crime, your rights come after those who haven’t.