Tony Erikson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Why would it need a fence and cameras they are free men living on British soil? They would be free to leave if they can build a boat, but if they come back here they go back there, they could chose to go and live in another country if they want. It’s for the foreign criminals that we can’t deport. If they're free men then what crimes are you deporting them for? Or are you saying immigrants that committed crimes in their own country and are seeking immunity over here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 If the objection is the death penalty then how about permenant imprisonment unless they leave the uk voluntarilly, or do you think they should be free to wander the streets of the UK commiting crime? Thats EXACTLY what some immigrants think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I like to take this opportunity to say that the removal from mainland Britain, at least as far as I am concerned, would be for ANYONE convicted of a very serious offence. Not just for those who were not British Citizens. I do not want to be accused of being a racist. As far as I am concerned anyone receiving a mandatory life sentence can go and serve it on a rock in the middle of nowhere. The British criminals would have to go to a different rock, because that rock would have to be a prison with measures to prevent them leaving. The rock for the foreign criminals that can’t be deported would be a free rock that they can leave as long as they don’t come back here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 If the objection is the death penalty then how about permenant imprisonment unless they leave the uk voluntarilly, or do you think they should be free to wander the streets of the UK commiting crime? I simply think they should serve the punishment that fits the crime as the law of this land states. If we're talking about crimes committed in their homeland then provided it is safe to do so then yes of course they should face justice, I believe we do this already. I like the fact that were not like our American friends and don't just condemn people to death (Even if we have foolishly gone to war with them). It's just a case of being sensible about it. We wouldn't knowingly send a prisoner to their death as a form of punishment. Be that in another country. Least I hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 If they're free men then what crimes are you deporting them for? Or are you saying immigrants that committed crimes in their own country and are seeking immunity over here? I'm not deporting anyone; I am talking on a forum about what we could do to get round the problems the UK has regarding deporting foreign criminals. Here's the OP just in case you missed it. Sheffield Star http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/national/undesirables_cannot_be_deported_1_3521514 Now I may regret posting this but here goes. Is this right? If they have committed crimes of violence etc and drug pushing (class A) should deportation not be an option? If someone comes to a country fleeing persecution and violence why be invlolved in activities which will put them in violent situations? Should they be "sent back" or is it right that they will be processed through the courts? I honestly am not sure what to think. I do feel that in these cases deportation has a place and should be used. what do you all think? I haven't become a troll by the way, I just genuinely want to hear a balanced view on this story as I surprised myself by my thinking. Am I becomging old and right wing!?!?!? anyway your thoughts please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I simply think they should serve the punishment that fits the crime as the law of this land states. If we're talking about crimes committed in their homeland then provided it is safe to do so then yes of course they should face justice, I believe we do this already. I like the fact that were not like our American friends and don't just condemn people to death (Even if we have foolishly gone to war with them). It's just a case of being sensible about it. We wouldn't knowingly send a prisoner to their death as a form of punishment. Be that in another country. Least I hope not. The issue is an unelected foreign court inflicting serious foreign criminals on the UK to be free to wander our streets to rape, murder deal drugs and molest kids. You seem to think it's fine, i don't. Personally i'd just deport them back to wherever they came from and tell strasbourg to go do one. If someone comes to this country alledgely seeking help and repays that help by commiting serious crime then they are on their own in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I simply think they should serve the punishment that fits the crime as the law of this land states. If we're talking about crimes committed in their homeland then provided it is safe to do so then yes of course they should face justice, I believe we do this already. I like the fact that were not like our American friends and don't just condemn people to death (Even if we have foolishly gone to war with them). It's just a case of being sensible about it. We wouldn't knowingly send a prisoner to their death as a form of punishment. Be that in another country. Least I hope not. As a slight digression does that mean that if someone escaped prison in a country where execution was the deemed punishment for the crime they had committed, if they had escaped prison and managed to make it to the UK unmolested would they be able to claim asylum on the grounds that if they were deported back they would be executed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I'm not deporting anyone; I am talking on a forum about what we could do to get round the problems the UK has regarding deporting foreign criminals. Here's the OP just in case you missed it. The issue is an unelected foreign court inflicting serious foreign criminals on the UK to be free to wander our streets to rape, murder deal drugs and molest kids. You seem to think it's fine, i don't. Personally i'd just deport them back to wherever they came from and tell strasbourg to go do one. If someone comes to this country alledgely seeking help and repays that help by commiting serious crime then they are on their own in my view. As a slight digression does that mean that if someone escaped prison in a country where execution was the deemed punishment for the crime they had committed, if they had escaped prison and managed to make it to the UK unmolested would they be able to claim asylum on the grounds that if they were deported back they would be executed? I hate to be crap guys but whilst all points are really interesting and the discussion has been fun. I'm a bit tired and just don't have an answer right now. I might be back in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 A couple of others have posted the concept before me but it's bang on, though i prefer a different set of islands. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Isles. Cost a few quid to set up but once you've got a few cheap barrack style huts set up then we can pack serious foreign criminals down there where they are still under the watchfull eye of good Queen Bess which will shut the judges in strasbourg up. Pay the Stills to deliver a few rations every now and then while they get self sufficient, then wait for the news to filter out to the "i want to come to the UK and commit serious crimes" community. Sorted. That dates you ...July/Aug 1982? You're not supposed to call them 'Stills' The politically-correct term is 'Andy's' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 The British criminals would have to go to a different rock, because that rock would have to be a prison with measures to prevent them leaving. The rock for the foreign criminals that can’t be deported would be a free rock that they can leave as long as they don’t come back here. There's ****-all at Rockall. (They wouldn't be in any danger from the locals, nor would they be exposed to excessive amounts of UV radiation.) If Rockall is too small, surely there's a He-Bride which is unpopulated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.