This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 07 Jun 24 6.59pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Right now we are. Obviously, Sharia Law is not acceptable in Britain for crimes of this nature, but deportation should be an option in such cases. What is most troubling is that we just let hundreds of thousands more pakistanis in last year. Do we never learn? Are we always going to use the 'not all pakistani Muslims are rapists' line as a logical reason to keep compounding an already big problem? It is an option, but one with heavy exceptions. You may find this internal guidance interesting:- [Link]
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Hrolf The Ganger 07 Jun 24 7.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is an option, but one with heavy exceptions. You may find this internal guidance interesting:- [Link] Like I said previously. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The rules can be changed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 07 Jun 24 7.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is an option, but one with heavy exceptions. You may find this internal guidance interesting:- [Link] Not sure how far you read down the attached, but it goes onto say that pakistan withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1972 and rejoined in 1989. Is there a 17 year gap where individuals who arrived here during those years could be deported. Need somebody brighter than me to confirm.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Jun 24 8.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Like I said previously. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The rules can be changed. They are certainly desperate measures! Not so sure that the times are, at least in the context you mean. Might be tricky to get the countries to whom you want to deport people to join the consensus! Changing rules might seem simple but when international conventions apply it isn’t at all. Ignoring those conventions could cause more problems than they solve
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Jun 24 8.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Not sure how far you read down the attached, but it goes onto say that pakistan withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1972 and rejoined in 1989. Is there a 17 year gap where individuals who arrived here during those years could be deported. Need somebody brighter than me to confirm. Don’t think it makes any difference. pakistan is listed without any special notes and in a document like this there would probably be. You would need to be a specialist in this area to be certain.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
palace_in_frogland  In a broken dream 07 Jun 24 8.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Well if sharia law means these c***s are stoned to death then I’m having five large stones and a bag of gravel please “Who threw that? Come on, who was it?”
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 07 Jun 24 9.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland
“Who threw that? Come on, who was it?” You got it
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 08 Jun 24 1.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They are certainly desperate measures! Not so sure that the times are, at least in the context you mean. Might be tricky to get the countries to whom you want to deport people to join the consensus! Changing rules might seem simple but when international conventions apply it isn’t at all. Ignoring those conventions could cause more problems than they solve People's minds change when things get bad enough. Conventions are designed to make the world better. Clinging on to something that is largely obsolete just because it was once considered appropriate, is not much better than having religious faith.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 08 Jun 24 1.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland
“Who threw that? Come on, who was it?” "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." "Mother, put that rock down".
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 08 Jun 24 2.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
People's minds change when things get bad enough. Conventions are designed to make the world better. Clinging on to something that is largely obsolete just because it was once considered appropriate, is not much better than having religious faith.
Conventions need to be agreed internationally and ratified individually. Can you see the kind of changes you seem to want being successfully adopted? The days are long gone when we could just impose our ideas on others. It might be obsolete for you, but it’s what we have, so we had better find more practical solutions than expecting the rules to be changed just to suit us. Going full on isolation would stop the flow, but not improve anything at home. It would also reduce trade dramatically and affect us so much that it would soon be reversed.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  08 Jun 24 2.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Conventions need to be agreed internationally and ratified individually. Can you see the kind of changes you seem to want being successfully adopted? The days are long gone when we could just impose our ideas on others. It might be obsolete for you, but it’s what we have, so we had better find more practical solutions than expecting the rules to be changed just to suit us. Going full on isolation would stop the flow, but not improve anything at home. It would also reduce trade dramatically and affect us so much that it would soon be reversed. Why would it just suit us? There might be some countries who don't want to see a constant stream of doctors and nurses leaving.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 08 Jun 24 3.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Why would it just suit us? There might be some countries who don't want to see a constant stream of doctors and nurses leaving. There might, but there are others who train many in the hope they will go abroad and sent their remittances back. Getting any kind of international convention to stop that isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future. We might get some bilateral agreements in place to limit numbers but those who want to come are many and wouldn’t take it lying down. In many ways it’s healthy because some of our people also spend time overseas and gain very valuable experience as a result.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.