Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Asylum seeker who left girl to die after hit-and-run allowed to stay in UK Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sinbad23)
    Who are you to judge who is allowed in "your" country. Since when did "you" own this country. This is no ones land and has been invaded by numerous empires throughout time. I bet if you look back at your family history someone in your family was probably an assylum seeker or something. People are so arragant with their "this is my country I cant believe hes allowed to stay in my country" crap. Sorry mate its not "your country.

    Oh and Im not neccessarily talking to you but anyone who talks about "immigrants and "assylum seekers" as if they are a seperate breed of animal in another galaxy or something. And like someone else said I get the feeling that those who talk about immigrants or assylum seekers are people with little experience being around anyone other than "white english people"
    Not even going to bother
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Not even going to bother
    good, I find this thread offensive. Where is the need to mention that he is an assylum seeker unless you have something against non english people.

    Oh and personally Im happy with that the war in iraq is completely illegal and is responsible for the deaths of 3 million iraqis that we caused. Call that a bit of justice served
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sinbad23)
    good, I find this thread offensive. Where is the need to mention that he is an assylum seeker unless you have something against non english people.
    Because why should the country allow him to live here if hes going to commit crimes?
    • Offline

      14
      (Original post by alanr)
      Why do you have saddam in your avatar?
      Why not?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Time Tourist)
      And the European court of human rights has forced Ireland to pave the way for mass abortion.
      About ****ing time!
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Kerny)
      so four months for driving carelessly and killing someone, fleeing the scene, AND whilst disqualified (and thus uninsured)

      wat?
      Aye it is interesting..I'll have to remember that if I want to settle any grudges..I can't drive but I suppose me getting behind the wheel without a licence is similar to what he did anyway.

      So he flees the scene, he's been denied immigration AND he's got other offences such as intimidation, burglary and drugs(I believe it was drugs anyway). He gets four months.

      As a white British guy, legal resident, no priors and I'll stay at the scene pretending it was an accident, what do you think I'd get it? 1 month?

      Anyway as said it does seem human rights isn't applied to the victims as much as it is the perpetrators. He isn't meant to be here as his application was denied, he isn't meant to be driving and then he kills a resident of our country..and now he stays!?
      Offline

      8
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Markh1000)
      About ****ing time!
      moral syphilis.

      300 000 abortions a year in Britain is, about ****ing time?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aj12)
      Because why should the country allow him to live here if hes going to commit crimes?
      Yeah I can see your point there, didnt read all the thread. Just felt like that this is another one of those "racial hatred" threads that aims to promote seperation. Slightly pisses me off when I see threads about immigration or assylum seekers, Ive experienced racism and I guess you can say Im a bit sensitive to those kinds of issues.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Time Tourist)
      moral syphilis.

      300 000 abortions a year in Britain is, about ****ing time?
      Considering it was only recently that women in Ireland who were pregnant and had cancer would be refused treatment so the foetus wouldn't be harmed, while the mother's cancer progressed (unbelievably barbaric btw), it certainly is about time Ireland changed.
      Offline

      8
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Markh1000)
      Considering it was only recently that women in Ireland who were pregnant and had cancer would be refused treatment so the foetus wouldn't be harmed, while the mother's cancer progressed (unbelievably barbaric btw), it certainly is about time Ireland changed.
      well dodged bro
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Time Tourist)
      well dodged bro
      Don't really see how I dodged anything? Feel free to correct.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Time Tourist)
      moral syphilis.

      300 000 abortions a year in Britain is, about ****ing time?
      yes
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      So in the UK, an illegal immigrant, who is a thief, a drug user, and a murderer is protected by the law....


      Any respect I had for the legal system here just went out the window. That little girls dad should dead the ******** already.


      And oh yeah, he's definitely on benefits.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      Society or Politics? I'd say the problem lies within the latter. Our society is losing faith in the political system...
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sinbad23)
      yeah why mention assylum seeker?
      I think you have an issue with assylum seekers? Maybe your dad tells you that immigrants are the cause of all your problems or something? or maybe you believe all that bull**** propaganda on the news everyday?

      Either way I never or have never called someone an "assylum seeker" I find that term offensive. Its like seperating someone as non human because they werent born in this land that this government claims is there own.
      Are you on crack? The whole trial was regarding his case for asylum in the UK and whether or not he should be deported. His proper title and status is an asylum seeker (not offensive at all) - he is not a British citizen until he becomes naturalised.

      Take your delusional no-borders drivel elsewhere.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sinbad23)
      Yeah I can see your point there, didnt read all the thread. Just felt like that this is another one of those "racial hatred" threads that aims to promote seperation. Slightly pisses me off when I see threads about immigration or assylum seekers, Ive experienced racism and I guess you can say Im a bit sensitive to those kinds of issues.
      Stop playing the victim card and getting offended over proper terminology. I mean, offended by the term 'asylum seeker'? Are you serious?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sinbad23)
      I never or have never called someone an "assylum seeker".
      I don't think I've ever called anyone an "assylum seeker", but then, a basic level of education has taught me to spell.

      If you mean asylum seeker, then I completely agree that the term is wrong in this case. It's either "criminal" or "illegal alien". The international law is quite clear on this, and I'll spell it out really slowly for the hard of learning:
      You. Must. Seek. Asylum. In. The. First. Safe. Country.

      OK? Clear enough? "Asylum seekers" don't pay £20,000 to a people trafficker then make their way across multiple European countries before smuggling themselves onto a train across the channel.

      Criminals do that and idiots excuse them.

      (Original post by sinbad23)
      I find that term offensive
      I find the level of some people's stupidity and illiteracy offensive, but there you go, eh?

      (Original post by sinbad23)
      because they werent born in this land that this government claims is there own.
      It's "their", not "there". Instead of arguing like a petulant 5 year old trying to defend criminals, why not get yourself along to some key stage one English lessons?

      As someone born in this land, as a taxpayer of this place, I claim as mine the right to vote to elect a government who will give me representation for my taxation.

      The law clearly states that the "The Secretary of State is entitled to remove anyone whose presence is not conducive to the public good". If corrupt former home secretary Jacqui Smith believes that illegally barring Geert Wilders, a democratically elected Euro MP without criminal conviction who just happens to be guilty of the crime of independent thought, then I'm pretty damn sure a child-killer with a string of convictions is a prime candidate for the boot.

      When someone is given asylum and the many benefits the UK endows on them, they have a contract with the state to abide by it's laws. He broke that contract multiple times.

      When I was working the the US, a co-worker from the UK was caught buying alcohol on behalf of minors. He was on a plane back to the UK within 24 hours.
      Anyone wanting to even consider entering the US with almost any sort of criminal conviction can forget it.

      When I was in NZ, I was travelling with a really great bloke, no criminal convictions, but was on his second attempt at travelling because they turned him right around at the airport due to an error with his visa.

      We are pathetic in the UK. And part of it is that the debate is ruined by the kind of idiot who thinks that immigration and race are the same, in the same way that they think Islam is a race. There are too many morons and empty barrels making too much noise.

      Now I've finished ranting, can we have the country back?

      Now I'll just sit back and watch the knee-jerk reaction of the barely literate as they reach for the "rate down" button. Welcome to the level of debate after 13 years of Labour. Where's Marcus Brigstocke when you need him?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by digitaltoast)
      I don't think I've ever called anyone an "assylum seeker", but then, a basic level of education has taught me to spell.

      If you mean asylum seeker, then I completely agree that the term is wrong in this case. It's either "criminal" or "illegal alien". The international law is quite clear on this, and I'll spell it out really slowly for the hard of learning:
      You. Must. Seek. Asylum. In. The. First. Safe. Country.

      OK? Clear enough? "Asylum seekers" don't pay £20,000 to a people trafficker then make their way across multiple European countries before smuggling themselves onto a train across the channel.

      Criminals do that and idiots excuse them.

      I find the level of some people's stupidity and illiteracy offensive, but there you go, eh?


      It's "their", not "there". Instead of arguing like a petulant 5 year old trying to defend criminals, why not get yourself along to some key stage one English lessons?

      As someone born in this land, as a taxpayer of this place, I claim as mine the right to vote to elect a government who will give me representation for my taxation.

      The law clearly states that the "The Secretary of State is entitled to remove anyone whose presence is not conducive to the public good". If corrupt former home secretary Jacqui Smith believes that illegally barring Geert Wilders, a democratically elected Euro MP without criminal conviction who just happens to be guilty of the crime of independent thought, then I'm pretty damn sure a child-killer with a string of convictions is a prime candidate for the boot.

      When someone is given asylum and the many benefits the UK endows on them, they have a contract with the state to abide by it's laws. He broke that contract multiple times.

      When I was working the the US, a co-worker from the UK was caught buying alcohol on behalf of minors. He was on a plane back to the UK within 24 hours.
      Anyone wanting to even consider entering the US with almost any sort of criminal conviction can forget it.

      When I was in NZ, I was travelling with a really great bloke, no criminal convictions, but was on his second attempt at travelling because they turned him right around at the airport due to an error with his visa.

      We are pathetic in the UK. And part of it is that the debate is ruined by the kind of idiot who thinks that immigration and race are the same, in the same way that they think Islam is a race. There are too many morons and empty barrels making too much noise.

      Now I've finished ranting, can we have the country back?

      Now I'll just sit back and watch the knee-jerk reaction of the barely literate as they reach for the "rate down" button. Welcome to the level of debate after 13 years of Labour. Where's Marcus Brigstocke when you need him?
      here come the grammar police with their arragant correcting of misspelt words. What matters is the content of my words not the mispelling of a few. How about you get a life. Its not your country again.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ch0llima)
      Why not?

      WTF? becuase the mans an ******* that killed many people?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
      [IMG]htt


      Thoughts?
      Lawrence Auster won't be pleased:

      So much for America; if other Western nations continue their openness to Third World immigration, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Western civilization as a whole. And this defeat of the West will have been accomplished, not by the superior strength or civilization of the newcomers, not by the “forces of history,” but simply by the feckless generosity and moral cowardice of the West itself. In the prophetic words of social psychologist William McDougall:

      As I watch the American nation speeding gaily, with invincible optimism down the road to destruction, I seem to be contemplating the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind.
      http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005276.html

      It also reminds me of Auster's comments about the bizarre response of the Swedish PM, which sums up the main priority of liberalism:

      For liberals there is only thing that matters and must be defended from threats—not a country, not a civilization, not living human beings, but liberalism. The terror attack is unacceptable because it is a threat to liberalism. Meaning that if the Swedes decide that Muslims pose a threat to Sweden, they might feel less welcoming to them, and that would damage the only thing that matters—Swedes’ total openness to people who are completely different from themselves.
      http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018145.html
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: December 17, 2010
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.