Ban on airtravel

[morqthana]

​

I shall leave you to your agreed upon narrative, while I keep rummaging for reality.

You won't find any where you are rummaging.

 

[morqthana]

• since the break up of the Soviet Union 30 years ago, many ex-union countries have been welcomed into EU and NATO with little regard for Russian sensitivities.

Here's the way that "Russian sensitivity" should work.

Russia - you used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now you don't. It's what happens.

Great Britain used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Spain used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Austria-Hungary used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Mongolia used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Rome used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Greece used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.

Get over it.

 

[morqthana]

The UN does not have a mandate to stop wars, but (IMHO) they could do far more to stop them starting.

They can't even unload a dangerously decaying oil tanker.

 

[morqthana]

This was actually in breach of at least two treaties between eu/NATO and the Russian Federation.

Spoken like a true Putin fanboi, pantingly eager to repeat Russian lies.

 

[morqthana]

Your post reminds me that until recently you described yourself as Putin Apologist (or similar).

You mean he isn't still?

 

[Jameshow]

That's a very old cliche which gets trotted out across the political spectrum.
It's close to the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. For a right winger "the deserving" is very tiny category. A good lefty would include everybody. The centrists e.g. "caring conservatives" are in between.
Just a thought - but if you found yourself in a lifeboat and arguing about who was entitled to be saved, you might find yourself the first one to be thrown overboard!

Probably most of us on here would be last to get on the lifeboat and first to be thrown overboard!

 

[morqthana]

But that does not mean that the Soviets were entirely motivated out of a desire to protect the poor little Cubans from their nasty neighbours.

Indeed. You'd have to be as mad as a putin to think that the USSR would have nuked the USA if they'd tried to invade Cuba again.

 

[morqthana]

How you can be an apologist for this is quite beyond me,

He is in Greece, where there's a significant number of people who think like him. Plus it's not inconcievable that he is part of some Russian psy-ops operation.

 

[morqthana]

How about that shining star of socialism that was Blair's Labour government? You know the one, it bankrupted the UK

How did it do that?

uncontrolled immigration).

Got any verifiable data to show that such a thing exists?

Or, perhaps, the Tory Government of John 'Curry Sh@gger' Major? The one that took us into the EU without a Referendum and paved the way for Brexit.

So you would have had a referendum over the Maastricht treaty? That would have been ironic, as at that time there was no mechanism for member states to leave the EU. It was a later treaty that introduced Article 50. Presumably you were opposed to that, too?

Or you might just have had a Labour Government led by a career protestor whose biggest achievement was to go for a beer with his IRA mates and to stand on a platform in support of Hamas terrorists

Would you like to see some photos of people smiling with and glad-handing terrorists? I can give you UK Prime Ministers (Lab & Con), a US Secretary of Defense, HRH Prince of Wales and HM QE II.

Please let me know which you'd prefer.

And BTW - Hamas was legitimately elected as the ruling party of Palestine.

 

[morqthana]

Your narrative must be true, because?

Because it's not promulgated by a demonstrable liar who makes the truth illegal, locks up people who speak it, and murders his political opponents?

 

[morqthana]

It is neither illegal nor unprovoked,

So what Russian forces have been doing in Ukraine is not illegal.

Deranged is utterly inadequate to describe your position.

So many things are 180 degrees from reality.

There's certainly one person here who is.

Actually - more than that, in a qualitative way - we could really do with a superstring theorist to come up with an expansion of "180 degrees from reality" to describe someone so turned away from it that he's actually translated himself to a completely different dimension.

 

[morqthana]

what else have they lied about? Covid? Climate change?

Don't tell me - you don't believe in those, either.

I've got a new Avatar for you.

You can thank me later.

 

[morqthana]

it is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident

You accidentally missed out a few words there.

I'll fix it for you.

It is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident just how unbiased and factual the BBC really is.

You're welcome.

 

[morqthana]

And to compare what is going on in Ukraine now with the sacrifice made by the Soviet Union fighting Hitler is frankly insulting to those involved, shame on you for that remark.

Trainee neophyte feeling shame for his support for Putin?

Are you serious?

 

[morqthana]

When it became apparent that the US were not prepared to back down the Soviets did so. In the background the agreement was reached, and just as well. So diplomacy worked but only because the Soviets came to the view that the US were prepared to stop them by force if necessary, and that was what arguably brought them to the table.

They were very worrying times. I read an account of a V Bomber squadron leader during the Cuba crisis. On the day that it all came to a head he was having breakfast when a jeep arrived and he was told that he was wanted on base immediately. He told his wife to listen and of she heard the squadron take off she was to collect the childern from school and drive to her sisters house in Scotland. He and the crew then sat in the fully armed aircraft on 5 minute ready for 13 hours. Imagine, knowing that if you are ordered to take off there will be no coming back. As we know, K and K compromised and we all lived.

 

[Fergie 307]

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.

Each case should be considered on its merits obviously, but I think you know very well that is not what I am talking about. And I wholly agree the Windrush affair is a sadly on going national disgrace, likewise the utterly immoral idea of packing people off to Rwanda who haven't been convicted of anything. But this is not what I am talking about. Take the case in Luton some years ago where a large gang of Jamaicans were running a 24/7 drugs operation from a block of flats. All young men, all here illegally. I think they got something approaching 100 years between them. Would you have them remain here after serving their sentences? Every group will contain a minority who have no respect for their fellows and cause misery for the rest of us. We have little choice but to put up with the home grown variety, but those from elsewhere we can and should remove. I am not suggesting that immigrants are more likely to commit crime that is blatantly nonsense. The vast majority come here to escape persecution or simply to make a better life for themselves, and are most welcome as far as I'm concerned. But I cannot see why we should want to subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda. As I said earlier a recent report stated that, for example, there are several thousand Nigerian nationals in our prison system, how true that figure is I don't know, but there probably are a substantial number of foreign nationals from all over the world. Why are they there? What crimes have they committed? Some of them are no doubt serious offenders, so why on earth would you want them to remain here once their sentence is completed.

 

[Fergie 307]

Indeed, scary stuff, terrifying to think what could have happened if just one commander of a ship or submarine had lost their cool and launched.

 

[Fergie 307]

Here's the way that "Russian sensitivity" should work.

Russia - you used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now you don't. It's what happens.

Great Britain used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Spain used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Austria-Hungary used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Mongolia used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Rome used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Greece used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.

Get over it.

Very true, but sadly not without precedent. Look at the way we refused to allow the Poles to participate in the victory parade at the end of the second world war, all because it might offend comrade Stalin.

 

[Jacob]

Each case should be considered on its merits obviously, but I think you know very well that is not what I am talking about. And I wholly agree the Windrush affair is a sadly on going national disgrace, likewise the utterly immoral idea of packing people off to Rwanda who haven't been convicted of anything. But this is not what I am talking about. Take the case in Luton some years ago where a large gang of Jamaicans were running a 24/7 drugs operation from a block of flats. All young men, all here illegally. I think they got something approaching 100 years between them. Would you have them remain here after serving their sentences? Every group will contain a minority who have no respect for their fellows and cause misery for the rest of us. We have little choice but to put up with the home grown variety, but those from elsewhere we can and should remove. I am not suggesting that immigrants are more likely to commit crime that is blatantly nonsense. The vast majority come here to escape persecution or simply to make a better life for themselves, and are most welcome as far as I'm concerned. But I cannot see why we should want to subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda. As I said earlier a recent report stated that, for example, there are several thousand Nigerian nationals in our prison system, how true that figure is I don't know, but there probably are a substantial number of foreign nationals from all over the world. Why are they there? What crimes have they committed? Some of them are no doubt serious offenders, so why on earth would you want them to remain here once their sentence is completed.

There were 270 Nigerian prisoners out of a total of 9,349 foreign nationals in UK jails at the end of 2017, according to the latest statistics that I could see on line. The total prison population at that time was 84,373.
They were in prison serving their sentences. Why do you think they should serve an additional punishment by being sent back to Nigeria? It seems to worry you a lot, even though the numbers are tiny and for all you know they will be rehabilitated and lead normal lives, and /or if applying for citizenship will be refused anyway.
We don't "subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda" we put them in prison!!
More stats here: 320 Nigerian prisoners in British jails at the end of 2016
I don't know whether or not this came off UK to pay for £700,000 prison wing in Nigeria but it seems that some may be spending their sentences in Nigeria anyway. Would that make you happier?
Seems to be largely a non issue.
More on the topic Carceral Colonialism: Britain's plan to build a prison wing in Nigeria - Corporate Watch "carceral colonialism" is a new one for me!
Would you send Scottish or Welsh offenders back to Scotland and Wales? Just wondered.

 

[morqthana]

I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities.

There is a problem though that our institutionally racist Home Office does not accept the corollary of that, namely that demonstrably responsible behaviour should confer rights.

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.

Ah - I wondered how long before you'd burble out that deluded term.

Please tell us how many deportations have been successfully appealed under the provisions of Article 8 of the ECHR.

It might take you a while to find figures which please you, so you can take a break now and then from your search and read these:

https://freemovement.org.uk/does-the-human-rights-act-prevent-us-deporting-serious-criminals/
https://eachother.org.uk/human-rights-act-criminal-deportations/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/21/foreign-criminals-tories-human-rights-act
When a barrister says

My direct experience is that judges are highly sceptical when a foreign criminal asserts that he or she has a close relationship with his or her family in the UK. Strong evidence is needed to prove this and it only cases where the foreign criminal can establish a genuine and subsisting family life and genuine harm to the family that might potentially succeed.

If the foreign criminal is particularly vulnerable in some way then deportation might also potentially be a breach of a person’s human rights, but such situations are very rare indeed and the evidence would need to be very strong.

Do you think he is lying?

I recall that reports around the truly shameful Rwanda policy indicated that there were several thousand criminals in our prisons from Nigeria alone.

How certain can we be of the veracity of those reports?

All will no doubt be championed by some Cherie Blair type fighting tooth and mail for their right to remain here, despite having abused that privilege.

Is that "no doubt" based on provable, factual history, or on blind, unreasoning, prejudice?

This gives those who oppose immigration ammunition and undermines the vast majority of immigrants who make a very positive contribution to our country, in the NHS for example.

So why do you contribute to that supply of ammunition by banging on about nonsensically false problems?

Where do you prioritise the importance of facts vs prejudiced beliefs?

So I don't see anything wrong with the legislation itself, we have just allowed its interpretation to become skewed too much in favour of the individual, with little regard to the rights of the general population to live their lives unmolested by these people, whether they be home grown or from elsewhere.

Who is the "we"? By what means have "we" "allowed" an interpretation which you don't like?

How would you suggest "we" change interpretations which you don't like? Should "we", for example, put an end to having an independent judiciary?

So you think people who come here then rape or swindle or rob should be allowed to remain, why?

Where did he say that, or even suggest it?

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.

How do you define "from overseas"?

Those who abuse the privilige should be sent back to wherever they came from.

Do you think there should be any time timit on how long ago, or at what age, someone "came from" somewhere?

Again - how many people do not get deported because of the HRA?

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.

Some people would vote for the death penalty. Some people would vote to ban Islam. Some people would vote for the forced deportation of everyone who isn't white.