UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts

[VaughanJB]

My tax dollars are going to help these “asylum seekers” as many have become public charges.

Interesting. So how far do you go with the "my tax dollars" thing? Setting aside Asylum Seekers, what else is the government wasting your money on, and are you just as concerned about those things? Do you post about these other things? How do you track this, exactly?

 

[Brookswood]

Deflection does not work with me.

 

[VaughanJB]

Deflection does not work with me.

It's not a deflection - it's a question. Your post suggests you're concerned about how your tax dollars are spent. I'm wondering if tracking where your tax dollars go is something you do all the time, or if it's just an excuse you use when it comes to the administration of Asylum Seekers.

Of course, you could try and deflect and not answer, such is life.

 

[Brookswood]

It's not a deflection - it's a question. Your post suggests you're concerned about how your tax dollars are spent. I'm wondering if tracking where your tax dollars go is something you do all the time, or if it's just an excuse you use when it comes to the administration of Asylum Seekers.

Of course, you could try and deflect and not answer, such is life.

If you wish to discuss other ways our tax dollars are spent or misspent, start a topic and maybe I will contribute to it. But, we are already far off topic for this thread and I am not going to continue to drive it off topic. My apologies for doing so.

 

[AnnieA]

Hey George.

No-one wants criminals coming to the country. The main problem we seem to have today is two fold. Firstly, it takes too long to process Asylum Seekers. There is a huge backlog, and it's causing the bad ones to stay longer than they should. Secondly, in order to do background checks on people you need access to systems that records crimes and such. Yet many of the countries Asylum Seekers are leaving don't have it. This leads to backlogs, of course.

It's easy to tell who the criminal migrants are when they commit crimes in the UK such as the Eritrean rapist of a minor English girl. He wasn't deported because he wouldn't receive adequate treatment for his PTSD if returned to Eritrea and would likely be in trouble with the authorities in Eritrea because he dodged compulsory service ...cry me a river. Oh, and when you look for his name, you won't find it because his identity is hidden in order to protect him. Yet UK citizens who post anti immigration memes on facebook are named, shamed and charged.

 

[VaughanJB]

If you wish to discuss other ways our tax dollars are spent or misspent, start a topic and maybe I will contribute to it. But, we are already far off topic for this thread and I am not going to continue to drive it off topic. My apologies for doing so.

No apologies required, it's all good. I don't put any effort into tracking where my tax goes, and I know that they way budgets work, it's not like money not spent on one thing can be directed to something else that I would prefer. In terms of the UK, for example, the money spent on Asylum Seekers could be better spent on the NHS. However, I know that the money wouldn't be allotted there, they're completely different departments in government. It just wouldn't happen.

I often see people suggest that money spent on Asylum Seekers should be spent on the homeless. Yet it was reported this week that the UK government have spent 1bn on the homeless problem already. At some point, money isn't the issue, the problem is elsewhere.

 

[VaughanJB]

It's easy to tell who the criminal migrants are when they commit crimes in the UK such as the Eritrean rapist of a minor English girl. He wasn't deported because he wouldn't receive adequate treatment for his PTSD if returned to Eritrea and would likely be in trouble with the authorities in Eritrea because he dodged compulsory service ...cry me a river. Oh, and when you look for his name, you won't find it because his identity is hidden in order to protect him. Yet UK citizens who post anti immigration memes on facebook are named, shamed and charged.

This is a legal issue. That is, the reasons why someone might be given leave to stay. For example, some people have been allowed to stay because they're gay, or transgender, and it's not accepted in their home country. Do you think that's right? I mean, it's debatable at least, no?

But the law simply states: [a person is] "unable to live safely in any area of their home or country of origin, due to a well-founded fear of persecution."

The broad topics of said persecution are: Race, Religion, Nationality, Political opinion, and "anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation,"

It is no wonder it takes the government a long time to decide these things. The criteria is quite vague.

These types of laws are at the root of the problem.

Yet UK citizens who post anti immigration memes on facebook are named, shamed and charged.

Well, from the ones I've seen, they're usually posted by pig-ignorant animals who think spreading hate and instigating violence is their right. Sorry to be so blunt, but the ones I've seen (clearly I've not seen them all) are just hate-mongers pretending to be patriots.

 

[Brookswood]

I often see people suggest that money spent on Asylum Seekers should be spent on the homeless. Yet it was reported this week that the UK government have spent 1bn on the homeless problem already. At some point, money isn't the issue, the problem is elsewhere.

I have often thought that two people who may disagree strenously on line would probably find that person to person over a cup of their favorite beverage, would probably find they are more in common than they have that separates them.

I agree completely that the problem is other than money. Money is often the most immediately visible symptom of the problem.

Getting back to the original topic. Has this official or any other UK official actually tried to reach across national borders and go after somebody in another country who posts speech they disagree with?

 

[Magna-Carta]

I'm not exactly is meant by "cracking down" on online posts. This police commissioner reminds me of the sherif in the 1960s complaining about "outside agitators" stirring up Civil Rights riots. The cause of the riots are the people doing the rioting. If it is their intention to topple a government by insurrection, that is a crime, and their actions are crimes, for which they could be held accountable.
But thoughts and speech are not criminal.

It seems to me that the Commissioner is saying one thing, such as inciting violence, and the news report is twisting it out of context. A police commissioner can't extradite anyone. That's something only the courts can do. And even then only if the courts in the other country allow it. The news article seems to be targeting the hard of thinking. I'm sure the people behind the article know their audience.

 

[Magna-Carta]

Is there any written document in Britain that guarantees freedom of speech? Or is it just custom? I seem to remember reading once that during WWII some people were put in jail for speaking out against the war.

Freedom of speech in the UK is covered by Freedom of Expression within the Human Rights Act. Freedom of Expression includes speech and other forms of communication such as writing. It covers the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. Freedom of expression doesn't override the law against speech that incites violence though.

 

[VaughanJB]

I have often thought that two people who may disagree strenously on line would probably find that person to person over a cup of their favorite beverage, would probably find they are more in common than they have that separates them.

I agree completely that the problem is other than money. Money is often the most immediately visible symptom of the problem.

Getting back to the original topic. Has this official or any other UK official actually tried to reach across national borders and go after somebody in another country who posts speech they disagree with?

Online misses social niceties. I mean, I can't think of a single person in my life whom I wouldn't be cordial with if I met in person. I'm certainly not going to carry over a perceived forum slight into a coffee house or tea room. I mean, who does that? When meeting personally, there are so many more social clues we pick up on, you know? I mean, we have no facial expressions here, or inflection in our voice.

No matter how hard you try, we're missing 90% of social interaction on a forum. Then there are those who appear to always be looking for an insult online.

I seriously doubt the US government would allow a citizen to be deported to another country for an online post. It's just not going to happen. I think some people need to be held accountable for what they do online, incitement for example. But when that carries over international boundaries, it's not a common event.

 

[Born_To_Lose]

certainly watching everybody here.. you can barely leave your house without having a camera on you..

There are cameras all over here in the U.S. I even have a dash cam that I use constantly and some of the things I have captured on the memory card and played letter really made me sit up. I don’t know how I missed some of the things the camera recorded.

 

[Paladin1950]

Pay wall and Fox News. A double NO THANK YOU!