View Single Post
Unread 14 May 2006, 18:46   #50
lokken
BlueTuba
 
lokken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what do you mean by adequate punishment?
adequate enough to put off other would be hijackers or adequate enough for us to feel the legal system is working?
without any kind of massive knowledge of the facts, they get out on a technicality, when generally getting caught red handed with a plane would suggest you hijacked it and should serve the appropriate term in jail.

Any hijack puts others at risk. This is not in doubt. I do not doubt that some kind of moral and legal wrong has been committed and that the people involved should be punished.

But then there is the asylum issue. The fact is these people arrived in the UK, for their own (allegedly good) reasons. In deciding whether someone should stay in the UK, the person/body determining it should look at all the circumstances of their arrival in the UK (including the fact that they performed a criminal act to achieve it) and whether they are any threat to others in the UK and whether they have any good reason to stay in the UK. This is something that can only be judged on a case by case basis, all we can do is lay down are basic rules and procedures to abide by when these situations happen.

It appears they have a good reason to stay, however "desperate" it may be.

They do not appear to be a threat to others; they've achieved their aim to get to the UK and are unlikely to hijack planes again considering they are already here and want to contribute to our nation. The point is that if they had no good political reason to stay and were likely to be dangerous if they stayed, then of course, they would be deported. But here this is not necessarily the case - a probationary period would be ideal to confirm this.

There is nothing seriously wrong with the Human Rights Act as it stands - the courts provide for the balancing of rights and often one persons right is found to outweigh another. Tony Blair talks about common sense yet he claims we live in fear. If we live in fear, Britain does not exist and I do not live in fear. I am sure there are millions who do not live in fear. Yes like generations before us we have challenges that must be faced but that doesn't mean we should be scared of the difficulties we face. To me it seems that this government are just very bad losers when courts rule against them, on what is generally an impartial basis.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
lokken is offline   Reply With Quote