You messed with the wrong city!

[Bulletguy]

 

Campaigners have hailed a victory for Glaswegian solidarity and told the Home Office “you messed with the wrong city” as two men detained by UK Immigration Enforcement were released back into their community after a day of protest.

 

Immigration made a dawn raid to remove the men and cart them off to a detention centre but the police intervened to free them! These dawn raids are the creation of Mays hostile environment which Patel is now delighting in.

 

https://tinyurl.com/2zhuzts9

[aandy]

So you think a mob preventing enforcement of the law is a good thing?

[John52]

aandy - 2021-05-15 9:59 AM

 

So you think a mob preventing enforcement of the law is a good thing?

 

I wouldn't call it a mob.

But thats what got women the vote....

... and many more of our democratic rights that BoJo is disrespecting.

[John52]

It wasn't Her Majesty's forces that won the freedoms that you and I enjoy today.

It was ordinary men and women like these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

who were murdered by Her Majesty's forces,

and Her Majesty never lifted a finger to help us.

[malc d]

John52 - 2021-05-15 11:03 AM

 

It wasn't Her Majesty's forces that won the freedoms that you and I enjoy today.

It was ordinary men and women like these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

who were murdered by Her Majesty's forces,

and Her Majesty never lifted a finger to help us.

 

 

 

Well, to be fair to Queen Victoria, she was only three months old at the time of the Peterloo massacre.

 

 

:-|

[aandy]

A group imposing their will by force on lawful authorities going about their legitimate business is most certainly a mob. There is a world of difference between protesting against a law you don't like and forcibly preventing its operation. There are several levels of appeal and review in immigration cases, and if the two individuals detained were here lawfully they had nothing to fear. If they were not, then they should face whatever sanction the law prescribes. Either way, the sight of a baying mob dictating by force whether, and against whom, any law should be enforced is sickening and rather worrying.

 

So far as the hostile environment is concerned, anybody breaking any law should face a hostile environment.

[malc d]

John52 - 2021-05-15 11:03 AM

 

It wasn't Her Majesty's forces that won the freedoms that you and I enjoy today.

 

 

 

That's true.

 

It was her dads' forces that did it - a force consisting of tens of thousands of ordinary people.

 

:-|

[CurtainRaiser]

aandy - 2021-05-15 12:21 PM

 

A group imposing their will by force on lawful authorities going about their legitimate business is most certainly a mob. There is a world of difference between protesting against a law you don't like and forcibly preventing its operation. There are several levels of appeal and review in immigration cases, and if the two individuals detained were here lawfully they had nothing to fear. If they were not, then they should face whatever sanction the law prescribes. Either way, the sight of a baying mob dictating by force whether, and against whom, any law should be enforced is sickening and rather worrying.

 

So far as the hostile environment is concerned, anybody breaking any law should face a hostile environment.

 

Looked to me like the will of the people prevailed.

 

And as to those various levels of appeal that you refer to, as the Home Office seems to think its above the law you shouldn't be surprised when people are no longer prepared to sit back and let them determine their friends and neighbours fate.

 

https://workpermit.com/news/home-office-breaks-uk-immigration-rules-deportations-20210424

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-deport-oscar-okwurime-b1831437.html

 

https://www.ecre.org/uk-home-office-in-breach-of-human-rights-law-asylum-seekers-moved-to-napier-barracks-with-high-court-and-mp-scrutiny-looming-returns-to-france-where-evictions-continue/

 

 

[Bulletguy]

aandy - 2021-05-15 12:21 PM

 

A group imposing their will by force on lawful authorities going about their legitimate business is most certainly a mob. There is a world of difference between protesting against a law you don't like and forcibly preventing its operation. There are several levels of appeal and review in immigration cases, and if the two individuals detained were here lawfully they had nothing to fear. If they were not, then they should face whatever sanction the law prescribes. Either way, the sight of a baying mob dictating by force whether, and against whom, any law should be enforced is sickening and rather worrying.

 

So far as the hostile environment is concerned, anybody breaking any law should face a hostile environment.

Scotland police intervened to free the men. It's the manner with which these dawn raids have been taking place and on this occasion, during Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan. Whether the men concerned were Muslim or not isn't known but it reflects badly on a country that's always prided itself on embracing multiculturalism. Scots won't tolerate racism in the manner England has become and it can clearly be seen the protesters came from all backgrounds. Glaswegians in particular are a very proud people that stand together hence the comment, "you messed with the wrong city".

 

If you think taking people from their homes at 5am by physical force with no explanation, driving them 200 miles away and throwing them into a prison cell, because thats what detention centres are, without any trial is humane and justifiable, you need to have a word with yourself.

 

That's exactly what happened to Anthony Bryan, not just once but twice, after living and working in the UK for 50 years. He was here lawfully but that didn't stop the HO and Immigration officers from trying to kick him out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08g29ff/sitting-in-limbo

[aandy]

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 4:07 PM

 

aandy - 2021-05-15 12:21 PM

 

 

Scotland police intervened to free the men. It's the manner with which these dawn raids have been taking place and on this occasion, during Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan. Whether the men concerned were Muslim or not isn't known but it reflects badly on a country that's always prided itself on embracing multiculturalism. Scots won't tolerate racism in the manner England has become and it can clearly be seen the protesters came from all backgrounds. Glaswegians in particular are a very proud people that stand together hence the comment, "you messed with the wrong city".

 

If you think taking people from their homes at 5am by physical force with no explanation, driving them 200 miles away and throwing them into a prison cell, because thats what detention centres are, without any trial is humane and justifiable, you need to have a word with yourself.

 

That's exactly what happened to Anthony Bryan, not just once but twice, after living and working in the UK for 50 years. He was here lawfully but that didn't stop the HO and Immigration officers from trying to kick him out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08g29ff/sitting-in-limbo

 

The police did not so much intervene as surrender. They were there, as they generally are in such cases, to maintain order during the arrest. When faced with resistance their commander took the shameful decision to surrender to the mob rather than uphold the law, which I understand is his sworn duty.

 

Such raids are invariably conducted in the early hours as it offers the best chance of finding the subjects at home and less likely to flee. The police do it all the time. Frankly, if someone has chosen to break the law they have no legitimate grounds to whinge about being got out of bed early.

 

Whether or not they are muslim is known, they're not. Perhaps Sturgeon and the Grauniad just assumed they were because they are of Asian descent. Such an assumption would generally be deemed racist, but not here it seems. As to the question of it being Eid, with something like 3,000 recognised religions around the world pretty much every day will have significance for the followers of some imaginary being or other. Should the authorities check the calendars of every religion, regardless of whether their targets are members, before making any arrest? If not, how should they decide which are deserving of consideration and which are not?

 

While the UK government is as entitled as any other in the world to determine who it lets in, the issue here is not immigration but who decides whether an offence has been committed and what action, if any is to be taken. Should it be public authorities duly constituted by an elected government or should it be a bunch of entitled anarchists who believe their opinions override the law? Anyone who believes it's the latter really does need to give themselves a good talking to, starting with the question "what other areas of law should we surrender to the mob"? Are you really suggesting that we should all be free to obstruct the enforcement of a law we don't like? Should Marxists, who believe all property is theft, be permitted to prevent the arrest of thieves and burglars? If not, who is to decide which laws remain in the purview of the proper authorities and which should be surrendered to the mob?

 

And for those banging on about it being the will of the people, it isn't. It's the will of - at best - a few hundred activists from a population of some 65 million.

[Birdbrain]

Real Glaswegians ... https://news.sky.com/story/rangers-fans-gather-in-glasgow-to-celebrate-scottish-premiership-title-win-despite-warnings-from-police-12306981 ... Billy Boys x

[CurtainRaiser]

Who would have guessed

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hundreds-rangers-fans-descend-george-24116563

 

And as ever amongst them the usual bigots "We're up to our knees in Fenian blood".

 

[Bulletguy]

aandy - 2021-05-15 7:39 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 4:07 PM

 

Scotland police intervened to free the men. It's the manner with which these dawn raids have been taking place and on this occasion, during Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan. Whether the men concerned were Muslim or not isn't known but it reflects badly on a country that's always prided itself on embracing multiculturalism. Scots won't tolerate racism in the manner England has become and it can clearly be seen the protesters came from all backgrounds. Glaswegians in particular are a very proud people that stand together hence the comment, "you messed with the wrong city".

 

If you think taking people from their homes at 5am by physical force with no explanation, driving them 200 miles away and throwing them into a prison cell, because thats what detention centres are, without any trial is humane and justifiable, you need to have a word with yourself.

 

That's exactly what happened to Anthony Bryan, not just once but twice, after living and working in the UK for 50 years. He was here lawfully but that didn't stop the HO and Immigration officers from trying to kick him out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08g29ff/sitting-in-limbo

 

The police did not so much intervene as surrender. They were there, as they generally are in such cases, to maintain order during the arrest. When faced with resistance their commander took the shameful decision to surrender to the mob rather than uphold the law, which I understand is his sworn duty.

 

Such raids are invariably conducted in the early hours as it offers the best chance of finding the subjects at home and less likely to flee. The police do it all the time. Frankly, if someone has chosen to break the law they have no legitimate grounds to whinge about being got out of bed early.

 

Whether or not they are muslim is known, they're not. Perhaps Sturgeon and the Grauniad just assumed they were because they are of Asian descent. Such an assumption would generally be deemed racist, but not here it seems. As to the question of it being Eid, with something like 3,000 recognised religions around the world pretty much every day will have significance for the followers of some imaginary being or other. Should the authorities check the calendars of every religion, regardless of whether their targets are members, before making any arrest? If not, how should they decide which are deserving of consideration and which are not?

 

While the UK government is as entitled as any other in the world to determine who it lets in, the issue here is not immigration but who decides whether an offence has been committed and what action, if any is to be taken. Should it be public authorities duly constituted by an elected government or should it be a bunch of entitled anarchists who believe their opinions override the law? Anyone who believes it's the latter really does need to give themselves a good talking to, starting with the question "what other areas of law should we surrender to the mob"? Are you really suggesting that we should all be free to obstruct the enforcement of a law we don't like? Should Marxists, who believe all property is theft, be permitted to prevent the arrest of thieves and burglars? If not, who is to decide which laws remain in the purview of the proper authorities and which should be surrendered to the mob?

 

And for those banging on about it being the will of the people, it isn't. It's the will of - at best - a few hundred activists from a population of some 65 million.

You've totally ignored what I said in my post. Are you advocating dispensing with due process and incarcerating people without any allegation, without any trial, without any representation? Because that is happening. Here is a recent case reported in Italian media about one of their citizens; https://tinyurl.com/4h95wnx8

 

A group of MEP's have now asked von der Leyen to intervene. Yes i'm already sensing you saying "nothing to do with them, we aren't members now", but do you really want UK to become a pariah state?

https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-nationals-uk-immigration-centers-dentention/

 

I urge you to watch that BBC link I posted.

[Birdbrain]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-15 8:38 PM

 

Who would have guessed

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hundreds-rangers-fans-descend-george-24116563

 

And as ever amongst them the usual bigots "We're up to our knees in Fenian blood".

 

 

One of your lots fave songs ... https://news.sky.com/story/rangers-fans-gather-in-glasgow-to-celebrate-scottish-premiership-title-win-despite-warnings-from-police-12306981, after 3 you'll know the words ... Bit of flute playing maybe???

[aandy]

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 10:00 PM

 

aandy - 2021-05-15 7:39 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 4:07 PM

 

Scotland police intervened to free the men. It's the manner with which these dawn raids have been taking place and on this occasion, during Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan. Whether the men concerned were Muslim or not isn't known but it reflects badly on a country that's always prided itself on embracing multiculturalism. Scots won't tolerate racism in the manner England has become and it can clearly be seen the protesters came from all backgrounds. Glaswegians in particular are a very proud people that stand together hence the comment, "you messed with the wrong city".

 

If you think taking people from their homes at 5am by physical force with no explanation, driving them 200 miles away and throwing them into a prison cell, because thats what detention centres are, without any trial is humane and justifiable, you need to have a word with yourself.

 

That's exactly what happened to Anthony Bryan, not just once but twice, after living and working in the UK for 50 years. He was here lawfully but that didn't stop the HO and Immigration officers from trying to kick him out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08g29ff/sitting-in-limbo

 

The police did not so much intervene as surrender. They were there, as they generally are in such cases, to maintain order during the arrest. When faced with resistance their commander took the shameful decision to surrender to the mob rather than uphold the law, which I understand is his sworn duty.

 

Such raids are invariably conducted in the early hours as it offers the best chance of finding the subjects at home and less likely to flee. The police do it all the time. Frankly, if someone has chosen to break the law they have no legitimate grounds to whinge about being got out of bed early.

 

Whether or not they are muslim is known, they're not. Perhaps Sturgeon and the Grauniad just assumed they were because they are of Asian descent. Such an assumption would generally be deemed racist, but not here it seems. As to the question of it being Eid, with something like 3,000 recognised religions around the world pretty much every day will have significance for the followers of some imaginary being or other. Should the authorities check the calendars of every religion, regardless of whether their targets are members, before making any arrest? If not, how should they decide which are deserving of consideration and which are not?

 

While the UK government is as entitled as any other in the world to determine who it lets in, the issue here is not immigration but who decides whether an offence has been committed and what action, if any is to be taken. Should it be public authorities duly constituted by an elected government or should it be a bunch of entitled anarchists who believe their opinions override the law? Anyone who believes it's the latter really does need to give themselves a good talking to, starting with the question "what other areas of law should we surrender to the mob"? Are you really suggesting that we should all be free to obstruct the enforcement of a law we don't like? Should Marxists, who believe all property is theft, be permitted to prevent the arrest of thieves and burglars? If not, who is to decide which laws remain in the purview of the proper authorities and which should be surrendered to the mob?

 

And for those banging on about it being the will of the people, it isn't. It's the will of - at best - a few hundred activists from a population of some 65 million.

You've totally ignored what I said in my post. Are you advocating dispensing with due process and incarcerating people without any allegation, without any trial, without any representation? Because that is happening. Here is a recent case reported in Italian media about one of their citizens; https://tinyurl.com/4h95wnx8

 

A group of MEP's have now asked von der Leyen to intervene. Yes i'm already sensing you saying "nothing to do with them, we aren't members now", but do you really want UK to become a pariah state?

https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-nationals-uk-immigration-centers-dentention/

 

I urge you to watch that BBC link I posted.

 

Due process? What is due process? Consideration by the proper authorities of all material facts, backed up by several stages of appeal, or the knee-jerk reaction of a self-selected mob, few if any of whom will know anything of the facts of the cases? You've really shot yourself in the foot there.

 

And on what basis do you assert that no allegation has been made? Are you suggesting that BF select premises at random for their raids? And representation? What leads you to suppose they did not have representation during whatever process they might previously have engaged, or any that might follow? That someone described in the press as their lawyer was present among the mob would suggest otherwise. Or do you simply make those assertions off the cuff because they suit your argument?

 

I've ignored nothing. The only point you raised that I did not explicitly address was about another case where, accepting your assertion at face value, an innocent man was subject to a deportation attempt. An attempt, it should be noted, that did not go ahead. The reason I did not address that is that it is utterly irrelevant. Every prosecuting authority makes mistakes from time to time, the police have arrested plenty of innocent people and the courts have convicted a fair few. If you go back a while some have even been executed. Should the police not now arrest anyone or the courts try them simply because both have got it wrong in the past?

 

It is ironic that you berate me for ignoring one of your points while at the same time ignoring all of mine. Despite all the coverage, not one material fact has appeared in the media to suggest that these men are not in breach of immigration law yet you appear happy that due process be cast aside in favour of mob rule and they be enabled to flout the law with impunity.

 

I have no intention of viewing the link. The BBC are pathologically incapable of objectivity in anything to do with immigration or the current regime at the Home Office but, more to the point, the issue is entirely irrelevant to my point. Application of the law must never be put into the hands of vigilantes.

[CurtainRaiser]

aandy - 2021-05-16 10:17 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 10:00 PM

 

aandy - 2021-05-15 7:39 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 4:07 PM

 

Scotland police intervened to free the men. It's the manner with which these dawn raids have been taking place and on this occasion, during Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan. Whether the men concerned were Muslim or not isn't known but it reflects badly on a country that's always prided itself on embracing multiculturalism. Scots won't tolerate racism in the manner England has become and it can clearly be seen the protesters came from all backgrounds. Glaswegians in particular are a very proud people that stand together hence the comment, "you messed with the wrong city".

 

If you think taking people from their homes at 5am by physical force with no explanation, driving them 200 miles away and throwing them into a prison cell, because thats what detention centres are, without any trial is humane and justifiable, you need to have a word with yourself.

 

That's exactly what happened to Anthony Bryan, not just once but twice, after living and working in the UK for 50 years. He was here lawfully but that didn't stop the HO and Immigration officers from trying to kick him out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08g29ff/sitting-in-limbo

 

The police did not so much intervene as surrender. They were there, as they generally are in such cases, to maintain order during the arrest. When faced with resistance their commander took the shameful decision to surrender to the mob rather than uphold the law, which I understand is his sworn duty.

 

Such raids are invariably conducted in the early hours as it offers the best chance of finding the subjects at home and less likely to flee. The police do it all the time. Frankly, if someone has chosen to break the law they have no legitimate grounds to whinge about being got out of bed early.

 

Whether or not they are muslim is known, they're not. Perhaps Sturgeon and the Grauniad just assumed they were because they are of Asian descent. Such an assumption would generally be deemed racist, but not here it seems. As to the question of it being Eid, with something like 3,000 recognised religions around the world pretty much every day will have significance for the followers of some imaginary being or other. Should the authorities check the calendars of every religion, regardless of whether their targets are members, before making any arrest? If not, how should they decide which are deserving of consideration and which are not?

 

While the UK government is as entitled as any other in the world to determine who it lets in, the issue here is not immigration but who decides whether an offence has been committed and what action, if any is to be taken. Should it be public authorities duly constituted by an elected government or should it be a bunch of entitled anarchists who believe their opinions override the law? Anyone who believes it's the latter really does need to give themselves a good talking to, starting with the question "what other areas of law should we surrender to the mob"? Are you really suggesting that we should all be free to obstruct the enforcement of a law we don't like? Should Marxists, who believe all property is theft, be permitted to prevent the arrest of thieves and burglars? If not, who is to decide which laws remain in the purview of the proper authorities and which should be surrendered to the mob?

 

And for those banging on about it being the will of the people, it isn't. It's the will of - at best - a few hundred activists from a population of some 65 million.

You've totally ignored what I said in my post. Are you advocating dispensing with due process and incarcerating people without any allegation, without any trial, without any representation? Because that is happening. Here is a recent case reported in Italian media about one of their citizens; https://tinyurl.com/4h95wnx8

 

A group of MEP's have now asked von der Leyen to intervene. Yes i'm already sensing you saying "nothing to do with them, we aren't members now", but do you really want UK to become a pariah state?

https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-nationals-uk-immigration-centers-dentention/

 

I urge you to watch that BBC link I posted.

 

Due process? What is due process? Consideration by the proper authorities of all material facts, backed up by several stages of appeal, or the knee-jerk reaction of a self-selected mob, few if any of whom will know anything of the facts of the cases? You've really shot yourself in the foot there.

 

And on what basis do you assert that no allegation has been made? Are you suggesting that BF select premises at random for their raids? And representation? What leads you to suppose they did not have representation during whatever process they might previously have engaged, or any that might follow? That someone described in the press as their lawyer was present among the mob would suggest otherwise. Or do you simply make those assertions off the cuff because they suit your argument?

 

I've ignored nothing. The only point you raised that I did not explicitly address was about another case where, accepting your assertion at face value, an innocent man was subject to a deportation attempt. An attempt, it should be noted, that did not go ahead. The reason I did not address that is that it is utterly irrelevant. Every prosecuting authority makes mistakes from time to time, the police have arrested plenty of innocent people and the courts have convicted a fair few. If you go back a while some have even been executed. Should the police not now arrest anyone or the courts try them simply because both have got it wrong in the past?

 

It is ironic that you berate me for ignoring one of your points while at the same time ignoring all of mine. Despite all the coverage, not one material fact has appeared in the media to suggest that these men are not in breach of immigration law yet you appear happy that due process be cast aside in favour of mob rule and they be enabled to flout the law with impunity.

 

I have no intention of viewing the link. The BBC are pathologically incapable of objectivity in anything to do with immigration or the current regime at the Home Office but, more to the point, the issue is entirely irrelevant to my point. Application of the law must never be put into the hands of vigilantes.

 

I too linked to other sources showing clearly that the Home Office are in breach of the legislation but you've chosen to ignore that as well.

 

It seems to me that if someone produces evidence that contradicts your argument you just dismiss it as being untrue?

[aandy]

"I too linked to other sources showing clearly that the Home Office are in breach of the legislation but you've chosen to ignore that as well.

 

It seems to me that if someone produces evidence that contradicts your argument you just dismiss it as being untrue?"

 

 

No, you linked to sources showing that the HO have been found to have been wrong in other cases. I've yet to see anything, from you or anyone else, to suggest that they did not have grounds for the action taken in this instance. Given the appetite among the media to attack the HO - in particular the Home Secretary - at every opportunity, you can be sure that we would all have heard about it if there were any grounds to suppose they didn't. Even the men's lawyer, when interviewed by the press, did not claim that they were here legally. If you are seriously suggesting that BF should abandon all enforcement effort because they have got things wrong in the past then you really haven't thought things through. On that basis every law enforcement agency in the country would have to cease operations and anarchy would rule throughout the land, as it appears currently to do in Glasgow..

 

It seems to me that if someone produces an argument that you don't like you resort to red herrings and irrelevancies. The issue here is not about immigration but whether the law should be administered by the proper authorities, accountable to government and subject to judicial appeals procedures, or a baying mob of vigilantes. If you cannot grasp that simple point then I really cannot be bothered with you.

[Bulletguy]

aandy - 2021-05-16 10:17 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 10:00 PM

 

aandy - 2021-05-15 7:39 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-05-15 4:07 PM

 

Scotland police intervened to free the men. It's the manner with which these dawn raids have been taking place and on this occasion, during Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan. Whether the men concerned were Muslim or not isn't known but it reflects badly on a country that's always prided itself on embracing multiculturalism. Scots won't tolerate racism in the manner England has become and it can clearly be seen the protesters came from all backgrounds. Glaswegians in particular are a very proud people that stand together hence the comment, "you messed with the wrong city".

 

If you think taking people from their homes at 5am by physical force with no explanation, driving them 200 miles away and throwing them into a prison cell, because thats what detention centres are, without any trial is humane and justifiable, you need to have a word with yourself.

 

That's exactly what happened to Anthony Bryan, not just once but twice, after living and working in the UK for 50 years. He was here lawfully but that didn't stop the HO and Immigration officers from trying to kick him out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08g29ff/sitting-in-limbo

 

The police did not so much intervene as surrender. They were there, as they generally are in such cases, to maintain order during the arrest. When faced with resistance their commander took the shameful decision to surrender to the mob rather than uphold the law, which I understand is his sworn duty.

 

Such raids are invariably conducted in the early hours as it offers the best chance of finding the subjects at home and less likely to flee. The police do it all the time. Frankly, if someone has chosen to break the law they have no legitimate grounds to whinge about being got out of bed early.

 

Whether or not they are muslim is known, they're not. Perhaps Sturgeon and the Grauniad just assumed they were because they are of Asian descent. Such an assumption would generally be deemed racist, but not here it seems. As to the question of it being Eid, with something like 3,000 recognised religions around the world pretty much every day will have significance for the followers of some imaginary being or other. Should the authorities check the calendars of every religion, regardless of whether their targets are members, before making any arrest? If not, how should they decide which are deserving of consideration and which are not?

 

While the UK government is as entitled as any other in the world to determine who it lets in, the issue here is not immigration but who decides whether an offence has been committed and what action, if any is to be taken. Should it be public authorities duly constituted by an elected government or should it be a bunch of entitled anarchists who believe their opinions override the law? Anyone who believes it's the latter really does need to give themselves a good talking to, starting with the question "what other areas of law should we surrender to the mob"? Are you really suggesting that we should all be free to obstruct the enforcement of a law we don't like? Should Marxists, who believe all property is theft, be permitted to prevent the arrest of thieves and burglars? If not, who is to decide which laws remain in the purview of the proper authorities and which should be surrendered to the mob?

 

And for those banging on about it being the will of the people, it isn't. It's the will of - at best - a few hundred activists from a population of some 65 million.

You've totally ignored what I said in my post. Are you advocating dispensing with due process and incarcerating people without any allegation, without any trial, without any representation? Because that is happening. Here is a recent case reported in Italian media about one of their citizens; https://tinyurl.com/4h95wnx8

 

A group of MEP's have now asked von der Leyen to intervene. Yes i'm already sensing you saying "nothing to do with them, we aren't members now", but do you really want UK to become a pariah state?

https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-nationals-uk-immigration-centers-dentention/

 

I urge you to watch that BBC link I posted.

 

Due process? What is due process? Consideration by the proper authorities of all material facts, backed up by several stages of appeal, or the knee-jerk reaction of a self-selected mob, few if any of whom will know anything of the facts of the cases? You've really shot yourself in the foot there.

 

And on what basis do you assert that no allegation has been made? Are you suggesting that BF select premises at random for their raids? And representation? What leads you to suppose they did not have representation during whatever process they might previously have engaged, or any that might follow? That someone described in the press as their lawyer was present among the mob would suggest otherwise. Or do you simply make those assertions off the cuff because they suit your argument?

 

I've ignored nothing. The only point you raised that I did not explicitly address was about another case where, accepting your assertion at face value, an innocent man was subject to a deportation attempt. An attempt, it should be noted, that did not go ahead. The reason I did not address that is that it is utterly irrelevant. Every prosecuting authority makes mistakes from time to time, the police have arrested plenty of innocent people and the courts have convicted a fair few. If you go back a while some have even been executed. Should the police not now arrest anyone or the courts try them simply because both have got it wrong in the past?

 

It is ironic that you berate me for ignoring one of your points while at the same time ignoring all of mine. Despite all the coverage, not one material fact has appeared in the media to suggest that these men are not in breach of immigration law yet you appear happy that due process be cast aside in favour of mob rule and they be enabled to flout the law with impunity.

 

I have no intention of viewing the link. The BBC are pathologically incapable of objectivity in anything to do with immigration or the current regime at the Home Office but, more to the point, the issue is entirely irrelevant to my point. Application of the law must never be put into the hands of vigilantes.

1) Due process > https://tinyurl.com/4xn9rny2

That doesn't mean throwing people into a prison cell without charge, representation, or trial.......and thats what has been happening.

 

2) Representation > as above.

 

3) You say you have no intention of viewing the link I posted. That's your choice to close your mind. Many prefer to. However Anthony Bryans experience is well documented elsewhere and he was not alone in receiving the same treatment.

 

I agree with your point that law should never be put in the hands of vigilantes as why else would I quote allowing 'due process' to take place and show that this has not been happening. The HO is treading a very dangerous line with Patel at the helm and forget the BBC, our security services don't even trust her.

[Barryd999]

This is the sort of thing that will keep happening though. There is no doubt that Brexit and the new ToryKipper party have created a hostile environment. There are many (mainly those that supported Brexit, UKIP and all that Britain First bollox) that will rejoice in all of this but its not the tolerant and welcoming country I was once proud of. No doubt the usual suspect(s) will be along in a minute to criticise me for living in a leafy whites only village but as long as you have extremist policies and extremist governments taking hostile actions people will react and so the spiral goes around. Lets face it we have seen our fair share of protests and political action since the ToryKipper coup.

 

Lets hope, like Trump they get theirs eventually.

[aandy]

 

1) What evidence do you have that these two were to be treated as you suggest? That something along those lines might have happened in a few cases - though by no means as clear-cut as the press would have you believe - is no indication that it was to have happened here. At the very least we know from media coverage that they did have legal representation, but I can understand why it suits your case to continue to ignore that point.

 

2) Representation. As above indeed. That their lawyer was present among the mob clears up that point though, again, I understand why it suits you to ignore the point.

 

3) Indeed I don't. As I explained before, it is wholly irrelevant to the sole point I was making which is that it is never acceptable for a mob to decide how the law is to be administered.

 

At least we can agree on that point, but where is the due process in a mob imposing their will by force of numbers? Whatever you might think of the merits of the underlying case - and neither you, I, nor the mob have any idea what those are - that should never be tolerated. The fact that some in authority condone it, albeit for nakedly self-serving political reasons, is truly disturbing.

[CurtainRaiser]

aandy - 2021-05-16 6:29 PM

 

 

1) What evidence do you have that these two were to be treated as you suggest? That something along those lines might have happened in a few cases - though by no means as clear-cut as the press would have you believe - is no indication that it was to have happened here. At the very least we know from media coverage that they did have legal representation, but I can understand why it suits your case to continue to ignore that point.

 

2) Representation. As above indeed. That their lawyer was present among the mob clears up that point though, again, I understand why it suits you to ignore the point.

 

3) Indeed I don't. As I explained before, it is wholly irrelevant to the sole point I was making which is that it is never acceptable for a mob to decide how the law is to be administered.

 

At least we can agree on that point, but where is the due process in a mob imposing their will by force of numbers? Whatever you might think of the merits of the underlying case - and neither you, I, nor the mob have any idea what those are - that should never be tolerated. The fact that some in authority condone it, albeit for nakedly self-serving political reasons, is truly disturbing.

 

The evidence that they may be mistreated is based on previous case histories. Until any threat of abuse of power is removed the precautionary principle should apply.

 

Once removed to the detention centre their lawyer would no longer have access to them - as evidenced above.

 

Mob rule or will of the people has given us holidays, toll free roads, the right to vote, access to open countryside and more recently stopped the poll tax. When 42% of the electorate get to produce a 80 seat majority we no longer have a functioning democracy, you best get used to a few more little protests.

 

 

 

 

[FunsterJohn]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-17 11:17 AM

 

When 42% of the electorate get to produce a 80 seat majority we no longer have a functioning democracy, you best get used to a few more little protests.

 

 

So if the Tories had only won a ten seat majority, that would be OK would it? The Tories won 43.6% of votes cast, Labour won only 32.2%. I think that the British public voted decisively for what they wanted. Quoting the number of votes as a percentage of the total number of electors is beyond infantile. If people choose not to vote they shouldn't even figure in any calculations because we have no idea whom they would vote for if forced by law to do so.

 

As for democracy, in 1997 Labour had a majority of 179 seats and in 2001 it had 167 seats. In 2005 it fell to a mere 66 seats, not that far from your 'undemocratic' 80 seat majority enjoyed by Boris. None of Blair's victories saw him achieving 50% of the votes cast. Democracy?

 

Is there anything worse than a sore loser whinging about democracy just because his party has been totally rejected by the British people?

[aandy]

"The evidence that they may be mistreated is based on previous case histories. Until any threat of abuse of power is removed the precautionary principle should apply.

 

Once removed to the detention centre their lawyer would no longer have access to them - as evidenced above.

 

Mob rule or will of the people has given us holidays, toll free roads, the right to vote, access to open countryside and more recently stopped the poll tax. When 42% of the electorate get to produce a 80 seat majority we no longer have a functioning democracy, you best get used to a few more little protests."

 

 

 

 

Firstly, mob rule is probably the very antithesis of a "precautionary principle". However, if we were to accept your "logic" then the police must immediately stop making arrests and the courts must cease all criminal trials, since both have made mistakes in the past and there can never be a guarantee that none will be made in the future.

 

Lawyers do have access to those held in detention centres. To suggest that because such access may have been denied on some occasions it will be in every case is irrational and idiotic.

 

As to the tired and hackneyed old chestnut in your final paragraph, there is a world of difference between protesting and campaigning for changes to a law you don't like and using force of numbers to prevent the proper authorities enforcing the law against individuals suspected of breaching it. The HO has it's faults and weaknesses, but it operates by established processes that take account of all relevant facts and circumstances and incorporate several layers of appeal. You bang on about previous cases, but conveniently overlook the fact that it was the very system you deride that was used to reverse the decisions in those cases. The mob offers no such safeguards and has no regard to nor knowledge of any of the material facts. If you truly believe that is how the law should be administered then there really is no hope for you.

 

So far as the GE is concerned, the simple and irrefutable fact is that substantially more people voted for the Tories than for Labour. That means the Tories won, its how democracy works. What proportion their vote represents of the entire electorate is irrelevant (irrelevancies appear to be your stock in trade) since all that can safely be assumed about those who didn't vote is that they either didn't care who won or were happy to leave the decision to the rest of us.

 

That said, I really don't know why I bother. I should know better than to expect rational discourse from someone who, on another thread, made an assertion, presented in support links that actually showed it to be false, then - presumably with a straight face - claimed he was right all along.

[Violet1956]

aandy - 2021-05-17 2:31 PM

 

"The evidence that they may be mistreated is based on previous case histories. Until any threat of abuse of power is removed the precautionary principle should apply.

 

Once removed to the detention centre their lawyer would no longer have access to them - as evidenced above.

 

Mob rule or will of the people has given us holidays, toll free roads, the right to vote, access to open countryside and more recently stopped the poll tax. When 42% of the electorate get to produce a 80 seat majority we no longer have a functioning democracy, you best get used to a few more little protests."

 

 

 

 

Firstly, mob rule is probably the very antithesis of a "precautionary principle". However, if we were to accept your "logic" then the police must immediately stop making arrests and the courts must cease all criminal trials, since both have made mistakes in the past and there can never be a guarantee that none will be made in the future.

 

Lawyers do have access to those held in detention centres. To suggest that because such access may have been denied on some occasions it will be in every case is irrational and idiotic.

 

As to the tired and hackneyed old chestnut in your final paragraph, there is a world of difference between protesting and campaigning for changes to a law you don't like and using force of numbers to prevent the proper authorities enforcing the law against individuals suspected of breaching it. The HO has it's faults and weaknesses, but it operates by established processes that take account of all relevant facts and circumstances and incorporate several layers of appeal. You bang on about previous cases, but conveniently overlook the fact that it was the very system you deride that was used to reverse the decisions in those cases. The mob offers no such safeguards and has no regard to nor knowledge of any of the material facts. If you truly believe that is how the law should be administered then there really is no hope for you.

 

So far as the GE is concerned, the simple and irrefutable fact is that substantially more people voted for the Tories than for Labour. That means the Tories won, its how democracy works. What proportion their vote represents of the entire electorate is irrelevant (irrelevancies appear to be your stock in trade) since all that can safely be assumed about those who didn't vote is that they either didn't care who won or were happy to leave the decision to the rest of us.

 

That said, I really don't know why I bother. I should know better than to expect rational discourse from someone who, on another thread, made an assertion, presented in support links that actually showed it to be false, then - presumably with a straight face - claimed he was right all along.

 

I'm glad that you bothered. I am in entirely in agreement with everything you have posted so eloquently.

[CurtainRaiser]

"Priti Patel will have woken up in a bad mood this morning, as presumably she does most mornings. Her war on immigration was dealt a severe blow in Glasgow yesterday, when a seething mob of peaceful protesters prevented immigration officers from detaining two asylum seekers. It must have been a terrifying ordeal for those officers to be surrounded by people screaming slogans like “leave these people alone. These are our neighbours”.

 

This incident, perhaps even more than the result of the Holyrood elections last week, demonstrates the gulf that exists between Scotland and Westminster. Johnson set up a task force to promote the Union, whose staff thought that their ‘look at all the good things we have done for you’ would enthuse Scottish voters. There are rumours that Johnson is planning a charm offensive of public spending in Scotland with a view to doing the same. Money always helps, but money alone doesn’t remove the insult to Scottish people’s sense of decency that is Priti Patel’s Home Office.

 

Make no mistake, the sentiment that prompted the action in Glasgow yesterday is widely shared across Scotland. And, in case anyone is in any doubt about that, this is not the first time that Westminster politicians have fallen foul of Scottish sensibilities. At the beginning of the 1980s Scottish Tories formed a large minority of the country’s electorate. The vulgarity of ‘Greed is Good’ put an end to that. Today the hostile environment policy causes widespread offence across the spectrum.

 

Johnson was advised during the election campaign that the Scottish Conservatives would be best served if he stayed out of the country altogether for the duration. Johnson duly obliged. The question now arises as to whether Scotland is now also a no-go area for Patel. The authority of the Home Office has been challenged; if she does not now enforce those detention warrants, she is implicitly accepting that she does not have jurisdiction in at least certain parts of Scotland. If she does insist that those warrants be served, then she risks the action being seen as government by force.

 

And should Johnson continue to deny the Scottish people an independence referendum, it has already been pointed out that this would constitute maintaining the Union by force. Some may consider this an exaggeration. Combine it with yesterday’s stand-off, however, and it starts to look as if it is precisely this that’s taking shape. The problem for Westminster is that, while the debate on independence may be seen as ideological, the hostile environment policy is a moral issue. And morality is not Boris Johnson’s strong point. "

 

North East Bylines