Ban on airtravel

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So do you not think that people should have human rights?

Are you opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Could you look through this list of rights and tell us which ones you object to, and why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Convention_articles
Are you aware that the chairman of the committee which oversaw the drafting of the EHCR was a Conservative politician?

Are you aware that all that the HRA did was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the ECHR which we had been a signatory to for the previous 47 years?

Are you aware that it was a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party in the 1997 General Election? Do you have a problem with democratic mandates?
I am against the ECHR all the time it is used to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals or illegal immigrants. We have enough of our own scumbags on the street that we should not have to tolerate foreign parasites - who contribute nothing to society - breaking our Laws, raping our children, murdering our citizens, rioting in our streets in full confidence that they will never be removed because some foreign 'judge' says so. Time that changed.
 
So you think people who come here then rape or swindle or rob should be allowed to remain, why? We have enough of our own criminals to contend with, without providing homes for other peoples. We cant deport our own so have to put up with them, shouldnt be the case for those from overseas. I am all for immigration, anyone who wants to come here and be a productive member of society is most welcome as far as I am concerned. Those who abuse the privilige should be sent back to wherever they came from. And yes I agree its hardly an original argument, that doesnt mean its not valid. I have little doubt if you invited the public to say whether a given thief, swindler, robber or worse should remain or be deported they would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.
Oh I see it's about immigrants for you! You should have said. :rolleyes: I wasn't thinking of them at all.
People who "rape or swindle or rob" should be subject to the law and fair trial. It's their human right.
I don't think there's any evidence to show that immigrants are more likely to "rape or swindle or rob" than anybody else.
If anything the opposite - they are looking for a better quality of life and escaping from places where "rape or swindle or rob" or other forms of violence/deprivation are just too common.
They also tend to have a lot to offer and show amazing determination and strength of character just to get here! More the better IMHO and we need them for the work they do and the skills/talent they bring with them.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. If you don't honour your responsibilities, by committing a serious crime for example, then you should not enjoy the same rights as others. So for example your rapist, murderer, drug dealer or whatever who has come here from overseas should not be able to avoid deportation at the end of their sentence on the basis of their right to family life and so forth. We have enough home grown toe rags without taking on other countries.

What about people who came here when when they were five then commit a crime when they are twenty.
What about someone who comes here when they are fifteen gets married has kids and grand kids and commits a crime when they are fifty.
 
Your gamble is that if we show Putin that we are too weak or scared to stop him taking Ukraine he will go back to Moscow
Weakness can also be a strength, knowing when to compromise and when to stand your ground are very important traits when it comes to diplomacy and in this case survival.

Putin is NOT going to back down, he will split Ukraine because he knows that he cannot lose face and tell the russian people that NATO has won, so putting more pressure on them will just force his hand. Borris knows he is treading a thin line by his actions of supplying military hardware to Ukraine and is aware that Russia could retaliate, this is why he has already issued letters of last resort in the event he and the government are wiped out in a nuclear strike.

I think it is the people who cannot face or accept the reality of just how serious this situation is getting who have their heads in the sand, and would suggest this is a large percentage of the snowflake generation. Maybe once you have read these articles you will realise this is no game, there are no buttons to get another go and it is horribly all to real and it is the younger generations who have the most years to lose!

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/vla...ns-which-will-be-fast-and-cheaper-for-russia/

Vladimir Putin ‘will soon have no way back’ but to ‘unleash’ nuclear weapons which will ‘be fast and cheaper for Russia’​


https://londonlovesbusiness.com/rus...ning-british-isles-into-a-radioactive-desert/

Russia simulates ‘Poseidon nuclear underwater missile’ being set off the coast of Ireland turning British Isles into a ‘radioactive desert’​

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/bri...is-enough-to-wipe-out-the-islands-of-britain/

British Foreign Secretary warned by Russian MP that one nuclear ‘Sarmat missile is enough to wipe out the islands of Britain’​

 
Oh I see it's about immigrants for you! You should have said. :rolleyes: I wasn't thinking of them at all.
People who "rape or swindle or rob" should be subject to the law and fair trial. It's their human right.
I don't think there's any evidence to show that immigrants are more likely to "rape or swindle or rob" than anybody else.
If anything the opposite - they are looking for a better quality of life and escaping from places where "rape or swindle or rob" or other forms of violence/deprivation are just too common.
They also tend to have a lot to offer and show amazing determination and strength of character just to get here! More the better IMHO and we need them for the work they do and the skills/talent they bring with them.
Why dont you try actually reading my post before replying to it. I have nothing against immigration, quite the opposite. I merely cite this as one example where very noble legislation is, in my view, being abused.
 
What about people who came here when when they were five then commit a crime when they are twenty.
What about someone who comes here when they are fifteen gets married has kids and grand kids and commits a crime when they are fifty.
In both cases I would suggest they would be fully fledged British citizens, so your point is irrelevant. And as I said to Jacob this is not about immigration, that is simply one example where i believe the ECHR is being abused.
 
Why dont you try actually reading my post before replying to it. I have nothing against immigration, quite the opposite. I merely cite this as one example where very noble legislation is, in my view, being abused.
Not true. Immigrants are subject to UK laws and punishments just the same as everybody else, and have equal human rights. They aren't getting away with anything.
Sending them somewhere else seems pretty irrelevant, just an arbitrary extra punishment.
Are there any particular examples of this abuse of ECHR? We know that ECHR has been against sending perfectly innocent people to Rwanda, and the Windrush figures to Jamaica. Who are the ones who "rape or swindle or rob" and get special treatment?
 
Last edited:
The UK is fortunate in having a temperate climate - changes are unlikely to be quickly catastrophic.
Unless a tipping point which materially affects the North Atlantic Current is passed.

It is also relatively wealthy - adaptation is a plausible response to moderate speed of change.
We can't cope with the smll snowfalls we get now. Have you seen what winters are like at our latitude where the Gulf Stream has no effect?

Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed.
Not sure if this will work - it is a very tall image:

earth_temperature_timeline_2x.png
 
I haven't read any newspaper or watched any so-called 'mainstream' TV news or political programme since 2016 when the bias from all of them became intolerable.
You mean when the gulf between the truth and the rabid fantasies you wish were the truth became too great for you to cope with.
 
now you're completely mispresenting what I originally said, it's completely out of context and you're bringing in about 10 subjects, I'm actually against banning air travel thanks.
No - it's not out of context.

You were the one who took the topic of a ban on air travel and expanded it into freedom of speech, unions, human rights...
what next shall we ban freedom of speech? and also whilst were at it lets ban all unions, all human rights, all working rights and label anybody who's left leaning as a marxist shall we? if we allow anybody to ban air travel I will be out on the streets protesting, once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power, this is how fascism started in the 20s and 30s, people need to stand against it in huge numbers.
I'm pointing out that some bans are good things.
 
Unless a tipping point which materially affects the North Atlantic Current is passed.


We can't cope with the smll snowfalls we get now. Have you seen what winters are like at our latitude where the Gulf Stream has no effect?


Not sure if this will work - it is a very tall image:

earth_temperature_timeline_2x.png
Interesting. The holocene begins about 9000bce and you see it in the graph as the modern era relatively stable until very recently. Thought to be anthropogenic itself, due to the effects of agriculture
 
Weakness can also be a strength, knowing when to compromise and when to stand your ground are very important traits when it comes to diplomacy and in this case survival.

Putin is NOT going to back down, he will split Ukraine because he knows that he cannot lose face and tell the russian people that NATO has won, so putting more pressure on them will just force his hand. Borris knows he is treading a thin line by his actions of supplying military hardware to Ukraine and is aware that Russia could retaliate, this is why he has already issued letters of last resort in the event he and the government are wiped out in a nuclear strike.

I think it is the people who cannot face or accept the reality of just how serious this situation is getting who have their heads in the sand, and would suggest this is a large percentage of the snowflake generation. Maybe once you have read these articles you will realise this is no game, there are no buttons to get another go and it is horribly all to real and it is the younger generations who have the most years to lose!

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/vla...ns-which-will-be-fast-and-cheaper-for-russia/

Vladimir Putin ‘will soon have no way back’ but to ‘unleash’ nuclear weapons which will ‘be fast and cheaper for Russia’​


https://londonlovesbusiness.com/rus...ning-british-isles-into-a-radioactive-desert/

Russia simulates ‘Poseidon nuclear underwater missile’ being set off the coast of Ireland turning British Isles into a ‘radioactive desert’​

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/bri...is-enough-to-wipe-out-the-islands-of-britain/

British Foreign Secretary warned by Russian MP that one nuclear ‘Sarmat missile is enough to wipe out the islands of Britain’​

Two things.
1 If Russia carried out a first strike, Putin and his cronies would all die a few minutes later in the inevitable counter attack. Many millions of Russians would also die and their country renedered uninhabitable for possibly hundreds of years. Putin is allegedly dying anyway so may not give a ****, but it wont be him actually firing the missiles. It may be that those responsible might take a different view. This has happened in the past in the 1980s when Soviet systems indicated an attack launched by the US. Those responsible did not initiate a counter strike, in direct contradiction with their orders, because they were not convinced the information was real. They were correct, it was a compute
malfunction apparently caused by freak weather conditions. In the current circumstances one would hope saner heafs would prevail if Putin ordered a strike when there is and never has been any direct threat to the Russian homeland.
2. Since when did Putin explain anything truthfully to the Russian people. If they were entirely defeated he would probably claim they had withdrawn for humanitarian reasons, to avoid further blooshed or some such bo*****s. Dont forget that initially he was telling them there had been no casualties, not one. Then it crept up to the mysterious figure of 498, where it remained for some time. In reality they had already lost thousands. He still claims that the maternity hospital in.Mariupol was a military base, and the supermarket hit last week was apparently an ammunition facility of some kind. He has clomplete contempt for the Russian people so certainly isnt remotely interested in telling them the truth.
This is hardly a new approach over there. Many Soviet POW returned to them at the end of the war were either shot or imprisoned for no better reason than that they had seen the west and knew that what they had always been told about the Soviet Socialist utopia was total c**p. ALL of them were marked as being potentially ideologically unsound and found it impossible to get a decent job or anything else, a situation which lasted for decades.
Russia is a great country but has had the misfortune to be ruled by more than its fair share of despots since Joe Stalin, who makes Putin look about as scary as the Easter Bunny by comparison. Gorbachev briefly showed how things could have been very different, unfortunately I think the old ways are too deeply ingrained to change easily.
My hope is that Putin will have sown the seeds of his own downfall in invading Ukraine, and that whoever takes over will embrace a more open approach in order to rehabilitate themselves with the rest of the world.
 
Not true. Immigrants are subject to UK laws and punishments just the same as everybody else, and have equal human rights. They aren't getting away with anything.
Sending them somewhere else seems pretty irrelevant, just an arbitrary extra punishment.
Are there any particular examples of this abuse of ECHR? We know that ECHR has been against sending perfectly innocent people to Rwanda, and the Windrush figures to Jamaica. Who are the ones who "rape or swindle or rob" and get special treatment?
Again Jacob, try actually reading my post, rather than assuming you know what I am going to say from reading the first line. You are quite right about Rwanda, a disgraceful idea. But thats what you get if you put someone in charge of the Home Office who couldnt run a bath.
 
No - it's not out of context.

You were the one who took the topic of a ban on air travel and expanded it into freedom of speech, unions, human rights...

I'm pointing out that some bans are good things.

you clearly missed my point then, that's not my problem, I'll just ignore you, if you aren't willing to listen to what I have to say then I won't listen to you either, it works both ways.
 
anyway I need to get back to work now, I'm making some furniture and just had a quick break, what an absolute waste of my valuable time!
 
In both cases I would suggest they would be fully fledged British citizens, so your point is irrelevant. And as I said to Jacob this is not about immigration, that is simply one example where i believe the ECHR is being abused.

Why do you assume that they are UK citizens (they could live in Northern Ireland). Many people who arrived as children never applied for nationalisation because they wrongly assume like you that they already are. You may wish to google the Windrush scandle.

So I again ask
What about people who came here when when they were five then commit a crime when they are twenty.
What about someone who comes here when they are fifteen gets married has kids and grand kids and commits a crime when they are fifty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top