Thracian Posted 28 March 2009 Author Posted 28 March 2009 There's no reason he shouldn't have been here because it was here he was diagnosed. He could have appeared perfectly stable during the Assylum process. It could if you weren't looking closely enough and you didn't get enough information. Just because he wasn't diagnosed schitzophrenic until he was here doesn't mean that he wasn't schizophrenic. Or any number of other things. But if people don't want to see things, they won't. Implying that this bloke showed no previous signs of his violent charcter just won't wash with me. From Sky News: The trial heard that Obih was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2005 after abusing alcohol and cannabis. He had stopped taking his prescribed medicine and was often not at home when community nurses called to give him injections. During the trial, forensic psychiatrist professor Nigel Eastman said Obih was suffering from "serious mental illness" at the time of the murder and his condition was "substantially responsible" for what happened. Prof Eastman added: "When I saw this man in Woodhill Prison for a period of about four hours it was extremely difficult because it's like talking to a madman. You are trying to follow what he is saying and you can't."
Edmund Posted 28 March 2009 Posted 28 March 2009 It could if you weren't looking closely enough and you didn't get enough information. Just because he wasn't diagnosed schitzophrenic until he was here doesn't mean that he wasn't schizophrenic. Or any number of other things. But if people don't want to see things, they won't. Implying that this bloke showed no previous signs of his violent charcter just won't wash with me. From Sky News: The trial heard that Obih was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2005 after abusing alcohol and cannabis. He had stopped taking his prescribed medicine and was often not at home when community nurses called to give him injections. During the trial, forensic psychiatrist professor Nigel Eastman said Obih was suffering from "serious mental illness" at the time of the murder and his condition was "substantially responsible" for what happened. Prof Eastman added: "When I saw this man in Woodhill Prison for a period of about four hours it was extremely difficult because it's like talking to a madman. You are trying to follow what he is saying and you can't." This is going round in circles. No one has said that he wasn't schizophrenic. Everyone debating your points including myself have been pointing out that in the article it doesn't say that he was diagnosed with the illness before he came into the country nor does it say that he was diagnosed after. With the vague information from the article it seems logical to me that he was diagnosed in this country as he started going into care whilst in England. You stated that he shouldn't be allowed to enter the country as people should expect his violent behaviour from his illness but if we don't know that he was diagnosed before he entered the country then how could they have forseen the future. Im also sure someone stated that asylum is not based on health which concludes that you cannot blame the system for this tragic incident. No one is saying what he did was acceptable but they are just trying to point out that your arguments blaming the immigration sytem has no substance yet you seem to choose to ignore these posts everytime and would rather stick with your assumptions and the ten lines of a news headline which is very vague and doesn't actually make the facts clear. Like ive said in previous posts if you have facts to prove yourself then fair enough but you don't. Once again I must stress I agree that what has happened is very tragic but im debating the fact that you think this crime could have been prevented and the officers blood lays at the hands of the immigration system. Next you will be blaming the parents of a murderer for giving birth to he/she and if they didn't have the child then it could have been prevented.
Thracian Posted 28 March 2009 Author Posted 28 March 2009 This is going round in circles. No one has said that he wasn't schizophrenic. Everyone debating your points including myself have been pointing out that in the article it doesn't say that he was diagnosed with the illness before he came into the country nor does it say that he was diagnosed after. With the vague information from the article it seems logical to me that he was diagnosed in this country as he started going into care whilst in England.You stated that he shouldn't be allowed to enter the country as people should expect his violent behaviour from his illness but if we don't know that he was diagnosed before he entered the country then how could they have forseen the future. Im also sure someone stated that asylum is not based on health which concludes that you cannot blame the system for this tragic incident. No one is saying what he did was acceptable but they are just trying to point out that your arguments blaming the immigration sytem has no substance yet you seem to choose to ignore these posts everytime and would rather stick with your assumptions and the ten lines of a news headline which is very vague and doesn't actually make the facts clear. Like ive said in previous posts if you have facts to prove yourself then fair enough but you don't. Once again I must stress I agree that what has happened is very tragic but im debating the fact that you think this crime could have been prevented and the officers blood lays at the hands of the immigration system. Next you will be blaming the parents of a murderer for giving birth to he/she and if they didn't have the child then it could have been prevented. No-one, including me, is debating when he was diagnosed. I am saying that just because he might have been diagnosed in 2005 (long before the police officer was killed which raises other issues on the subject) doesn't mean that either his illness or other indication of a seriously violent disposition would not have been apparent.
Edmund Posted 28 March 2009 Posted 28 March 2009 No-one, including me, is debating when he was diagnosed. I am saying that just because he might have been diagnosed in 2005 (long before the police officer was killed which raises other issues on the subject) doesn't mean that either his illness or other indication of a seriously violent disposition would not have been apparent. Fair enough. I don't know what else to say on the matter and if the article was a bit more in depth then im sure we could get a clearer angle on all this.
Flynny Posted 28 March 2009 Posted 28 March 2009 No-one, including me, is debating when he was diagnosed. I am saying that just because he might have been diagnosed in 2005 (long before the police officer was killed which raises other issues on the subject) doesn't mean that either his illness or other indication of a seriously violent disposition would not have been apparent. Nor does it mean it would have been - and so there's no point at all kicking up all this fuss and calling for heads. Just because you think it would be doesn't mean it was. In fact, even if it usually is, even if it almost always is - who's to say he wasn't having a good day? What's to say he wasn't even that bad and he's getting off softly because he's got a mild mental illness that can be exaggerated and a good lawyer?
Thracian Posted 29 March 2009 Author Posted 29 March 2009 Blame, blame blame. And if you were the victim's uncle, brother, cat blah, blah, blah.But I'd be interested to hear your views on the Taliban sysem of justice .Seems right up your street. I've actually discussed Islamic justice before and if we're on the subject of harsh justice systems you might bring up China's death vans as featured in the news today - purpose built coaches that serve as supposed "humane" execution chambers. But why should I dwell on those? I'm quite sure, given the opportunity, that I'd find my own ways. Simpler, quicker ways that would be based on "firm but fair". However the dice are so ridiculously loaded now that the concept of credible justice in this country is now a joke. Any reform would be about as worthless as a poem for curing cancer. But reform there will have to be.
Guest Posted 29 March 2009 Posted 29 March 2009 More stuff You still haven't answered the question. It's very simple. All you are doing is skirting around the issue, trying to use emotive imagery to make a point that has no relevance. Then you say I am idealist!! If anything it's the opposite. I ask from the black and white legal perspective (seeing as you don't like the grey areas). It's a legal system that has been developing for decades, some of it under Conservative regimes. At the end of the day, this guy entered the UK legitimately. You haven't given me one solid reason why his admittance should have been denied. You haven't addressed the point below, because based on your reasoning, we should be taking back all of our overseas criminals with mental health issues. I would like to know what people would like to see happen if someone who had emigrated from Britain committed a similar kind of offence, say in the US or Australia. Would those who think we shouldn't be opening our doors to mentallers be welcoming our ex-schizos back? Or would it be a case of "not our problem anymore"?I have my suspicions..... Nor this one. Oh, with this one, the defendant was described as a bully, and a violent yob, but so far he's not been diagnosed with any mental disorder. You're asking a hell of a lot of the system to intervene earlier here. BTW, we have no "Bill of Rights". Not in the sense that you are making out. The best bit about this story is it conveniently fails to mention s72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (that means Labour are responsible for this), which means that this guy can, and will probably, be removed once his sentence has been completed.
Thracian Posted 29 March 2009 Author Posted 29 March 2009 You still haven't answered the question. It's very simple.All you are doing is skirting around the issue, trying to use emotive imagery to make a point that has no relevance. Then you say I am idealist!! If anything it's the opposite. I ask from the black and white legal perspective (seeing as you don't like the grey areas). It's a legal system that has been developing for decades, some of it under Conservative regimes. At the end of the day, this guy entered the UK legitimately. You haven't given me one solid reason why his admittance should have been denied. You haven't addressed the point below, because based on your reasoning, we should be taking back all of our overseas criminals with mental health issues. Nor this one. BTW, we have no "Bill of Rights". Not in the sense that you are making out. The best bit about this story is it conveniently fails to mention s72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (that means Labour are responsible for this), which means that this guy can, and will probably, be removed once his sentence has been completed. a) I've answered the question clearly whether you agree with the answr or not. And whether the bloke's entry was legal or otherwise doesn't make the fact of his admittance or the limits of enquiry made leading up to his admittance right. b) In relation to taking UK native offenders back. No question. They are our responsibility whether suffering mental illness or otherwise. c) Good if it happens but I'll believe it when it when I see it. Doubtless someone will be citing reasons why he should stay and be a risk to even more of our people. Just as they'll doubtless be arguing for his early release a la Peter Sutcliffe.
Guest Posted 29 March 2009 Posted 29 March 2009 a) I've answered the question clearly whether you agree with the answr or not. And whether the bloke's entry was legal or otherwise doesn't make the fact of his admittance or the limits of enquiry made leading up to his admittance right. b) In relation to taking UK native offenders back. No question. They are our responsibility whether suffering mental illness or otherwise. c) Good if it happens but I'll believe it when it when I see it. Doubtless someone will be citing reasons why he should stay and be a risk to even more of our people. Just as they'll doubtless be arguing for his early release a la Peter Sutcliffe. a) You haven't. You have spouted off about stopping people coming in with mental illness. But you can't be granted asylum on the basis of health, mental or physical. His admittance was legitimate, full stop, and there is no reason to have stopped him from coming into this country. What kind of enquiries are you advocating? Are you suggesting that when you've reached the point that you have to leave in the back of a lorry with no papers, for whatever reason, or that you fear for your life so much that you have to pay someone to get you into the UK without your own country's authorities knowing that you are leaving, the last thing you do isn't check you turned the gas and leccy off, but to make sure you have your medical notes with you? Brilliant. b) I shall remember this..... c) If he's let out early, he'll be deported early. It's using a legitimate exclusion to the Refugee Convention 1951, and I don't think it's been successfully challenged yet, although I could be wrong.
Edmund Posted 29 March 2009 Posted 29 March 2009 I swear this thread is going round in more circles than a day trip out to Milton Keynes.
Thracian Posted 30 March 2009 Author Posted 30 March 2009 a) You haven't. You have spouted off about stopping people coming in with mental illness. But you can't be granted asylum on the basis of health, mental or physical. His admittance was legitimate, full stop, and there is no reason to have stopped him from coming into this country.What kind of enquiries are you advocating? Are you suggesting that when you've reached the point that you have to leave in the back of a lorry with no papers, for whatever reason, or that you fear for your life so much that you have to pay someone to get you into the UK without your own country's authorities knowing that you are leaving, the last thing you do isn't check you turned the gas and leccy off, but to make sure you have your medical notes with you? Brilliant. b) I shall remember this..... c) If he's let out early, he'll be deported early. It's using a legitimate exclusion to the Refugee Convention 1951, and I don't think it's been successfully challenged yet, although I could be wrong. a) I don't doubt what you say about who can be granted asylum at all which is why I'd tear the legislation up. For me it opens our gates to all sorts of undesirables who represent a potential threat to individuals and sometimes to the community at large. If you're suggesting that it is not practical to make meaningful enquiries which establish exactly the kind of person we are letting into the country you're only proving to me the weakness of the law and the degree to which is can and doubtless is exploited. I've never been one for scoring own goals so, if due diligence is impossible, I'd sooner close the doors completely than admit people who go on to stab people to death, rape them, or otherwise abuse them in some way. To me there's no sense at all in solving a problem for one person only to create other, sometimes fatal or life-changing problems for others. The cop killer is just an example. You talk of people such as him coming here out of fear for their life but what did he do? Did he respond positively to his great chance. No. He abused himself in various ways and, having supposedly run away from the violence of others, brought his own violence here. Courtesy of people like you who support the system, really. Great.
Guest Posted 30 March 2009 Posted 30 March 2009 Even more stuff Right, who said I support it? I am merely stating it as it is. A few facts; this guy was admitted before his diagnosis in 2005. Let's say 2003, as I have the figure to hand (taken from Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain published by the Home Office in Feb 2005). In 2003, there were 49,405 applications for asylum. Of those applications, 4,265 applications were successful with a further 7,535 given leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. That's 11,800 people admitted to the UK in 2003 who would be classed as "asylum seekers". Of those 11,800 people (assuming our guy was admitted in that year), just the one is known to have killed someone. That's 0.0085% of asylum seekers ending up being a danger to the public. Now I know that you accuse me of being cautious, but even I wouldn't have thought it too much of a risk. Especially as we already have mentally ill people within this country committing crimes that are just as horrific. The difference being we can't deport those when they have completed their sentences. The duty to grant asylum to refugees is the same throughout the world. It isn't something that Tony Bliar concocted to induce strokes in the Daily Mail world. It is based on a convention drawn up in 1951, and has only become an issue in the last 10-15 years.
TrickyTrev Posted 30 March 2009 Posted 30 March 2009 Whether we can deal with schizophrenia better than Nigeria I don't know and even if we can it's not necessarily best that we do it here for the long term anyway.I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to treat someone here and then ensure he gets what he needs in his own country but one thing is for sure, if we keep nannying other countries they and their leaders won't ever learn or be forced to help themselves. Nigeria has vast resources and is well able to look after itself and its own. It's people are even reported to be the happiest according to a survey mentioned here which, in fact, sounds like as good an environment for a schizophrenic as any. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria As for illness, of course a person's state of health should be an important part of consideration for citizenship for the same reason I've mentioned in relation to other things, though I don't suppose it is. That is that we as a country are first and foremost responsible for the health and welfare of our citizens and it is hugely irresponsible to import such things as AIDS, TB and other infectious diseases when so many people are prepared to be irresponsible, some even have malicious intent and when we don't have to because most things can or should be treated in their own lands (and I have no objection to genuine exceptions, initially in the short term). Do you even know what an Asylum seeker is? He wasn't in this country to receive medical treatment, he was in this country to flee either political or religious persecution. You have no evidence he was diagnosed before he came to the country, given the complexities of mental illnesses I somewhat doubt he was diagnosed by the Nigerian medical services. The article clearly states when he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia he did not show any signs of violent behaviour, do you want all people with mental illnesses locked up just in case? The policeman's family and Luton as a town are suffering enough without bigots mustering up faux-sympathy to push their agendas down people's throats. This is a truly tragic case. A man has died, a town that has spent an awful lot of time, effort and money trying to make itself feel safe and harmonious has had its composure tested to the max. Please, if you have nothing constructive to say, just stick to expressing sympathy. As for your oh so nuanced and deft political analysis, we could all do without it.
Thracian Posted 30 March 2009 Author Posted 30 March 2009 a) Right, who said I support it? I am merely stating it as it is.b) Of those 11,800 people (assuming our guy was admitted in that year), just the one is known to have killed someone. That's 0.0085% of asylum seekers ending up being a danger to the public. Now I know that you accuse me of being cautious, but even I wouldn't have thought it too much of a risk. Especially as we already have mentally ill people within this country committing crimes that are just as horrific. The difference being we can't deport those when they have completed their sentences. a) Have it which way you like. It matters not to me. b) Do you really expect me or anyone else to accept and believe that? No-one would deny your intelligence but for one so bright that is probably the most ridiculous comment I've ever known you make. I don't even think you believe it. The whole sentence carries the sincerity of a typical lawyer seeking simply to win a case. Let's start by pointing out one particular way that asylum seekers have been shown to be a danger to the public that you make out barely exists. The article below is chosen at random but there was a documentary on television not so long ago which highlighted exactly the same problem because of a fatal crash - that of asylum seekers and/or illegal immigrants using a pool of uninsured vehicles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-40...capes-jail.html In fact the real position is better stated here: http://www.silentmajorityspeaks.com/deport.html So you see, were what you say about danger to the public true, then I might just give it some credibility. But it's not. You choose to ignore the truth preumably for your own reasons. And, seeing you mention 2003 specifically, how about another view of asylum crime in that year. To be truthful this view may well have been overstated but it would have to have been the lies of a blind man to give us 0.0085% of asylum seekers being a danger to the public... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/ma...gration.ukcrime As for the mentally ill I well acknowledge that they commit horrific crimes but they are our mentally ill and our responsibility. We demonstrate every single day that we are ill-equipped, socially, economically and structurally to be responsible for other countries' mentally ill as well. And as for your attempt to portray asylum seekers as coming here in fear for their lives, while that may sometimes be true and while in genuine cases I might sympathise, how conveniently you omit to paint a little more of the real picture... From the Dail Mail, March 30, 2009: "Many asylum seekers are economic migrants encouraged by lawyers and charities to 'play' the system with false claims, the Immigration Minister has said. Phil Woolas believes genuine claims are 'fogged by cases that are misusing the law'. There are those who manage to claim asylum after several appeals, who had 'no right to be in this country', he said. Mr Woolas spoke ahead of figures due out today, which will show that Labour has not cleared the backlog of 285,000 failed asylum claims. But yesterday he declared: 'As immigration is the second biggest issue in communities, we have to bloody well talk about it.' 'Most asylum seekers, it appears, are economic migrants,' the minister told The Guardian. They are given 'false hope' to make a claim by charities and migration lawyers. 'By undermining the legal system [they] actually cause more harm than they do good. The system is played by migration lawyers and non-governmental organisations to the nth degree.' Mr Woolas gave the example of an asylum seeker who won after six layers of appeal. 'That person has no right to be in this country, but I'm sure that there is an industry out there that has a vested interest.' 'One lady showed me the scars on her thighs from where the soldiers had raped her, so I know, but I cannot take a decision on that lady's behalf if I am fogged by cases that are misusing the law.' However, Sophie Barrett-Brown, chairman of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said: 'Lawyers can only work with the law. To say they are undermining the law is an extraordinary comment to make.' Although he has only been in the job two months, the minister has been involved in several controversies. He has previously suggested that the UK population could be capped at 70million, although these remarks were later withdrawn. Critics have already accused him of acting as the 'new Enoch Powell', Mr Woolas has said. Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'This is the second crass attempt this month by a new minister desperate to look and sound tough. The real issue is uncontrolled immigration under his government. As long as he continues to substitute reckless rhetoric for robust action, he will remain part of the problem, not the solution.' But Mr Woolas said it was important to speak out. 'You can hide behind your desk and not say anything or you can get out there and get your hands dirty. That's particularly true on immigration.' He defined the 'prime purpose' of the Government's immigration policy to be 'reassuring the public' by showing that the state is in control. He spoke out as ministers came under fire for their claim to be deporting an 'immigration offender every eight minutes'. Critics said it gave the impression these were all people who were being rounded up in the UK and removed. But figures released to Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green revealed that 55 per cent of these 'removals' were in fact applicants turned away at UK borders or even overseas. Mr Woolas said: 'This proves the success and strength of our border and juxtaposed controls.'
Fez of Mahrez Posted 30 March 2009 Posted 30 March 2009 And as for your attempt to portray asylum seekers as coming here in fear for their lives, while that may sometimes be true and while in genuine cases I might sympathise, how conveniently you omit to paint a little more of the real picture...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...on-minister.htm
Thracian Posted 30 March 2009 Author Posted 30 March 2009 Do you even know what an Asylum seeker is?He wasn't in this country to receive medical treatment, he was in this country to flee either political or religious persecution. You have no evidence he was diagnosed before he came to the country, given the complexities of mental illnesses I somewhat doubt he was diagnosed by the Nigerian medical services. The article clearly states when he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia he did not show any signs of violent behaviour, do you want all people with mental illnesses locked up just in case? The policeman's family and Luton as a town are suffering enough without bigots mustering up faux-sympathy to push their agendas down people's throats. This is a truly tragic case. A man has died, a town that has spent an awful lot of time, effort and money trying to make itself feel safe and harmonious has had its composure tested to the max. Please, if you have nothing constructive to say, just stick to expressing sympathy. I don't remember reading anything about him "not showing signs of violent behaviour" before diagnosis (and were it the case I'd wonder why he sought treatment) and even if it did say that I fail to see how any one person, expert or otherwise, could be so certain unless they'd spent considerable time with the guy in everyday situations. However, that's an aside and try to browbeat me as much as you like but this isn't a "tragic case" or light pencil statistic to be glossed over as unfortunate. It's a massive cock-up by our system and one that has cost a policeman his life and shattered a family. In fact it was such a monumental cock-up that our so-called carers couldn't even get to give the bloke his vital medicines and it could actually be argued that the worst "offender" in all this was not the attacker but an already overloaded system which failed to deliver in its duty of care with the consequences already mentioned plus their "patient" facing years in prison. I wouldn't do that mind. I'd say that both were responsible. As for your comment about persecution, you don't know why he came here anymore than I do, but by the sound of it he knew all about intimidating people himself.
TrickyTrev Posted 30 March 2009 Posted 30 March 2009 I don't want to get into how this man was treated for his mental illness, there is very little information out there about it. The implication in the article is clearly that he was diagnosed a couple of years ago with scitzophrenia after a drink and drug related problem. It makes no reference to violent behaviour at the time of diagnosis, prior convictions or prior examples of violent behaviour. I have to ask if you want him locked up just because he is ill? It was pointed out to you at the begining of this thread, that that was the primary problem in the story, not the fact he was an asylum seeker. To pretend it was your concern all along looks utterly ridiculous. I don't want to make this story another statistic, I want it to be recognised for what it is and not be used by those who it is politically convenient to do so. I live in Luton, I have friends in that police force, it is a very important story for me. All I know is that this story, a long with the one with the protesters a couple of weeks ago, is being used by those with an agenda to push an anti-immigration message. To most people it doesn't matter, it is just a way to let off steam on the internet. But to people who live in places like Luton it makes a difficult time that little bit more problematic, we've had race riots and knife wars before, we really don't want them again. As for your comment about persecution, you don't know why he came here anymore than I do, but by the sound of it he knew all about intimidating people himself. Thats correct. We both know that he applied for and was granted Asylum. Therefore to the best of our knowledge he came here to flee either religious or political persecution.
Thracian Posted 30 March 2009 Author Posted 30 March 2009 I don't want to get into how this man was treated for his mental illness, there is very little information out there about it. The implication in the article is clearly that he was diagnosed a couple of years ago with scitzophrenia after a drink and drug related problem. It makes no reference to violent behaviour at the time of diagnosis, prior convictions or prior examples of violent behaviour. I have to ask if you want him locked up just because he is ill?It was pointed out to you at the begining of this thread, that that was the primary problem in the story, not the fact he was an asylum seeker. To pretend it was your concern all along looks utterly ridiculous. I don't want to make this story another statistic, I want it to be recognised for what it is and not be used by those who it is politically convenient to do so. I live in Luton, I have friends in that police force, it is a very important story for me. All I know is that this story, a long with the one with the protesters a couple of weeks ago, is being used by those with an agenda to push an anti-immigration message. To most people it doesn't matter, it is just a way to let off steam on the internet. But to people who live in places like Luton it makes a difficult time that little bit more problematic, we've had race riots and knife wars before, we really don't want them again. Thats correct. We both know that he applied for and was granted Asylum. Therefore to the best of our knowledge he came here to flee either religious or political persecution. But I've just posted a minister's claim that many asylum seekers are economic migrants? As for the stories you mention being used as part of an anti-immigration agenda, that is so much hypocrisy. This government is forever smokescreening information about immigration for it's own ends. If the events you mention didn't happen of course, no-one could use them any more than they could use daily bulletins about MP's expenses fiddles, back-handers or questionable second homes. With projected figures of 3million unemployed by the end of this year and rising inflation pushing people out of their homes you can bet your life that more and more people will want a curb on immigration - and not exclusively people on the right or white people who've lived here for generations. Twice last week week I spoke with two Asian customers, both recently made redundant, who want a curb on immigration until the economy picks up. Everyday we're told what a massive shortage there is of affordable homes there is. Yet people still want to increase our population and for what reason? For their own agendas of course. For me the cop-killing is not first and foremost about immigration but about who you allow to come here and the efforts that are made or not made to ensure that we are not importing trouble. . As for what to do with a violent paranoid schizophrenic.... Well, first I believe there's a duty of responsibility to the populace. And therefore you have two sensible choices. Either you place the patient in a secure environment where they will be assured of getting the drugs they need to control their condition. Or you ensure you can provide them and see that they are taken if the patient lives freely in the community. The second alternative is clearly more risky than the first because human error is more likely and the consequences of error can be horrendous as demonstated by the case in question. Whatever you do needs to be effective and what we actually did wasn't. It was totally inadequate.
Guest Posted 31 March 2009 Posted 31 March 2009 b) Do you really expect me or anyone else to accept and believe that? No-one would deny your intelligence but for one so bright that is probably the most ridiculous comment I've ever known you make. I don't even think you believe it. The whole sentence carries the sincerity of a typical lawyer seeking simply to win a case. So what you are saying is lawyers are stupid? Let's start by pointing out one particular way that asylum seekers have been shown to be a danger to the public that you make out barely exists. The article below is chosen at random but there was a documentary on television not so long ago which highlighted exactly the same problem because of a fatal crash - that of asylum seekers and/or illegal immigrants using a pool of uninsured vehicles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-40...capes-jail.html I guess what you are saying here is that if an asylum seeker causes an accident, it is worse than if someone who was born and bred in this country? In fact the real position is better stated here: http://www.silentmajorityspeaks.com/deport.html If six asylum seekers an hour are caught driving without a licence in Wolverhampton, that must mean that twenty-four British people are. Is this not just as disgusting? So you see, were what you say about danger to the public true, then I might just give it some credibility. But it's not. You choose to ignore the truth preumably for your own reasons. Do you know if this guy was a danger to the public when he presented himself to the immigration authorities? No. So it's not a relevant point. And, seeing you mention 2003 specifically, how about another view of asylum crime in that year. To be truthful this view may well have been overstated but it would have to have been the lies of a blind man to give us 0.0085% of asylum seekers being a danger to the public...http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/ma...gration.ukcrime Did you not see the figures I posted? Just under 12,000 people were given asylum or leave to remain. I wouldn't call it a tidal wave. As for the mentally ill I well acknowledge that they commit horrific crimes but they are our mentally ill and our responsibility. We demonstrate every single day that we are ill-equipped, socially, economically and structurally to be responsible for other countries' mentally ill as well. Not every asylum seeker is mentally ill. And as for your attempt to portray asylum seekers as coming here in fear for their lives, while that may sometimes be true and while in genuine cases I might sympathise, how conveniently you omit to paint a little more of the real picture...From the Dail Mail, March 30, 2009: "Many asylum seekers are economic migrants encouraged by lawyers and charities to 'play' the system with false claims, the Immigration Minister has said. Phil Woolas believes genuine claims are 'fogged by cases that are misusing the law'. There are those who manage to claim asylum after several appeals, who had 'no right to be in this country', he said. Mr Woolas spoke ahead of figures due out today, which will show that Labour has not cleared the backlog of 285,000 failed asylum claims. But yesterday he declared: 'As immigration is the second biggest issue in communities, we have to bloody well talk about it.' 'Most asylum seekers, it appears, are economic migrants,' the minister told The Guardian. They are given 'false hope' to make a claim by charities and migration lawyers.... Although he has only been in the job two months, the minister has been involved in several controversies. He has previously suggested that the UK population could be capped at 70million, although these remarks were later withdrawn. Critics have already accused him of acting as the 'new Enoch Powell', Mr Woolas has said.. This is from a minister from a party you say is welcoming in immigrants in their billions. Where is the evidence for such a claim? It's only his "belief". I can't remember exactly what the figure is, but I think it's around 40% of asylum claims are successful. Of course there are going to a few who get round the system, but you haven't read any of the cases, you don't have a clue what the criteria are for being a refugee, and you are blissfully unaware of how hard it actually is, and the steps and measures that this, yes, this government have taken to get around their obligations to house refugees. I have based my arguments on fact, yours is based on rhetoric. You accuse me of championing some cause, but all I am doing is telling it how it is. You're the one resorting to reactionary, knee-jerk hysterics! This government is forever smokescreening information about immigration for it's own ends. See above.
Manwell Pablo Posted 31 March 2009 Posted 31 March 2009 I know the Daily Mail anti Assylum seekers. Who'd of thought it.
Babylon Posted 31 March 2009 Posted 31 March 2009 Talking of sorry chapters... Chapter 3 of 'Katie Price's Perfect Ponies: (My Pony Care Book)' is an absolute disgrace.
Manwell Pablo Posted 31 March 2009 Posted 31 March 2009 Talking of sorry chapters...Chapter 3 of 'Katie Price's Perfect Ponies: (My Pony Care Book)' is an absolute disgrace. Who's the ropey looking blonde hugging Katie Price's face?
Babylon Posted 31 March 2009 Posted 31 March 2009 Who's the ropey looking blonde hugging Katie Price's face? I hope it's not an asylum seeker.
Alexikokopops Posted 31 March 2009 Posted 31 March 2009 I hope it's not an asylum seeker. The horse would be dead by now if it was, harvested for meat and winter clothing.
Babylon Posted 31 March 2009 Posted 31 March 2009 The horse would be dead by now if it was, harvested for meat and winter clothing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.