Manc

why not?

you do know hate speech is against the law in the UK right.

why should anyone be allowed entry with the distinct possibility of breaking the law upon entry.

Octang Frye

Cognitive dissonance....

You're a clever person? But you're a Northerner. Does. Not. Compute.

The only way to win is not to play.

Octang Frye

Your hate speech is my thought crime. Say whatever you want. If it has any validity, your ideas will stand. If not, you will be ridiculed and ignored.

Freedom is absolute.

Manc

yeah we're all think as pig shit oop nawf

Manc

you can't shout fire in a packed theatre and then complain about getting trampled over.

Octang Frye

Oh, I'm sure there'll always be money in the kitty for oppressing liberty in the UK. All they need do is increase revenue with yet another draconian measure.
For example, why not levy £60 on-the-spot fines for changing lanes without using an indicator...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle5769343.ece

For all those who think I'm a nut, please defend this. Explain to me why I'm wrong in my observations that the British public is assumed to be guilty of something, the state just hasn't proved it yet.

Just this week, my sister was furious when the police came to the school to interview her eldest son. He was identified/profiled as an "at-risk child".
We have no idea why. He was called into the headmaster's office by an apologetic headmaster, who was surprised that the police were there.

My nephew is top of his class at his grammar school. He has never been in any trouble or had any interaction with the authorities/police, except for when he was four and called the fire brigade.

Following my father's intervention, they apologized and admitted they had no grounds for hauling this boy out of class. My sister - who is apolitical - is livid. As you can imagine, I am that times 10.

What bullsh1t social engineering is this? I have family and friends in the UK, but I want to see the country reap what it has sowed. Farking social engineering, interference and political correctness gone mad.

I will rub my hands with glee as Atlas Shrugs, and a "natural correction" occurs.

Octang Frye

So what? A few sheeple who don't have the brains to realize there's no smoke or flames get trampled? Where's the harm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what your point is.

md95065

Because it is the government exercising prior restraint on someone for something that they *might* do.

Actually, no, I didn't. I am sure we could have an interesting discussion about "hate speech" laws, but that is irrelevant to this issue.

Why indeed, if you are happy with the prospect of living in a society where you can be prevented from doing something (in this case, traveling to the UK) because of what some government official thinks that you might do.

I value my freedom far to much to want to see it taken away from others just because I happen to disagree with them.

Manc

no-one has the right to enter the UK.

I'm still not seeing your point.


you only have the freedom of the country once you've been admitted into it.

Manc

when dealing with Phelps and his clan, it is EXACTLY the fucking issue.

Manc

That country is the United States though also.

ask Cat Stevens.....

or Gerry Adams

or Sebastian Horsley

Manc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7900591.stm

this is Argentina's ball, and they play with it how they see fit

(so long as it is not the hand of God)

Manc

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0426?hub=World

Australia's ball and how they decide to play with foreigners whom want to travel

Octang Frye

So, let's see: a cardinal in the country under 'false pretenses'. Read that as an embarrassment. But the key point is that he is in the country. He had been admitted.

As for Snoop Dogg, he had a criminal record for drug offenses. Fair enough.
Prior offenses. He wasn't turned away for what he might do.

Tell me what prior offenses the Phelps clan were rejected for?
<Listening hard>

Oh, that's right, nothing. They might... do... something.

Gerry Adams was the political spokesman of a terrorist organization. Legitimate grounds for barring entry.

I see what you're trying to do, Manc, but strawman argument is strawful.

Manc

my strawman arguement is that anyone can be denied entry or removed at any time.

again, I don't know how else I can put this without tattooing it on your forehead.


they do not have any automatic right to enter the UK.

none

whatsoever

period

for ANY reason.

for ANY non reason.

the onus is on the visitor to be allowed in.

the onus is not on the country to allow you in.