Southend MP tells European Union to "sod off" (From Southend Standard)

supermadmax wrote:
Nothing like stirring up a bit of racial tension is there Duddridge ? Thats why you will always be a backbencher.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI

J

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Is it 'Say something stupid' day for local Tory MPs?

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI


J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Harvey Cheeseman wrote:
There are simple solutions to benefit migration. Amend the rules so that within the EU any benefits paid to foreign nationals can be claimed back from that national’s homeland or alternatively pay benefits at the rate they would receive in their original country or that of the host state whichever is the lower. This is a totally non-discriminatory approach and ensures that the “socially assisted” don’t derive profit nor over-burden any country from merely migrating.

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI


J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Alekhine wrote:
Well thats is better language than "sod off". No quite sure what that proves though.

eurodoomed wrote:
Re Bevan, his government, and every Labour government in history has left the country worse off than when they came into power. FACT. None more so than the disastrous Blair/Brown shambles.
No socialist should ever dare to criticise any opposing point of view after what they have done to this country.
We wait in vain for an apology from Miliband/Balls and the other bunch of crooks in the shadow cabinet. That economic genius Brown (saviour of the world) didn't even think there was a debt/deficit problem!!

southchurchroad wrote:
David Amess ran away
Brave David Amess ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When reporters reared their ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave David Amess turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
****Bravely**** taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, David Amess!

Bonham wrote:
Nice to hear an MP, say it like it is.
Why are we still in this Union, I do not know.
They where a waste of space during the 2 world wars. Whats changed?

Seasider90 wrote:
Shoebury cyclist - so he wants to repeal the human rights act and thats wrong is it? I dare you to say that to the victims of the scumbags that have hidden behind it. The people murdered, the women raped etc. People like you make me sick. At least this politician has the balls to say what we would all love to say to the EU. We should ban ALL immigrants from claiming benefits and we should stop immigration unless its for the skills we need. A million youngsters looking for work, longer NHS and social housing queues. We should put our people first! After all our people have generations who have soaked their blood in defending for and paying into this country so why the hell should any immigrant come here and claim a penny. Even Germany is waking up and if you don't like it emigrate! British people FIRST! Don't like it left wingers then s*d off!

asbo in a coma wrote:
do we need any more losers in this country? we have enough already - eh shoebury clown

southchurchroad wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote:
do we need any more losers in this country? we have enough already - eh shoebury clown

Probably about as many as the echo has low effort trolls, really, a little effort is always appreciated

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI



J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI



J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI




J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Read my comment, read it again, think about my comment, read it, think about it...

Now where did I say scrap the whole thing?

As far as I can see, read and remember i said and I quote myself...

"Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed"

I am right, or am i right on what i said in my comment?

That is right I am right.

If you seriously believe criminals and those that preach death and destruction to the UK and its civilian populace deserve the full protection that this blighted act give than you seriously need to take a look at some of the crazy ways it has been used by people who want to cause harm to the everyday men, women and children here in the UK.

Like I said PARTS need to be changed, or are you one of these bleeding heart belly rubbing liberals who thinks no matter how serious a crime somebody commits they deserve the same rights as those that obey the law each and every day of their lives.

We should have at least have been given a yes no referendum on the HRA, we should at least be given a choice as to keeping it as is or a modified version that can be better written to give more protection to those of us that respect the law over those that break the law.

If beleving that those that follow the law should have greater protection over those that break the law is wrong than I must be guilty of being anti crime, however if you think criminals deserve the same level of protection than you seriously need a mental health check.

PS: I did not vote Tory.

southchurchroad wrote:
Please can someone with an axe to grind with the HRA (off-topic, but always fun) look at the document itself and say which rights they would like to give up?

I will wait with baited breath, while watching the tories desperately try and claw back their xenophobic base :)


The truth is, as always, is that benefits/infrastruct

ure/FOREIGNERS is always a convenient distraction for politicians of any breed, to get the public riled up and angry at some "wolf at the door" while they continue to allow their corporate buddies to rob the country blind- the unpaid/dodged taxes could cover all benefits, stop the slashes to the NHS, heat the homes of the elderly and make sure the soldiers were properly equipped, but there isn't a chance of that, is there?

Seasider90 wrote:
Shoebury cyclist - so he wants to repeal the human rights act and thats wrong is it? I dare you to say that to the victims of the scumbags that have hidden behind it. The people murdered, the women raped etc. People like you make me sick. At least this politician has the balls to say what we would all love to say to the EU. We should ban ALL immigrants from claiming benefits and we should stop immigration unless its for the skills we need. A million youngsters looking for work, longer NHS and social housing queues. We should put our people first! After all our people have generations who have soaked their blood in defending for and paying into this country so why the hell should any immigrant come here and claim a penny. Even Germany is waking up and if you don't like it emigrate! British people FIRST! Don't like it left wingers then s*d off!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI





J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Read my comment, read it again, think about my comment, read it, think about it...

Now where did I say scrap the whole thing?

As far as I can see, read and remember i said and I quote myself...

"Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed"

I am right, or am i right on what i said in my comment?

That is right I am right.

If you seriously believe criminals and those that preach death and destruction to the UK and its civilian populace deserve the full protection that this blighted act give than you seriously need to take a look at some of the crazy ways it has been used by people who want to cause harm to the everyday men, women and children here in the UK.

Like I said PARTS need to be changed, or are you one of these bleeding heart belly rubbing liberals who thinks no matter how serious a crime somebody commits they deserve the same rights as those that obey the law each and every day of their lives.

We should have at least have been given a yes no referendum on the HRA, we should at least be given a choice as to keeping it as is or a modified version that can be better written to give more protection to those of us that respect the law over those that break the law.

If beleving that those that follow the law should have greater protection over those that break the law is wrong than I must be guilty of being anti crime, however if you think criminals deserve the same level of protection than you seriously need a mental health check.

PS: I did not vote Tory.

And read my comment again. The parts scrapped will affect EVERYONE.

The human rights act applies to EVERYONE equally. ALL of the Human Rights Act. It doesn't have parts that only apply to some, and other parts that apply to others.

ALL of the Human Rights Act applies to EVERYONE. All of us. YOU included.

If the government ditches the Human Rights Act and starts deporting people to countries with capital punishment, to countries that use torture, they won't just be able to do it to undesirables, they'll be able to do it to ANY British citizen, including YOU.

Go on holiday to a country that has capital punishment, return home and then that country says you are implicated in a capital crime and they want you extradited?
No problem, we're no longer a signatory to the Human Rights Act, so you can be bundled off to face a death penalty in a country that may have an extremely dubious legal system.

And there will be sweet FA you can do about it, because the Human Rights Act won't apply to British citizens.

As I said it isn't just THEIR human rights, it's EVERYONE'S human rights that will be thrown away.

Including YOURS.

Rochford Rob wrote:
Ah, the classic leftie bigoted tatctic to close any debate - introduce racisim.

As for immigration, the British and Britain is probably THE most tloerant country on the planet in that respect. To start chucking racism about in order to stifle any meaningful debate is dihonest and cowardly.

The truth is, enough is enough. We cannot support the world, we are skint (Cheers Labour by the way). Try living in Canada, Australia, The States or even France, arriving unnannouced and with your hand held out. Tough.

We are a soft touch. When every single penny collected in income tax isn't enough to pay the welfare bill you know some difficult (and painful) measures have to be taken.

Sorry lefties you squandered the nations wealth, gerrymandered sh*tholes llike Tower Hamlets, saved lame duck banks and then blamed them, sold all our gold and have bent over backwards to accomodate criminals and iillegals and then have the brass neck to criticise anyone who dare question your complete lack of principals or morality by calling them racists.

Shame on you. Socialists are such disgusting, cowardly, conveniently forgetful hypocrites of the lowest order.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI






J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Read my comment, read it again, think about my comment, read it, think about it...

Now where did I say scrap the whole thing?

As far as I can see, read and remember i said and I quote myself...

"Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed"

I am right, or am i right on what i said in my comment?

That is right I am right.

If you seriously believe criminals and those that preach death and destruction to the UK and its civilian populace deserve the full protection that this blighted act give than you seriously need to take a look at some of the crazy ways it has been used by people who want to cause harm to the everyday men, women and children here in the UK.

Like I said PARTS need to be changed, or are you one of these bleeding heart belly rubbing liberals who thinks no matter how serious a crime somebody commits they deserve the same rights as those that obey the law each and every day of their lives.

We should have at least have been given a yes no referendum on the HRA, we should at least be given a choice as to keeping it as is or a modified version that can be better written to give more protection to those of us that respect the law over those that break the law.

If beleving that those that follow the law should have greater protection over those that break the law is wrong than I must be guilty of being anti crime, however if you think criminals deserve the same level of protection than you seriously need a mental health check.

PS: I did not vote Tory.

And read my comment again. The parts scrapped will affect EVERYONE.

The human rights act applies to EVERYONE equally. ALL of the Human Rights Act. It doesn't have parts that only apply to some, and other parts that apply to others.

ALL of the Human Rights Act applies to EVERYONE. All of us. YOU included.

If the government ditches the Human Rights Act and starts deporting people to countries with capital punishment, to countries that use torture, they won't just be able to do it to undesirables, they'll be able to do it to ANY British citizen, including YOU.

Go on holiday to a country that has capital punishment, return home and then that country says you are implicated in a capital crime and they want you extradited?
No problem, we're no longer a signatory to the Human Rights Act, so you can be bundled off to face a death penalty in a country that may have an extremely dubious legal system.

And there will be sweet FA you can do about it, because the Human Rights Act won't apply to British citizens.

As I said it isn't just THEIR human rights, it's EVERYONE'S human rights that will be thrown away.

Including YOURS.

You seem to have confused Human Rights Law with Extradition Law.

Which one do you want to talk about?

Rochford Rob wrote:
An idiot said: " Britain's credit rating has been downgraded thanks to Cameron and Osborne (the NEVER happened with Labour running the economy), their own watchdog yesterday said their austerity programme is killing the economy"

No it happened when Labour ran the economy. Drippy Dave and Gormless Gideon took over a poisoned chalice - as confirmed by Leon Byrne who left a note at the Treasury saying 'Sorry, there's no money left' It was also under Labours watch when we had to call in the IMF to bail us out..

You have an extremely selective memory - anything to support your deluded ideas. It also helps when fact gets in the way.

Bedroom Tax? What tax. I think you'll find people MIGHT end up with less benefit. Tax is what you pay on what you earn, not what you are given gratis.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI







J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Read my comment, read it again, think about my comment, read it, think about it...

Now where did I say scrap the whole thing?

As far as I can see, read and remember i said and I quote myself...

"Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed"

I am right, or am i right on what i said in my comment?

That is right I am right.

If you seriously believe criminals and those that preach death and destruction to the UK and its civilian populace deserve the full protection that this blighted act give than you seriously need to take a look at some of the crazy ways it has been used by people who want to cause harm to the everyday men, women and children here in the UK.

Like I said PARTS need to be changed, or are you one of these bleeding heart belly rubbing liberals who thinks no matter how serious a crime somebody commits they deserve the same rights as those that obey the law each and every day of their lives.

We should have at least have been given a yes no referendum on the HRA, we should at least be given a choice as to keeping it as is or a modified version that can be better written to give more protection to those of us that respect the law over those that break the law.

If beleving that those that follow the law should have greater protection over those that break the law is wrong than I must be guilty of being anti crime, however if you think criminals deserve the same level of protection than you seriously need a mental health check.

PS: I did not vote Tory.

And read my comment again. The parts scrapped will affect EVERYONE.

The human rights act applies to EVERYONE equally. ALL of the Human Rights Act. It doesn't have parts that only apply to some, and other parts that apply to others.

ALL of the Human Rights Act applies to EVERYONE. All of us. YOU included.

If the government ditches the Human Rights Act and starts deporting people to countries with capital punishment, to countries that use torture, they won't just be able to do it to undesirables, they'll be able to do it to ANY British citizen, including YOU.

Go on holiday to a country that has capital punishment, return home and then that country says you are implicated in a capital crime and they want you extradited?
No problem, we're no longer a signatory to the Human Rights Act, so you can be bundled off to face a death penalty in a country that may have an extremely dubious legal system.

And there will be sweet FA you can do about it, because the Human Rights Act won't apply to British citizens.

As I said it isn't just THEIR human rights, it's EVERYONE'S human rights that will be thrown away.

Including YOURS.

You seem to have confused Human Rights Law with Extradition Law.

Which one do you want to talk about?

Extradition Law is part of Human Rights law. We cannot extradite to countries with capital punishment or that use torture.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Oh, and learn to read, I clearly pointed out the benefit reduction or 'bedroom tax', the quotation marks showing how it has been referred to in the media.

You did go to school did you? I do hope it was a private school that your parents paid for you to go to, and not a publicly funded state school.
We couldn't have you benefitting from anything us socialists created now, could we?

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI








J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Read my comment, read it again, think about my comment, read it, think about it...

Now where did I say scrap the whole thing?

As far as I can see, read and remember i said and I quote myself...

"Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed"

I am right, or am i right on what i said in my comment?

That is right I am right.

If you seriously believe criminals and those that preach death and destruction to the UK and its civilian populace deserve the full protection that this blighted act give than you seriously need to take a look at some of the crazy ways it has been used by people who want to cause harm to the everyday men, women and children here in the UK.

Like I said PARTS need to be changed, or are you one of these bleeding heart belly rubbing liberals who thinks no matter how serious a crime somebody commits they deserve the same rights as those that obey the law each and every day of their lives.

We should have at least have been given a yes no referendum on the HRA, we should at least be given a choice as to keeping it as is or a modified version that can be better written to give more protection to those of us that respect the law over those that break the law.

If beleving that those that follow the law should have greater protection over those that break the law is wrong than I must be guilty of being anti crime, however if you think criminals deserve the same level of protection than you seriously need a mental health check.

PS: I did not vote Tory.

And read my comment again. The parts scrapped will affect EVERYONE.

The human rights act applies to EVERYONE equally. ALL of the Human Rights Act. It doesn't have parts that only apply to some, and other parts that apply to others.

ALL of the Human Rights Act applies to EVERYONE. All of us. YOU included.

If the government ditches the Human Rights Act and starts deporting people to countries with capital punishment, to countries that use torture, they won't just be able to do it to undesirables, they'll be able to do it to ANY British citizen, including YOU.

Go on holiday to a country that has capital punishment, return home and then that country says you are implicated in a capital crime and they want you extradited?
No problem, we're no longer a signatory to the Human Rights Act, so you can be bundled off to face a death penalty in a country that may have an extremely dubious legal system.

And there will be sweet FA you can do about it, because the Human Rights Act won't apply to British citizens.

As I said it isn't just THEIR human rights, it's EVERYONE'S human rights that will be thrown away.

Including YOURS.

You seem to have confused Human Rights Law with Extradition Law.

Which one do you want to talk about?

Extradition Law is part of Human Rights law. We cannot extradite to countries with capital punishment or that use torture.

Extradition law is NOT PART OF Human Rights Law.

Although courts are required to consider whether extradition is compatible with human rights, there has been a presumption in many decisions that all EU states will comply with their ECHR obligations. Attempts to resist extradition by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 have rarely been successful even when supported by evidence.

In fact the UK currently does have an extradition agreement with countries who still use the death penalty. USA ring any bells?
We are extraditing people to the states even with HRA in its current form.

Mr Duddridge’ s comments have NOTHING to do with the HRA.

Harvey Cheeseman wrote:
There are simple solutions to benefit migration. Amend the rules so that within the EU any benefits paid to foreign nationals can be claimed back from that national’s homeland or alternatively pay benefits at the rate they would receive in their original country or that of the host state whichever is the lower. This is a totally non-discriminatory approach and ensures that the “socially assisted” don’t derive profit nor over-burden any country from merely migrating.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Duddridge is a moron. He even bragged about voting to repeal the Human Rights Act. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI









J

Speaks a numpty,

Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed, why protect criminals, why protect those that actually promote killing British civilians on UK soil, why protect those that call for killing UK troops.

No doubt you will come back saying its right wing bs but prove to me that at no time the HRA or any part of it has been used to protect or give support to those I list above.

Support HRA in full do.you than your supporting some of the worst people in the country.

Because it isn't just THEIR human rights the tories want to scrap, it's EVERYONE'S human rights in the country. YOURS, Mine, EVERYONE'S human rights.

Think about that. The right to clean drinking water - when they are going ahead with shale gas fracking across the country polluting the water table, it's employment protections, pay protections, working hours protections, privacy protections...

Read my comment, read it again, think about my comment, read it, think about it...

Now where did I say scrap the whole thing?

As far as I can see, read and remember i said and I quote myself...

"Parts of the Human Rights Act MUST be changed"

I am right, or am i right on what i said in my comment?

That is right I am right.

If you seriously believe criminals and those that preach death and destruction to the UK and its civilian populace deserve the full protection that this blighted act give than you seriously need to take a look at some of the crazy ways it has been used by people who want to cause harm to the everyday men, women and children here in the UK.

Like I said PARTS need to be changed, or are you one of these bleeding heart belly rubbing liberals who thinks no matter how serious a crime somebody commits they deserve the same rights as those that obey the law each and every day of their lives.

We should have at least have been given a yes no referendum on the HRA, we should at least be given a choice as to keeping it as is or a modified version that can be better written to give more protection to those of us that respect the law over those that break the law.

If beleving that those that follow the law should have greater protection over those that break the law is wrong than I must be guilty of being anti crime, however if you think criminals deserve the same level of protection than you seriously need a mental health check.

PS: I did not vote Tory.

And read my comment again. The parts scrapped will affect EVERYONE.

The human rights act applies to EVERYONE equally. ALL of the Human Rights Act. It doesn't have parts that only apply to some, and other parts that apply to others.

ALL of the Human Rights Act applies to EVERYONE. All of us. YOU included.

If the government ditches the Human Rights Act and starts deporting people to countries with capital punishment, to countries that use torture, they won't just be able to do it to undesirables, they'll be able to do it to ANY British citizen, including YOU.

Go on holiday to a country that has capital punishment, return home and then that country says you are implicated in a capital crime and they want you extradited?
No problem, we're no longer a signatory to the Human Rights Act, so you can be bundled off to face a death penalty in a country that may have an extremely dubious legal system.

And there will be sweet FA you can do about it, because the Human Rights Act won't apply to British citizens.

As I said it isn't just THEIR human rights, it's EVERYONE'S human rights that will be thrown away.

Including YOURS.

You seem to have confused Human Rights Law with Extradition Law.

Which one do you want to talk about?

Extradition Law is part of Human Rights law. We cannot extradite to countries with capital punishment or that use torture.

Extradition law is NOT PART OF Human Rights Law.

Although courts are required to consider whether extradition is compatible with human rights, there has been a presumption in many decisions that all EU states will comply with their ECHR obligations. Attempts to resist extradition by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 have rarely been successful even when supported by evidence.

In fact the UK currently does have an extradition agreement with countries who still use the death penalty. USA ring any bells?
We are extraditing people to the states even with HRA in its current form.

Mr Duddridge’ s comments have NOTHING to do with the HRA.

Actually Fat Dudd's anti-eurpopean nonsense has everything to do with the ECHR and EHRA.

He is on record as bragging about voting to scrap the EHRA. See here:

http://bit.ly/13KuOI

J

It's all part of his far-right xenophobic stance on Europe.

jayman wrote:
listening to this windbag and Theresa May talking about the HRA is like listening to a dark lords imperial speech.

when a Tory uses words like 'National interest' i develop a cold sweat and a distinct realisation that they are really referring to anything other then what is in the 'National interest'. More like their own self serving interest and diabolical hidden agenda.

The Tories know they are going to lose the next general election which places a political image in my mind of a rat trapped in the corner of a room wearing a blue rosette or a work house governor who has just been told about human rights and the welfare state...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:
listening to this windbag and Theresa May talking about the HRA is like listening to a dark lords imperial speech.

when a Tory uses words like 'National interest' i develop a cold sweat and a distinct realisation that they are really referring to anything other then what is in the 'National interest'. More like their own self serving interest and diabolical hidden agenda.

The Tories know they are going to lose the next general election which places a political image in my mind of a rat trapped in the corner of a room wearing a blue rosette or a work house governor who has just been told about human rights and the welfare state...

Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?

If you serious don't think that specific parts of the HRA need to be changed than you really need your head read, why should those the break the law and those that scream death to the British people be protected to the same level as those that obey the law each and every day.

Next your probably say abu qatada is a misunderstood man who is a fine upstanding pillar of the United Kingdom! who has never used human rights laws to stay in the UK.

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:
listening to this windbag and Theresa May talking about the HRA is like listening to a dark lords imperial speech.

when a Tory uses words like 'National interest' i develop a cold sweat and a distinct realisation that they are really referring to anything other then what is in the 'National interest'. More like their own self serving interest and diabolical hidden agenda.

The Tories know they are going to lose the next general election which places a political image in my mind of a rat trapped in the corner of a room wearing a blue rosette or a work house governor who has just been told about human rights and the welfare state...

Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?

If you serious don't think that specific parts of the HRA need to be changed than you really need your head read, why should those the break the law and those that scream death to the British people be protected to the same level as those that obey the law each and every day.

Next your probably say abu qatada is a misunderstood man who is a fine upstanding pillar of the United Kingdom! who has never used human rights laws to stay in the UK.

"Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?"

where in my comment have I expressed or implied this?

No, if someone commits a crime then the full force of justice should be applied and liberties should be removed from the criminal to the same extent (and no more) then what they have taken from the victim.

i just don't, in any way trust a Tory to do this...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:
listening to this windbag and Theresa May talking about the HRA is like listening to a dark lords imperial speech.

when a Tory uses words like 'National interest' i develop a cold sweat and a distinct realisation that they are really referring to anything other then what is in the 'National interest'. More like their own self serving interest and diabolical hidden agenda.

The Tories know they are going to lose the next general election which places a political image in my mind of a rat trapped in the corner of a room wearing a blue rosette or a work house governor who has just been told about human rights and the welfare state...

Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?

If you serious don't think that specific parts of the HRA need to be changed than you really need your head read, why should those the break the law and those that scream death to the British people be protected to the same level as those that obey the law each and every day.

Next your probably say abu qatada is a misunderstood man who is a fine upstanding pillar of the United Kingdom! who has never used human rights laws to stay in the UK.

"Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?"

where in my comment have I expressed or implied this?

No, if someone commits a crime then the full force of justice should be applied and liberties should be removed from the criminal to the same extent (and no more) then what they have taken from the victim.

i just don't, in any way trust a Tory to do this...

Do you trust labour who signed up to it without actually reading it first?

Do you trust the Lib Dems who want further integration Europe.

Never trust ANY M.P be they red blue yellow or of no discernable colour! (independent)

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:
listening to this windbag and Theresa May talking about the HRA is like listening to a dark lords imperial speech.

when a Tory uses words like 'National interest' i develop a cold sweat and a distinct realisation that they are really referring to anything other then what is in the 'National interest'. More like their own self serving interest and diabolical hidden agenda.

The Tories know they are going to lose the next general election which places a political image in my mind of a rat trapped in the corner of a room wearing a blue rosette or a work house governor who has just been told about human rights and the welfare state...

Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?

If you serious don't think that specific parts of the HRA need to be changed than you really need your head read, why should those the break the law and those that scream death to the British people be protected to the same level as those that obey the law each and every day.

Next your probably say abu qatada is a misunderstood man who is a fine upstanding pillar of the United Kingdom! who has never used human rights laws to stay in the UK.

"Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?"

where in my comment have I expressed or implied this?

No, if someone commits a crime then the full force of justice should be applied and liberties should be removed from the criminal to the same extent (and no more) then what they have taken from the victim.

i just don't, in any way trust a Tory to do this...

Do you trust labour who signed up to it without actually reading it first?

Do you trust the Lib Dems who want further integration Europe.

Never trust ANY M.P be they red blue yellow or of no discernable colour! (independent)

The argument can be extended by looking at the implications of the death penalty.

you cant apply justice by 'switching people off' regardless of their crime.

what you can do however is keep them alive in a state of absolute punishment.

The people want justice and the criminal justice system is massively underfunded and cannot deliver prison spaces fast enough.

The question we should be asking ourselves is, how much money should we spend on justice.

A perfect storm is brewing on the social horizon. More and more people will be pushed to crime and disorder due to massive cuts to public spending that have not yet come into force. prison spaces are being cut, the police budget is being/has been cut, legal aid has been removed.

once again. It worries me greatly that the Tories are keen on the removal of universal human rights (however flawed)

Nebs wrote:

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:
listening to this windbag and Theresa May talking about the HRA is like listening to a dark lords imperial speech.

when a Tory uses words like 'National interest' i develop a cold sweat and a distinct realisation that they are really referring to anything other then what is in the 'National interest'. More like their own self serving interest and diabolical hidden agenda.

The Tories know they are going to lose the next general election which places a political image in my mind of a rat trapped in the corner of a room wearing a blue rosette or a work house governor who has just been told about human rights and the welfare state...

Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?

If you serious don't think that specific parts of the HRA need to be changed than you really need your head read, why should those the break the law and those that scream death to the British people be protected to the same level as those that obey the law each and every day.

Next your probably say abu qatada is a misunderstood man who is a fine upstanding pillar of the United Kingdom! who has never used human rights laws to stay in the UK.

"Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?"

where in my comment have I expressed or implied this?

No, if someone commits a crime then the full force of justice should be applied and liberties should be removed from the criminal to the same extent (and no more) then what they have taken from the victim.

i just don't, in any way trust a Tory to do this...

Do you trust labour who signed up to it without actually reading it first?

Do you trust the Lib Dems who want further integration Europe.

Never trust ANY M.P be they red blue yellow or of no discernable colour! (independent)

The argument can be extended by looking at the implications of the death penalty.

you cant apply justice by 'switching people off' regardless of their crime.

what you can do however is keep them alive in a state of absolute punishment.

The people want justice and the criminal justice system is massively underfunded and cannot deliver prison spaces fast enough.

The question we should be asking ourselves is, how much money should we spend on justice.

A perfect storm is brewing on the social horizon. More and more people will be pushed to crime and disorder due to massive cuts to public spending that have not yet come into force. prison spaces are being cut, the police budget is being/has been cut, legal aid has been removed.

once again. It worries me greatly that the Tories are keen on the removal of universal human rights (however flawed)

Rather than give huge amounts of aid to developing countries, which seems to end up in the pockets of those who already have plenty instead of those that need it, we should be investing in those countries.
Build prisons out there, creating work for the poor, and fly our prisoners out there to be guarded by locals who will then have jobs. It will still be cheaper to fly the prisoners out and back than to keep them here.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

southchurchroad wrote: Please can someone with an axe to grind with the HRA (off-topic, but always fun) look at the document itself and say which rights they would like to give up? I will wait with baited breath, while watching the tories desperately try and claw back their xenophobic base :) The truth is, as always, is that benefits/infrastruct ure/FOREIGNERS is always a convenient distraction for politicians of any breed, to get the public riled up and angry at some "wolf at the door" while they continue to allow their corporate buddies to rob the country blind- the unpaid/dodged taxes could cover all benefits, stop the slashes to the NHS, heat the homes of the elderly and make sure the soldiers were properly equipped, but there isn't a chance of that, is there?

Exactly.

asbo in a coma wrote:

Nebs wrote:

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

jayman wrote:
listening to this windbag and Theresa May talking about the HRA is like listening to a dark lords imperial speech.

when a Tory uses words like 'National interest' i develop a cold sweat and a distinct realisation that they are really referring to anything other then what is in the 'National interest'. More like their own self serving interest and diabolical hidden agenda.

The Tories know they are going to lose the next general election which places a political image in my mind of a rat trapped in the corner of a room wearing a blue rosette or a work house governor who has just been told about human rights and the welfare state...

Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?

If you serious don't think that specific parts of the HRA need to be changed than you really need your head read, why should those the break the law and those that scream death to the British people be protected to the same level as those that obey the law each and every day.

Next your probably say abu qatada is a misunderstood man who is a fine upstanding pillar of the United Kingdom! who has never used human rights laws to stay in the UK.

"Your not another one of those people who think rapists and nonces deserve the same rights as the victim are you?"

where in my comment have I expressed or implied this?

No, if someone commits a crime then the full force of justice should be applied and liberties should be removed from the criminal to the same extent (and no more) then what they have taken from the victim.

i just don't, in any way trust a Tory to do this...

Do you trust labour who signed up to it without actually reading it first?

Do you trust the Lib Dems who want further integration Europe.

Never trust ANY M.P be they red blue yellow or of no discernable colour! (independent)

The argument can be extended by looking at the implications of the death penalty.

you cant apply justice by 'switching people off' regardless of their crime.

what you can do however is keep them alive in a state of absolute punishment.

The people want justice and the criminal justice system is massively underfunded and cannot deliver prison spaces fast enough.

The question we should be asking ourselves is, how much money should we spend on justice.

A perfect storm is brewing on the social horizon. More and more people will be pushed to crime and disorder due to massive cuts to public spending that have not yet come into force. prison spaces are being cut, the police budget is being/has been cut, legal aid has been removed.

once again. It worries me greatly that the Tories are keen on the removal of universal human rights (however flawed)

Rather than give huge amounts of aid to developing countries, which seems to end up in the pockets of those who already have plenty instead of those that need it, we should be investing in those countries.
Build prisons out there, creating work for the poor, and fly our prisoners out there to be guarded by locals who will then have jobs. It will still be cheaper to fly the prisoners out and back than to keep them here.

you're forgetting their right to a family life whilst being incarcerated

iknowbetter wrote:
One could argue removing legal aid is against our human rights. The poor man wont see fair justice as a result, but then we moan, (and I'm one of them), that parasites like Qatada abuse it. It's a double edge sword. Like I have said my main gripe is we should be given the vote regarding Europe, after all we fight for democracy but we dont practice it. That is surely a Human right is it not.

Almeda11 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

southchurchroad wrote: Please can someone with an axe to grind with the HRA (off-topic, but always fun) look at the document itself and say which rights they would like to give up? I will wait with baited breath, while watching the tories desperately try and claw back their xenophobic base :) The truth is, as always, is that benefits/infrastruct ure/FOREIGNERS is always a convenient distraction for politicians of any breed, to get the public riled up and angry at some "wolf at the door" while they continue to allow their corporate buddies to rob the country blind- the unpaid/dodged taxes could cover all benefits, stop the slashes to the NHS, heat the homes of the elderly and make sure the soldiers were properly equipped, but there isn't a chance of that, is there?

Exactly.

Thanks for the link. When this law is passed in december, does this then mean that people who are fed up of living in the uk, can then go to any EU country, Germany would be my choice, and likewise claim benefits there, like housing benefit. l am retired and would transfer my pension plus attendance allowance there. lf the eu is threatening to sue the uk if they don`t comply then surely it must be a reciprical agreement, but l`m not sure, even then, whether they all have to follow the same rules, or if they have autonomy. Do you have any idea on that?

Blackblood wrote:
It's just Tory xenophobia coming to the fore as they get more desperate before they're wiped out in 2015. The truth is immigration to the UK is falling: http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/migration1 /migration-statistic s-quarterly-report/f ebruary-2013/sty-lon g-term-international -migration-within-th e-uk.html

perini wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

southchurchroad wrote: Please can someone with an axe to grind with the HRA (off-topic, but always fun) look at the document itself and say which rights they would like to give up? I will wait with baited breath, while watching the tories desperately try and claw back their xenophobic base :) The truth is, as always, is that benefits/infrastruct ure/FOREIGNERS is always a convenient distraction for politicians of any breed, to get the public riled up and angry at some "wolf at the door" while they continue to allow their corporate buddies to rob the country blind- the unpaid/dodged taxes could cover all benefits, stop the slashes to the NHS, heat the homes of the elderly and make sure the soldiers were properly equipped, but there isn't a chance of that, is there?

Exactly.

Thanks for the link. When this law is passed in december, does this then mean that people who are fed up of living in the uk, can then go to any EU country, Germany would be my choice, and likewise claim benefits there, like housing benefit. l am retired and would transfer my pension plus attendance allowance there. lf the eu is threatening to sue the uk if they don`t comply then surely it must be a reciprical agreement, but l`m not sure, even then, whether they all have to follow the same rules, or if they have autonomy. Do you have any idea on that?

Try claiming benefits in Germany - they don't/will not speak English to you at all during the process; there is a 50 page form for you to fill out (in German) and then you have to get confirmation from DSS in Newcastle that you are entitled to benefit. On completion of this and (form returned at every mistake you make) may get the minimum benefit available!

Alekhine wrote:

Blackblood wrote:
It's just Tory xenophobia coming to the fore as they get more desperate before they're wiped out in 2015. The truth is immigration to the UK is falling: http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/migration1 /migration-statistic s-quarterly-report/f ebruary-2013/sty-lon g-term-international -migration-within-th e-uk.html

We have been (broken) promised a vote on EU membership by several past governments. It is much bigger than just immigration. It is the ability to make our own laws, set our own taxes and yes, police our own borders. Everything that an independent state should be able to do.

I agree that the Tories are set to get wiped our in 2015. UKIP will do it as Liebour are'nt fit for purpose.

Blackblood wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Blackblood wrote: It's just Tory xenophobia coming to the fore as they get more desperate before they're wiped out in 2015. The truth is immigration to the UK is falling: http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/migration1 /migration-statistic s-quarterly-report/f ebruary-2013/sty-lon g-term-international -migration-within-th e-uk.html

We have been (broken) promised a vote on EU membership by several past governments. It is much bigger than just immigration. It is the ability to make our own laws, set our own taxes and yes, police our own borders. Everything that an independent state should be able to do. I agree that the Tories are set to get wiped our in 2015. UKIP will do it as Liebour are'nt fit for purpose.

UKIP? Hahahahahaha! Nutty Nige and his band of Little Englanders goosestepping their way into Number 10? I don't think so! Hahahahaha! That's funny!

jayman wrote:

perini wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

southchurchroad wrote: Please can someone with an axe to grind with the HRA (off-topic, but always fun) look at the document itself and say which rights they would like to give up? I will wait with baited breath, while watching the tories desperately try and claw back their xenophobic base :) The truth is, as always, is that benefits/infrastruct ure/FOREIGNERS is always a convenient distraction for politicians of any breed, to get the public riled up and angry at some "wolf at the door" while they continue to allow their corporate buddies to rob the country blind- the unpaid/dodged taxes could cover all benefits, stop the slashes to the NHS, heat the homes of the elderly and make sure the soldiers were properly equipped, but there isn't a chance of that, is there?

Exactly.

Thanks for the link. When this law is passed in december, does this then mean that people who are fed up of living in the uk, can then go to any EU country, Germany would be my choice, and likewise claim benefits there, like housing benefit. l am retired and would transfer my pension plus attendance allowance there. lf the eu is threatening to sue the uk if they don`t comply then surely it must be a reciprical agreement, but l`m not sure, even then, whether they all have to follow the same rules, or if they have autonomy. Do you have any idea on that?

Try claiming benefits in Germany - they don't/will not speak English to you at all during the process; there is a 50 page form for you to fill out (in German) and then you have to get confirmation from DSS in Newcastle that you are entitled to benefit. On completion of this and (form returned at every mistake you make) may get the minimum benefit available!

your antiquated use of government departments is as antiquated as Tory policy.

It stopped being the 'department for social security' a long time ago. its now the 'department for work and pensions' (DWP)..

Blackblood wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Blackblood wrote:
It's just Tory xenophobia coming to the fore as they get more desperate before they're wiped out in 2015. The truth is immigration to the UK is falling: http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/migration1 /migration-statistic s-quarterly-report/f ebruary-2013/sty-lon g-term-international -migration-within-th e-uk.html

We have been (broken) promised a vote on EU membership by several past governments. It is much bigger than just immigration. It is the ability to make our own laws, set our own taxes and yes, police our own borders. Everything that an independent state should be able to do.

I agree that the Tories are set to get wiped our in 2015. UKIP will do it as Liebour are'nt fit for purpose.

UKIP? Hahahahahaha! Nutty Nige and his band of Little Englanders goosestepping their way into Number 10? I don't think so!

Hahahahaha! That's funny!

perini wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

southchurchroad wrote: Please can someone with an axe to grind with the HRA (off-topic, but always fun) look at the document itself and say which rights they would like to give up? I will wait with baited breath, while watching the tories desperately try and claw back their xenophobic base :) The truth is, as always, is that benefits/infrastruct ure/FOREIGNERS is always a convenient distraction for politicians of any breed, to get the public riled up and angry at some "wolf at the door" while they continue to allow their corporate buddies to rob the country blind- the unpaid/dodged taxes could cover all benefits, stop the slashes to the NHS, heat the homes of the elderly and make sure the soldiers were properly equipped, but there isn't a chance of that, is there?

Exactly.

Thanks for the link. When this law is passed in december, does this then mean that people who are fed up of living in the uk, can then go to any EU country, Germany would be my choice, and likewise claim benefits there, like housing benefit. l am retired and would transfer my pension plus attendance allowance there. lf the eu is threatening to sue the uk if they don`t comply then surely it must be a reciprical agreement, but l`m not sure, even then, whether they all have to follow the same rules, or if they have autonomy. Do you have any idea on that?

Try claiming benefits in Germany - they don't/will not speak English to you at all during the process; there is a 50 page form for you to fill out (in German) and then you have to get confirmation from DSS in Newcastle that you are entitled to benefit. On completion of this and (form returned at every mistake you make) may get the minimum benefit available!

asbo in a coma wrote:

Blackblood wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Blackblood wrote:
It's just Tory xenophobia coming to the fore as they get more desperate before they're wiped out in 2015. The truth is immigration to the UK is falling: http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/migration1 /migration-statistic s-quarterly-report/f ebruary-2013/sty-lon g-term-international -migration-within-th e-uk.html

We have been (broken) promised a vote on EU membership by several past governments. It is much bigger than just immigration. It is the ability to make our own laws, set our own taxes and yes, police our own borders. Everything that an independent state should be able to do.

I agree that the Tories are set to get wiped our in 2015. UKIP will do it as Liebour are'nt fit for purpose.

UKIP? Hahahahahaha! Nutty Nige and his band of Little Englanders goosestepping their way into Number 10? I don't think so!

Hahahahaha! That's funny!

your completely bollloxxx link didn't work. bit like most of those benefit seeking immigrants

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote:

Blackblood wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Blackblood wrote: It's just Tory xenophobia coming to the fore as they get more desperate before they're wiped out in 2015. The truth is immigration to the UK is falling: http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/migration1 /migration-statistic s-quarterly-report/f ebruary-2013/sty-lon g-term-international -migration-within-th e-uk.html

We have been (broken) promised a vote on EU membership by several past governments. It is much bigger than just immigration. It is the ability to make our own laws, set our own taxes and yes, police our own borders. Everything that an independent state should be able to do. I agree that the Tories are set to get wiped our in 2015. UKIP will do it as Liebour are'nt fit for purpose.

UKIP? Hahahahahaha! Nutty Nige and his band of Little Englanders goosestepping their way into Number 10? I don't think so! Hahahahaha! That's funny!

your completely bollloxxx link didn't work. bit like most of those benefit seeking immigrants

Must be something wrong with your computer because it worked for me. Try this: http://bit.ly/YoWta6 It's an interesting read. "Net long-term migration to the UK was 163,000 in the year to June 2012, significantly lower than the 247,000 estimated in the year to June 2011."

Rochford Rob wrote:
Using 'Net' figures is totally spurious.

Lets say 500,000 net producers leave and 600,000 dependants arrive. Some will claim the net is only 100,000 whereas in reality we lose income and gain another 600,000 we can't afford.

It's called lies, damned lies and statistics.

asbo in a coma wrote:
stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote:

Blackblood wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Blackblood wrote:
It's just Tory xenophobia coming to the fore as they get more desperate before they're wiped out in 2015. The truth is immigration to the UK is falling: http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/rel/migration1 /migration-statistic s-quarterly-report/f ebruary-2013/sty-lon g-term-international -migration-within-th e-uk.html

We have been (broken) promised a vote on EU membership by several past governments. It is much bigger than just immigration. It is the ability to make our own laws, set our own taxes and yes, police our own borders. Everything that an independent state should be able to do.

I agree that the Tories are set to get wiped our in 2015. UKIP will do it as Liebour are'nt fit for purpose.

UKIP? Hahahahahaha! Nutty Nige and his band of Little Englanders goosestepping their way into Number 10? I don't think so!

Hahahahaha! That's funny!

your completely bollloxxx link didn't work. bit like most of those benefit seeking immigrants

Must be something wrong with your computer because it worked for me. Try this:

http://bit.ly/YoWta6




It's an interesting read.

"Net long-term migration to the UK was 163,000 in the year to June 2012, significantly lower than the 247,000 estimated in the year to June 2011."

ORACUS wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote: stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

A native is born here an immigrant is not.

Almeda11 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote: stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

A native is born here an immigrant is not.

So, What does that make me then?
Born in Germany 66 years ago to a german mother , english father.
Came to England at 10 months old and lived here ever since.

Now, contrast that to a another couple, from anywhere but the uk, arrived here 5 years ago, their son/daughter was born here, but neither parent british.

So, who is the immigrant Oracus, the child of the non british parents, because they were born here -- or me, who was born outside the uk but had a british father?

ORACUS wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote: stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

A native is born here an immigrant is not.

So, What does that make me then?
Born in Germany 66 years ago to a german mother , english father.
Came to England at 10 months old and lived here ever since.

Now, contrast that to a another couple, from anywhere but the uk, arrived here 5 years ago, their son/daughter was born here, but neither parent british.

So, who is the immigrant Oracus, the child of the non british parents, because they were born here -- or me, who was born outside the uk but had a british father?

native
adjective
being the place or environment in which a person was born.

immigrant
noun
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

If you do not like the definition of a word in the English dictionary I suggest you write to someone and ask for it to be changed.

You and the parents of the child are immigrants the child and your farther are native I don’t invent the words or their meanings.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote: stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

A native is born here an immigrant is not.

So, What does that make me then?
Born in Germany 66 years ago to a german mother , english father.
Came to England at 10 months old and lived here ever since.

Now, contrast that to a another couple, from anywhere but the uk, arrived here 5 years ago, their son/daughter was born here, but neither parent british.

So, who is the immigrant Oracus, the child of the non british parents, because they were born here -- or me, who was born outside the uk but had a british father?

native
adjective
being the place or environment in which a person was born.

immigrant
noun
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

If you do not like the definition of a word in the English dictionary I suggest you write to someone and ask for it to be changed.

You and the parents of the child are immigrants the child and your farther are native I don’t invent the words or their meanings.

So unlike your original post, we’re NOT all immigrants. It’s our ancestors from thousands of years ago, which make us NATIVES.

So which argument are you going to choose to stick with, or will you just alternate on each post.

asbo in a coma wrote:
who says irony's dead?

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote: stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

A native is born here an immigrant is not.

So, What does that make me then?
Born in Germany 66 years ago to a german mother , english father.
Came to England at 10 months old and lived here ever since.

Now, contrast that to a another couple, from anywhere but the uk, arrived here 5 years ago, their son/daughter was born here, but neither parent british.

So, who is the immigrant Oracus, the child of the non british parents, because they were born here -- or me, who was born outside the uk but had a british father?

native
adjective
being the place or environment in which a person was born.

immigrant
noun
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

If you do not like the definition of a word in the English dictionary I suggest you write to someone and ask for it to be changed.

You and the parents of the child are immigrants the child and your farther are native I don’t invent the words or their meanings.

So unlike your original post, we’re NOT all immigrants. It’s our ancestors from thousands of years ago, which make us NATIVES.

So which argument are you going to choose to stick with, or will you just alternate on each post.

Not true. The British are a mongrel nation of mixed heritage, and EVERYONE is either a migrant or a descendent of migrants.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote: stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

A native is born here an immigrant is not.

So, What does that make me then?
Born in Germany 66 years ago to a german mother , english father.
Came to England at 10 months old and lived here ever since.

Now, contrast that to a another couple, from anywhere but the uk, arrived here 5 years ago, their son/daughter was born here, but neither parent british.

So, who is the immigrant Oracus, the child of the non british parents, because they were born here -- or me, who was born outside the uk but had a british father?

native
adjective
being the place or environment in which a person was born.

immigrant
noun
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

If you do not like the definition of a word in the English dictionary I suggest you write to someone and ask for it to be changed.

You and the parents of the child are immigrants the child and your farther are native I don’t invent the words or their meanings.

So unlike your original post, we’re NOT all immigrants. It’s our ancestors from thousands of years ago, which make us NATIVES.

So which argument are you going to choose to stick with, or will you just alternate on each post.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

Almeda11 wrote:

ORACUS wrote:

asbo in a coma wrote: stampeding for the exits. but wait a sec there are no natives...we're all immigrants if you go back a couple of thousand years give or take. rofl

A native is born here an immigrant is not.

So, What does that make me then?
Born in Germany 66 years ago to a german mother , english father.
Came to England at 10 months old and lived here ever since.

Now, contrast that to a another couple, from anywhere but the uk, arrived here 5 years ago, their son/daughter was born here, but neither parent british.

So, who is the immigrant Oracus, the child of the non british parents, because they were born here -- or me, who was born outside the uk but had a british father?

native
adjective
being the place or environment in which a person was born.

immigrant
noun
a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

If you do not like the definition of a word in the English dictionary I suggest you write to someone and ask for it to be changed.

You and the parents of the child are immigrants the child and your farther are native I don’t invent the words or their meanings.

So unlike your original post, we’re NOT all immigrants. It’s our ancestors from thousands of years ago, which make us NATIVES.

So which argument are you going to choose to stick with, or will you just alternate on each post.

Not true. The British are a mongrel nation of mixed heritage, and EVERYONE is either a migrant or a descendent of migrants.