FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Freedom of movement
Freedom of movement
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hope Not ! " I mean leave the EU lol  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you provide links or quote where you heard these proposals please?" Was reported on Sky News and other channels last night.. also reported in most of the posters on here favourite read THE Scum..link below THE CRAIC DOOR Theresa May’s Brexit plan to keep Irish border wide open would leave a back door into Britain for thousands of illegal immigrants from the EU Proposal on how to solve the dilemma concedes all EU citizens will remain free to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked THE government’s plan to keep the Irish border wide open after Brexit would leave a back door into Britain for illegal EU immigrants, it has emerged. A detailed proposal on how to solve the Ireland dilemma also unveiled yesterday also revealed a pledge to keep the 65 year-old principle of free movement between the UK and Ireland. The two pledges are key to upholding Ulster’s peace process, Theresa May said. The Brexit ministry’s paper also dropped a strong hint for the first time that EU citizens will still be able to come to Britain for tourism without the need for a visa after Britain’s EU exit. But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. One senior official said: “From an immigration control perspective, immigration control has never been about the physical blocking of people at the physical border.” “Access to the UK labour market implies its own set of checks.” Irish senator Mark Daly, the Deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil, warned the open border arrangement would create “a smugglers’ charter” for people as well as contraband goods. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4255714/theresa-mays-brexit-plan-to-keep-irish-border-wide-open-would-leave-a-back-door-into-britain-for-thousands-of-illegal-immigrants-from-the-eu/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you provide links or quote where you heard these proposals please? Was reported on Sky News and other channels last night.. also reported in most of the posters on here favourite read THE Scum..link below THE CRAIC DOOR Theresa May’s Brexit plan to keep Irish border wide open would leave a back door into Britain for thousands of illegal immigrants from the EU Proposal on how to solve the dilemma concedes all EU citizens will remain free to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked THE government’s plan to keep the Irish border wide open after Brexit would leave a back door into Britain for illegal EU immigrants, it has emerged. A detailed proposal on how to solve the Ireland dilemma also unveiled yesterday also revealed a pledge to keep the 65 year-old principle of free movement between the UK and Ireland. The two pledges are key to upholding Ulster’s peace process, Theresa May said. The Brexit ministry’s paper also dropped a strong hint for the first time that EU citizens will still be able to come to Britain for tourism without the need for a visa after Britain’s EU exit. But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. One senior official said: “From an immigration control perspective, immigration control has never been about the physical blocking of people at the physical border.” “Access to the UK labour market implies its own set of checks.” Irish senator Mark Daly, the Deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil, warned the open border arrangement would create “a smugglers’ charter” for people as well as contraband goods. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4255714/theresa-mays-brexit-plan-to-keep-irish-border-wide-open-would-leave-a-back-door-into-britain-for-thousands-of-illegal-immigrants-from-the-eu/ " I can't see how an open border Will work I don't think it's possible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 :
The Brexit ministry’s paper also dropped a strong hint for the first time that EU citizens will still be able to come to Britain for tourism without the need for a visa after Britain’s EU exit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this will be a kick in the teeth for all those little Englanders hoping we were drawing up the drawbridge :
The Brexit ministry’s paper also dropped a strong hint for the first time that EU citizens will still be able to come to Britain for tourism without the need for a visa after Britain’s EU exit.o"a very big part of brexit is leaving the customs union Britain doing deals with the US and Canada and so forth , but this won't work without a hard border around the UK , if UK imports beef for example from Canada at a lower tariff than is imposed by the eu this would lead to beef on the market in the UK cheaper than European beef ,on shelf in Europe ,in Ireland where the border is the other side of the road there will be leaking of cheap products from north to south from UK into Europe , this would have a ripple affect across the other eu countries and won't be accepted , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for the links. I don't take The Scum, but not surprised it is one of your daily reads! Is that hard copy, online or both? I'm also surprised you managed to wait this long in the topic to add your pathetic comment about little Englanders getting kicked in the teeth! Anyway, I digress... It could be a back door. It is an exception, no doubt one of many in these negotiations, and will have to be thrashed out between the nation states involved and concessions made for this to work. Ireland isn't in the Schengen area so free movement from mainland Europe is 'checked'. " I dont read the Scum tbh...i stopped back in the 80s when they blamed the Liverpool supporters... You obviously cant read..i even posted it twice the part were the GOVERNMENT ARE SAYING visitors wont need a visas or anything else there will be no change from today....but i did expect you to troll me like you have on other threads | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Brexit ministry’s paper also dropped a strong hint for the first time that EU citizens will still be able to come to Britain for tourism without the need for a visa after Britain’s EU exit." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you for confirming you don't read The Sun. I'm not trolling you. I politely asked you to provide some links/quotes because your first post meant nothing to me. You kindly provided both. I thanked you for them, provided my input to the discussion and commented on what you had said about little Englanders. If you start or post on a thread you have to expect people to respond. This is what happens on forums. As for your outburst about the government & EU visas and mentioning it twice, what can't I read? I didn't even mention EU visas! For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit." Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ? "You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?
You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries.". What a turkey  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for the links. I don't take The Scum, but not surprised it is one of your daily reads! Is that hard copy, online or both? I'm also surprised you managed to wait this long in the topic to add your pathetic comment about little Englanders getting kicked in the teeth! Anyway, I digress... It could be a back door. It is an exception, no doubt one of many in these negotiations, and will have to be thrashed out between the nation states involved and concessions made for this to work. Ireland isn't in the Schengen area so free movement from mainland Europe is 'checked'. " the movement of people into republic can be watched yes but if the border is open between north and south here there is nothing stopping them entering the UK , and like wise with goods imported into the UK on tariffs that are lower than European tariffs , those goods can leak out of the UK into the eu a cross imaginary border in Ireland , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?
You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries."True, mostly the Americas and former colonies. But I feel the point is undercut a little when you may very well need a visa to visit the country 33KM away but not one to visit Papua new guinea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?
You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries.
True, mostly the Americas and former colonies.
But I feel the point is undercut a little when you may very well need a visa to visit the country 33KM away but not one to visit Papua new guinea."We are talking about the EU and UK....the tories are proposing that you wont need any type of visa ( ie freedom of movement)....dosent that defeat all what the brexiters want ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?
You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries.
True, mostly the Americas and former colonies.
But I feel the point is undercut a little when you may very well need a visa to visit the country 33KM away but not one to visit Papua new guinea.
We are talking about the EU and UK....the tories are proposing that you wont need any type of visa ( ie freedom of movement)....dosent that defeat all what the brexiters want ? "I don't get the link tbh. They have said visa free travel for visits, but need one to work or settle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit." What kind of visa are you talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?
You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries.
True, mostly the Americas and former colonies.
But I feel the point is undercut a little when you may very well need a visa to visit the country 33KM away but not one to visit Papua new guinea.
We are talking about the EU and UK....the tories are proposing that you wont need any type of visa ( ie freedom of movement)....dosent that defeat all what the brexiters want ?
I don't get the link tbh. They have said visa free travel for visits, but need one to work or settle."So no checks then as was stated in the link if you have taken your time to read whats being said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?
You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries.
True, mostly the Americas and former colonies.
But I feel the point is undercut a little when you may very well need a visa to visit the country 33KM away but not one to visit Papua new guinea.
We are talking about the EU and UK....the tories are proposing that you wont need any type of visa ( ie freedom of movement)....dosent that defeat all what the brexiters want ?
I don't get the link tbh. They have said visa free travel for visits, but need one to work or settle.
So no checks then as was stated in the link if you have taken your time to read whats being said "We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For the record I hope there is no need for visas in either direction after Brexit. Its about brexit....and when your not in a common agreement you need a visa.....just like when you visit other countries outside of the EU...why do you think its mentioned then ?
You don't need a visa to visit lots of non-eu countries.
True, mostly the Americas and former colonies.
But I feel the point is undercut a little when you may very well need a visa to visit the country 33KM away but not one to visit Papua new guinea.
We are talking about the EU and UK....the tories are proposing that you wont need any type of visa ( ie freedom of movement)....dosent that defeat all what the brexiters want ?
I don't get the link tbh. They have said visa free travel for visits, but need one to work or settle.
So no checks then as was stated in the link if you have taken your time to read whats being said
We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else?"But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. " A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive." So its all about these people coming over and taking our so called jobs....the ones that most British people wont do....and not about freedom of movement between the countries....then i for one must had got it all wrong as there i am thinking freedom of movement....but as one poster has said if there is no boarder protection then whats to stop every tom dick and harry just visiting Ireland and walking hopping across the boarder and vanishing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive. So its all about these people coming over and taking our so called jobs....the ones that most British people wont do....and not about freedom of movement between the countries....then i for one must had got it all wrong as there i am thinking freedom of movement....but as one poster has said if there is no boarder protection then whats to stop every tom dick and harry just visiting Ireland and walking hopping across the boarder and vanishing "I don't think using that old horrible phrase is useful in a sensible discussion. I'm not interested in talking if you want to drag it to that kind of level. If you want a reasonable discussion about it it, then, I don't think anybody has issues with free movement in terms of holidays, business trips etc and I think you actually know that. In terms of work and settling a visa system allows that flow to be controlled for settling and work. You can vote for the party who you think offers the best suggestion. That might be visas for anyone, only visas for certain professions, or visas for no-one. It's debateable and changeable according to what the country needs and wants and votes for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive. So its all about these people coming over and taking our so called jobs....the ones that most British people wont do....and not about freedom of movement between the countries....then i for one must had got it all wrong as there i am thinking freedom of movement....but as one poster has said if there is no boarder protection then whats to stop every tom dick and harry just visiting Ireland and walking hopping across the boarder and vanishing
I don't think using that old horrible phrase is useful in a sensible discussion. I'm not interested in talking if you want to drag it to that kind of level.
If you want a reasonable discussion about it it, then, I don't think anybody has issues with free movement in terms of holidays, business trips etc and I think you actually know that. In terms of work and settling a visa system allows that flow to be controlled for settling and work. You can vote for the party who you think offers the best suggestion. That might be visas for anyone, only visas for certain professions, or visas for no-one. It's debateable and changeable according to what the country needs and wants and votes for."But isn't that the system now ?...i thought brexiters wanted freedom of movement stopped as it allowed people and unscrupulous firms to employ these unfortunate [people...thats the idea isnt it so are boarders are secure and they wont be ....so looks like another cave in by May,Davis and the rest of the Tory cronies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What at all did we vote for? Why the fuck? Oh wtf?@!" Most voted for a fantasy that dont work in reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What at all did we vote for? Why the fuck? Oh wtf?@!" wtf @ your wtf?@!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive. So its all about these people coming over and taking our so called jobs....the ones that most British people wont do....and not about freedom of movement between the countries....then i for one must had got it all wrong as there i am thinking freedom of movement....but as one poster has said if there is no boarder protection then whats to stop every tom dick and harry just visiting Ireland and walking hopping across the boarder and vanishing
I don't think using that old horrible phrase is useful in a sensible discussion. I'm not interested in talking if you want to drag it to that kind of level.
If you want a reasonable discussion about it it, then, I don't think anybody has issues with free movement in terms of holidays, business trips etc and I think you actually know that. In terms of work and settling a visa system allows that flow to be controlled for settling and work. You can vote for the party who you think offers the best suggestion. That might be visas for anyone, only visas for certain professions, or visas for no-one. It's debateable and changeable according to what the country needs and wants and votes for.
But isn't that the system now ?...i thought brexiters wanted freedom of movement stopped as it allowed people and unscrupulous firms to employ these unfortunate [people...thats the idea isnt it so are boarders are secure and they wont be ....so looks like another cave in by May,Davis and the rest of the Tory cronies "No that's not the current situation. You've got it wrong. An eu citizen can currently come to the uk unrestricted to settle and work. They are employed legitimately with exactly the same rights as a uk citizen. The visa system would limit that work movement to those granted a visa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive. So its all about these people coming over and taking our so called jobs....the ones that most British people wont do....and not about freedom of movement between the countries....then i for one must had got it all wrong as there i am thinking freedom of movement....but as one poster has said if there is no boarder protection then whats to stop every tom dick and harry just visiting Ireland and walking hopping across the boarder and vanishing
I don't think using that old horrible phrase is useful in a sensible discussion. I'm not interested in talking if you want to drag it to that kind of level.
If you want a reasonable discussion about it it, then, I don't think anybody has issues with free movement in terms of holidays, business trips etc and I think you actually know that. In terms of work and settling a visa system allows that flow to be controlled for settling and work. You can vote for the party who you think offers the best suggestion. That might be visas for anyone, only visas for certain professions, or visas for no-one. It's debateable and changeable according to what the country needs and wants and votes for.
But isn't that the system now ?...i thought brexiters wanted freedom of movement stopped as it allowed people and unscrupulous firms to employ these unfortunate [people...thats the idea isnt it so are boarders are secure and they wont be ....so looks like another cave in by May,Davis and the rest of the Tory cronies
No that's not the current situation. You've got it wrong.
An eu citizen can currently come to the uk unrestricted to settle and work. They are employed legitimately with exactly the same rights as a uk citizen.
The visa system would limit that work movement to those granted a visa."Only if they are exercising treaty rights, if not they can and are deported under the current system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive. So its all about these people coming over and taking our so called jobs....the ones that most British people wont do....and not about freedom of movement between the countries....then i for one must had got it all wrong as there i am thinking freedom of movement....but as one poster has said if there is no boarder protection then whats to stop every tom dick and harry just visiting Ireland and walking hopping across the boarder and vanishing
I don't think using that old horrible phrase is useful in a sensible discussion. I'm not interested in talking if you want to drag it to that kind of level.
If you want a reasonable discussion about it it, then, I don't think anybody has issues with free movement in terms of holidays, business trips etc and I think you actually know that. In terms of work and settling a visa system allows that flow to be controlled for settling and work. You can vote for the party who you think offers the best suggestion. That might be visas for anyone, only visas for certain professions, or visas for no-one. It's debateable and changeable according to what the country needs and wants and votes for.
But isn't that the system now ?...i thought brexiters wanted freedom of movement stopped as it allowed people and unscrupulous firms to employ these unfortunate [people...thats the idea isnt it so are boarders are secure and they wont be ....so looks like another cave in by May,Davis and the rest of the Tory cronies
No that's not the current situation. You've got it wrong.
An eu citizen can currently come to the uk unrestricted to settle and work. They are employed legitimately with exactly the same rights as a uk citizen.
The visa system would limit that work movement to those granted a visa.
Only if they are exercising treaty rights, if not they can and are deported under the current system."Talking about eu citizens coming and working legitimately. That does not need a visa now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have passport checks now. If someone is coming on holiday, no visa will be required. If they want to work or settle they will. That is what's being proposed, or do you think it's something else? But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. A person would not be allowed to work legally or settle without holding the relevant visa, whatever route they had taken to arrive. So its all about these people coming over and taking our so called jobs....the ones that most British people wont do....and not about freedom of movement between the countries....then i for one must had got it all wrong as there i am thinking freedom of movement....but as one poster has said if there is no boarder protection then whats to stop every tom dick and harry just visiting Ireland and walking hopping across the boarder and vanishing
I don't think using that old horrible phrase is useful in a sensible discussion. I'm not interested in talking if you want to drag it to that kind of level.
If you want a reasonable discussion about it it, then, I don't think anybody has issues with free movement in terms of holidays, business trips etc and I think you actually know that. In terms of work and settling a visa system allows that flow to be controlled for settling and work. You can vote for the party who you think offers the best suggestion. That might be visas for anyone, only visas for certain professions, or visas for no-one. It's debateable and changeable according to what the country needs and wants and votes for.
But isn't that the system now ?...i thought brexiters wanted freedom of movement stopped as it allowed people and unscrupulous firms to employ these unfortunate [people...thats the idea isnt it so are boarders are secure and they wont be ....so looks like another cave in by May,Davis and the rest of the Tory cronies
No that's not the current situation. You've got it wrong.
An eu citizen can currently come to the uk unrestricted to settle and work. They are employed legitimately with exactly the same rights as a uk citizen.
The visa system would limit that work movement to those granted a visa.
Only if they are exercising treaty rights, if not they can and are deported under the current system.
Talking about eu citizens coming and working legitimately. That does not need a visa now."It doesn't need a visa, but they do need to exercise treaty rights, if they are not, then they can be deported. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It doesn't need a visa, but they do need to exercise treaty rights, if they are not, then they can be deported. " Yes. And they don't need to be only employed by unscrupulous employers. So the proposal is different to what we have now and affects those wanting to work and / or settle, but would be the same as now for a short term visitor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. " It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning?" That's quite a leap from simple border control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. " So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross? "No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross? "not sure he is saying that although i would think 'Schengen' as a policy will be one thing debated by the EU due to several reasons.. surprised that the Spanish did not lock down all their borders after the attack as a precaution given the confusion over the numbers involved in any case.. then again he or others may not have left the country and no border is totally secure in any case.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered. "Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again? As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village? "He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway...."Not quite... The original comment was... "I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe." There has been an evolutionary process in Spain since the early 1970's which started with internal passports and the Guardia Civil operating roadside checkpoints. That state of effective martial law has evolved and Spain is now part of the Schengen arrangement and so has an open border with France. If the argument is that the border with France is wrong then how far back do the Spanish row? And by the way - just so the poster knows. The Spanish could have imposed emergency border controls if they had wanted to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway...."So as long as the terrorist remains at large within a national boundary, you would consider that a good thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway....
So as long as the terrorist remains at large within a national boundary, you would consider that a good thing? "Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected. The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply. For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments??????? The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway....
Not quite...
The original comment was...
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe."
There has been an evolutionary process in Spain since the early 1970's which started with internal passports and the Guardia Civil operating roadside checkpoints. That state of effective martial law has evolved and Spain is now part of the Schengen arrangement and so has an open border with France. If the argument is that the border with France is wrong then how far back do the Spanish row?
And by the way - just so the poster knows. The Spanish could have imposed emergency border controls if they had wanted to.
"This true! Any Schengen state can impose temporary border controls. I've been stopped at these controls twice; once between Germany and Denmark in 2012 (delayed 20 mins) and once between Spain and France last year (delayed 3 hours - I actually missed by boat from Dieppe because of it). I guess the reason why none was put in place this time (if in fact absolutely none were put in place) would be because neither the Spanish or French thought they'd actually help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway....
So as long as the terrorist remains at large within a national boundary, you would consider that a good thing?
Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected.
The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply.
For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments???????
The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times."Well "simple border control" wouldn't stop the terrorist if he didn't cross the border would it. And you seem to be against control at other levels internally, so your position seems to be that you are happy as long as the terrorists and free inside one country. If that is not your position, then please put forth a logical argument of your position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected. The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply. For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments??????? The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times. Well "simple border control" wouldn't stop the terrorist if he didn't cross the border would it. And you seem to be against control at other levels internally, so your position seems to be that you are happy as long as the terrorists and free inside one country. If that is not your position, then please put forth a logical argument of your position. " Sorry, not interested in anything you have to say. Your obvious twisting of peoples posts is clear and drags down this forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway....
So as long as the terrorist remains at large within a national boundary, you would consider that a good thing?
Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected.
The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply.
For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments???????
The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times."When the debate over-reaches rhetoric and demands that participants apply a process of logic, those with only rhetoric to offer will generally bunk out, blaming others. It is a perfectly reasonable debating point to question the depth of civil liberties that could be impinged in the fight against terrorism. "Borders" are lines on a map and the argument is not whether a line should be policed, but how much policing is relevant. Why not, for example - impose a iron ring around Barcelona (as the Police did) rather than close the border with France (which they didn't do)? The Spanish Police (Guardia, Nacional and Local) know how to lock down towns and cities - they had plenty of practise not that long ago. The poster suggested that the terrorist had an easier time because of open borders. There was no logic to the statement as was ultimately proven today. It is possible to battle terrorism by closing national borders and creating artificial local borders and controlling the movement of your own population. How much of that is necessary at the moment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected. The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply. For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments??????? The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times. Well "simple border control" wouldn't stop the terrorist if he didn't cross the border would it. And you seem to be against control at other levels internally, so your position seems to be that you are happy as long as the terrorists and free inside one country. If that is not your position, then please put forth a logical argument of your position. Sorry, not interested in anything you have to say. Your obvious twisting of peoples posts is clear and drags down this forum." If this forum is too intellectually challenging for you, you dont have to post here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected. The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply. For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments??????? The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times. Well "simple border control" wouldn't stop the terrorist if he didn't cross the border would it. And you seem to be against control at other levels internally, so your position seems to be that you are happy as long as the terrorists and free inside one country. If that is not your position, then please put forth a logical argument of your position. Sorry, not interested in anything you have to say. Your obvious twisting of peoples posts is clear and drags down this forum. If this forum is too intellectually challenging for you, you dont have to post here." The notion of this forum being "intellectually challenging" is possibly the most amusing thing I've read all day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry, not interested in anything you have to say. Your obvious twisting of peoples posts is clear and drags down this forum. If this forum is too intellectually challenging for you, you dont have to post here." Ah CLCC goes in his pot of stock replies. Shall he pick, implications of racism, or answer with a diversionary question? No, it's the 3rd option - other posters aren't intellectual enough. Boring, predictable post after post. Never seen you post anything useful, thought provoking or intellectual. Only your three stock options. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry, not interested in anything you have to say. Your obvious twisting of peoples posts is clear and drags down this forum. If this forum is too intellectually challenging for you, you dont have to post here. Ah CLCC goes in his pot of stock replies. Shall he pick, implications of racism, or answer with a diversionary question? No, it's the 3rd option - other posters aren't intellectual enough. Boring, predictable post after post. Never seen you post anything useful, thought provoking or intellectual. Only your three stock options." You're obviously not looking closely enough then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway....
So as long as the terrorist remains at large within a national boundary, you would consider that a good thing?
Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected.
The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply.
For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments???????
The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times.
When the debate over-reaches rhetoric and demands that participants apply a process of logic, those with only rhetoric to offer will generally bunk out, blaming others.
It is a perfectly reasonable debating point to question the depth of civil liberties that could be impinged in the fight against terrorism. "Borders" are lines on a map and the argument is not whether a line should be policed, but how much policing is relevant. Why not, for example - impose a iron ring around Barcelona (as the Police did) rather than close the border with France (which they didn't do)?
The Spanish Police (Guardia, Nacional and Local) know how to lock down towns and cities - they had plenty of practise not that long ago.
The poster suggested that the terrorist had an easier time because of open borders. There was no logic to the statement as was ultimately proven today. It is possible to battle terrorism by closing national borders and creating artificial local borders and controlling the movement of your own population. How much of that is necessary at the moment? "The discussion was never logical. It went from one poster suggesting temporary border control (as happened with previous incidents) to the implication that that also was a support for Franco style controls countrywide. There is a general lazy trend of of trying to shoot down discussions by implication of extreme beliefs. That isn't debate, discussion, logic or intellectual. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway....
So as long as the terrorist remains at large within a national boundary, you would consider that a good thing?
Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected.
The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply.
For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments???????
The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times.
When the debate over-reaches rhetoric and demands that participants apply a process of logic, those with only rhetoric to offer will generally bunk out, blaming others.
It is a perfectly reasonable debating point to question the depth of civil liberties that could be impinged in the fight against terrorism. "Borders" are lines on a map and the argument is not whether a line should be policed, but how much policing is relevant. Why not, for example - impose a iron ring around Barcelona (as the Police did) rather than close the border with France (which they didn't do)?
The Spanish Police (Guardia, Nacional and Local) know how to lock down towns and cities - they had plenty of practise not that long ago.
The poster suggested that the terrorist had an easier time because of open borders. There was no logic to the statement as was ultimately proven today. It is possible to battle terrorism by closing national borders and creating artificial local borders and controlling the movement of your own population. How much of that is necessary at the moment?
The discussion was never logical. It went from one poster suggesting temporary border control (as happened with previous incidents) to the implication that that also was a support for Franco style controls countrywide.
There is a general lazy trend of of trying to shoot down discussions by implication of extreme beliefs. That isn't debate, discussion, logic or intellectual."So why did Spain NOT close their northern border when they could have? And considering that they didn't, does that not make moot the posters assertion that the Barcelona van driver had it easy because of "open borders"? What is far more relevant is why don't France and Spain resort to previous well versed tactics of imposing martial law to lock down their own populations in order to control the terrorist threat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I reckon it would have been harder for the Barcelona van driver to vanish if there had been some border control in Europe. It would also have been harder if Spain was still a Dictatorship and ordinary people needed internal passports, identity cards and permission to move around the country. The Guardia Civil have not forgotten how to operate roadbloacks in and out of major towns and cities. Where do we draw the line on restricting civil liberties to prove that the terrorists are winning? That's quite a leap from simple border control. So millions of journeys all across Europe should be stopped and checked, just in case a terrorist might cross?
No no! Terrorists should have free reign over Europe just so people's holidays aren't hampered.
Holidays, travelling to work, goods being shipped backwards and forwards, millions and millions of journeys should all be stopped, faulted, put on hold indefinitely, just to stop 1 terrorist? No, not worth it. The terrorists used a vehicle to carry out the attack, should they all be banned and people walk everywhere to stop it happening again?
As mentioned above, if you want to put checkpoints on the schengen zone, why not at county level? City level? Town? Village?
He actually said 'simple border control' , but anyway....
So as long as the terrorist remains at large within a national boundary, you would consider that a good thing?
Where have I ever implied that? Another ridiculous, diversionary question. Unfortunately to be expected.
The poster simply stated border controls would have been useful. That's then been distorted to implying people support massive infringements on civil liberties, and your latest foolish reply.
For once, would it be possible to have a discussion without trying to distort peoples comments???????
The sleaziness of this forum makes me sick at times.
When the debate over-reaches rhetoric and demands that participants apply a process of logic, those with only rhetoric to offer will generally bunk out, blaming others.
It is a perfectly reasonable debating point to question the depth of civil liberties that could be impinged in the fight against terrorism. "Borders" are lines on a map and the argument is not whether a line should be policed, but how much policing is relevant. Why not, for example - impose a iron ring around Barcelona (as the Police did) rather than close the border with France (which they didn't do)?
The Spanish Police (Guardia, Nacional and Local) know how to lock down towns and cities - they had plenty of practise not that long ago.
The poster suggested that the terrorist had an easier time because of open borders. There was no logic to the statement as was ultimately proven today. It is possible to battle terrorism by closing national borders and creating artificial local borders and controlling the movement of your own population. How much of that is necessary at the moment?
The discussion was never logical. It went from one poster suggesting temporary border control (as happened with previous incidents) to the implication that that also was a support for Franco style controls countrywide.
There is a general lazy trend of of trying to shoot down discussions by implication of extreme beliefs. That isn't debate, discussion, logic or intellectual."They never said temporary, and they didn't limit it to just Spain's borders either. Reply to the post that's there, you're not happy. Ask them to clarify or expand upon their post, you're not happy. There is just no pleasing some people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why did Spain NOT close their northern border when they could have? And considering that they didn't, does that not make moot the posters assertion that the Barcelona van driver had it easy because of "open borders"? What is far more relevant is why don't France and Spain resort to previous well versed tactics of imposing martial law to lock down their own populations in order to control the terrorist threat? " I dont know why they didn't do it, ask them or you can explain. When did either last invoke martial law? Is it well versed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry, not interested in anything you have to say. Your obvious twisting of peoples posts is clear and drags down this forum. If this forum is too intellectually challenging for you, you dont have to post here. Ah CLCC goes in his pot of stock replies. Shall he pick, implications of racism, or answer with a diversionary question? No, it's the 3rd option - other posters aren't intellectual enough. Boring, predictable post after post. Never seen you post anything useful, thought provoking or intellectual. Only your three stock options." 99% of the time it's answering questions with questions. But we've had all three!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you provide links or quote where you heard these proposals please? Was reported on Sky News and other channels last night.. also reported in most of the posters on here favourite read THE Scum..link below THE CRAIC DOOR Theresa May’s Brexit plan to keep Irish border wide open would leave a back door into Britain for thousands of illegal immigrants from the EU Proposal on how to solve the dilemma concedes all EU citizens will remain free to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked THE government’s plan to keep the Irish border wide open after Brexit would leave a back door into Britain for illegal EU immigrants, it has emerged. A detailed proposal on how to solve the Ireland dilemma also unveiled yesterday also revealed a pledge to keep the 65 year-old principle of free movement between the UK and Ireland. The two pledges are key to upholding Ulster’s peace process, Theresa May said. The Brexit ministry’s paper also dropped a strong hint for the first time that EU citizens will still be able to come to Britain for tourism without the need for a visa after Britain’s EU exit. But officials conceded that means all EU citizens will be able to travel to Ireland and then on into the UK via Northern Ireland unchecked. Immigration bosses would be forced to rely on detecting illegals only once they have arrived in Britain instead of stopping them at borders. One senior official said: “From an immigration control perspective, immigration control has never been about the physical blocking of people at the physical border.” “Access to the UK labour market implies its own set of checks.” Irish senator Mark Daly, the Deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil, warned the open border arrangement would create “a smugglers’ charter” for people as well as contraband goods. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4255714/theresa-mays-brexit-plan-to-keep-irish-border-wide-open-would-leave-a-back-door-into-britain-for-thousands-of-illegal-immigrants-from-the-eu/ " Why don't immigrants want to stay in Ireland? If you're going to all that trouble to get to the UK that you have to travel to Ireland, why not stay there? Is it shit there? Or is the UK welfare policy an easy ride? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of movement everywhere is a lovely thing in an ideal world. I'm not 100% convinced that it is as we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. There is always someone somewhere who will spoil your day! the violence, hate, hurtful, spiteful thinking of some people is beyond belief. To make a safer place the only way is to have control, checks and impeccable shared intelligence. I do not accept the 'we started it' arguments. People have been around long enough to accept that were not all the same but that gives no one the right to force upon them their beliefs. We are all individuals. Freedom of movement causes trouble. Let's be very frank and honest to ourselves here how many tragedies are waiting to happen, how many terrorists are waiting for their next chance. How many are waiting? People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... " By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of movement everywhere is a lovely thing in an ideal world. I'm not 100% convinced that it is as we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. There is always someone somewhere who will spoil your day! the violence, hate, hurtful, spiteful thinking of some people is beyond belief. To make a safer place the only way is to have control, checks and impeccable shared intelligence. I do not accept the 'we started it' arguments. People have been around long enough to accept that were not all the same but that gives no one the right to force upon them their beliefs. We are all individuals. Freedom of movement causes trouble. Let's be very frank and honest to ourselves here how many tragedies are waiting to happen, how many terrorists are waiting for their next chance. How many are waiting? People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. " And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of movement everywhere is a lovely thing in an ideal world. I'm not 100% convinced that it is as we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. There is always someone somewhere who will spoil your day! the violence, hate, hurtful, spiteful thinking of some people is beyond belief. To make a safer place the only way is to have control, checks and impeccable shared intelligence. I do not accept the 'we started it' arguments. People have been around long enough to accept that were not all the same but that gives no one the right to force upon them their beliefs. We are all individuals. Freedom of movement causes trouble. Let's be very frank and honest to ourselves here how many tragedies are waiting to happen, how many terrorists are waiting for their next chance. How many are waiting? People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that?" It certainly helped Kenneth Noye. Should we really be making life difficult for people like him, JUST because he's chosen to be a criminal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of movement everywhere is a lovely thing in an ideal world. I'm not 100% convinced that it is as we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. There is always someone somewhere who will spoil your day! the violence, hate, hurtful, spiteful thinking of some people is beyond belief. To make a safer place the only way is to have control, checks and impeccable shared intelligence. I do not accept the 'we started it' arguments. People have been around long enough to accept that were not all the same but that gives no one the right to force upon them their beliefs. We are all individuals. Freedom of movement causes trouble. Let's be very frank and honest to ourselves here how many tragedies are waiting to happen, how many terrorists are waiting for their next chance. How many are waiting? People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. " This is very true. Open European borders (which the U.K. is not part of) is a relatively recent concept and not that long ago, a number of European countries controlled internal movement and required their own citizens to have permission to move to different regions within their own country. The unauthorised movement of people was regarded as such a potential threat that some countries had a specific Police department tasked with the controlling and enforcement of civil rules of movement. The "alarm" at open European borders is only because it is seen by some to be too new to be logical. But of course it is logical when you think about it, unless you also subscribe to internal borders and internal controls of movement. It could be argued that the 7/7 bombers would have had much more difficulty planning and executing the 7/7 attacks had they been subject to restrictions of movement from the Leeds/Bradford area. ( Apologies if I got that wrong but my memory is that they were from Yorkshire? - Not London anyway). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of movement everywhere is a lovely thing in an ideal world. I'm not 100% convinced that it is as we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. There is always someone somewhere who will spoil your day! the violence, hate, hurtful, spiteful thinking of some people is beyond belief. To make a safer place the only way is to have control, checks and impeccable shared intelligence. I do not accept the 'we started it' arguments. People have been around long enough to accept that were not all the same but that gives no one the right to force upon them their beliefs. We are all individuals. Freedom of movement causes trouble. Let's be very frank and honest to ourselves here how many tragedies are waiting to happen, how many terrorists are waiting for their next chance. How many are waiting? People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that?" I think that it has worked well in European for decades now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that? I think that it has worked well in European for decades now." But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that? I think that it has worked well in European for decades now. But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries." It works in Europe becuase they are in a customs union, there is the free movement of goods and capital and labour, common standards, in many places a single currency, an international court to oversee rights are not infringed, common arrest warrants, intelligence sharing, military alliance, reciprocal agreements, common health insurance and much much more that makes it work. If we had that with more countries then I think the open borders would make sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that? I think that it has worked well in European for decades now. But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries. It works in Europe becuase they are in a customs union, there is the free movement of goods and capital and labour, common standards, in many places a single currency, an international court to oversee rights are not infringed, common arrest warrants, intelligence sharing, military alliance, reciprocal agreements, common health insurance and much much more that makes it work. If we had that with more countries then I think the open borders would make sense." So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that? I think that it has worked well in European for decades now. But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries. It works in Europe becuase they are in a customs union, there is the free movement of goods and capital and labour, common standards, in many places a single currency, an international court to oversee rights are not infringed, common arrest warrants, intelligence sharing, military alliance, reciprocal agreements, common health insurance and much much more that makes it work. If we had that with more countries then I think the open borders would make sense. So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples?" Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries. It works in Europe becuase they are in a customs union, there is the free movement of goods and capital and labour, common standards, in many places a single currency, an international court to oversee rights are not infringed, common arrest warrants, intelligence sharing, military alliance, reciprocal agreements, common health insurance and much much more that makes it work. If we had that with more countries then I think the open borders would make sense. So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?)" Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries. It works in Europe becuase they are in a customs union, there is the free movement of goods and capital and labour, common standards, in many places a single currency, an international court to oversee rights are not infringed, common arrest warrants, intelligence sharing, military alliance, reciprocal agreements, common health insurance and much much more that makes it work. If we had that with more countries then I think the open borders would make sense. So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now." Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries. It works in Europe becuase they are in a customs union, there is the free movement of goods and capital and labour, common standards, in many places a single currency, an international court to oversee rights are not infringed, common arrest warrants, intelligence sharing, military alliance, reciprocal agreements, common health insurance and much much more that makes it work. If we had that with more countries then I think the open borders would make sense. So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now. Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. " No, read it again. It has a leaky border to Turkey, the one you suggested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries. It works in Europe becuase they are in a customs union, there is the free movement of goods and capital and labour, common standards, in many places a single currency, an international court to oversee rights are not infringed, common arrest warrants, intelligence sharing, military alliance, reciprocal agreements, common health insurance and much much more that makes it work. If we had that with more countries then I think the open borders would make sense. So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now. Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. No, read it again. It has a leaky border to Turkey, the one you suggested." Does syria have a leaky border or Turkey, or is it the other way round? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now. Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. No, read it again. It has a leaky border to Turkey, the one you suggested. Does syria have a leaky border or Turkey, or is it the other way round? " Both ways. Don't you see a huge security risk with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now. Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. No, read it again. It has a leaky border to Turkey, the one you suggested. Does syria have a leaky border or Turkey, or is it the other way round? Both ways. Don't you see a huge security risk with that? " How many terrorists have been stopped at the Greece/Turkey or Bulgaria/Turkey border? If it's not many, then that would suggest that your concerns are unwarranted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People can not move around without being checked we don't live in that sort of world. That is a reality...... By that logic then we also shouldn't have free movement between England/Scotland/Wales, or between regions/counties/provinces/states etc. I for one don't want to lose those civil liberties and think that our response must be proportional. And by the converse logic there should be free, unchecked movement between all countries. Do you support that? I think that it has worked well in European for decades now. But I asked if you support free, unchecked movement between all countries." Currently no but as a long term objective quite definitely yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How many terrorists have been stopped at the Greece/Turkey or Bulgaria/Turkey border? If it's not many, then that would suggest that your concerns are unwarranted." Bulgaria & Greece haven't been destroyed by war for the the past 4 plus years! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. No, read it again. It has a leaky border to Turkey, the one you suggested. Does syria have a leaky border or Turkey, or is it the other way round? Both ways. Don't you see a huge security risk with that? How many terrorists have been stopped at the Greece/Turkey or Bulgaria/Turkey border? If it's not many, then that would suggest that your concerns are unwarranted." How many didn't travel because they knew the border checks was there? The concern is warranted and most people wouldn't free movement to-fro Turkey. The security issue being one major reason. Luckily it's a moot point as it's unlikely to happen soon, and won't involve us, only in the minds of the expansionists in the eu. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now. Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. No, read it again. It has a leaky border to Turkey, the one you suggested. Does syria have a leaky border or Turkey, or is it the other way round? Both ways. Don't you see a huge security risk with that? " Are you really unable to see the difference between the European Union and Syria/Turkey? I realise that it is a very right wing concept towant the world to stop evolving - but it does evolve. Seventy years ago the prospect of Free movement between European countries recently at war would seem inconceivable. Remember that just over 20 years ago, Croatia was at war. The EU has stabilised Europe and delivered a customs union and single market that has benefited everyone. No one knows what is going to happen in years to come because if we are now going on holiday to places that were at war just 20 years ago how can we possibly know what the situation will be like 20 years from now. Syria could end up as the new Jordan or Lebanon and Turkey the new Croatia. We just don't know. Dictating ho hugs should be in the future because of how things are now is silly and is aligned only to silly people like Nigel Farage be Donald Trump. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem " I thought all our terrorist here were mostly british and homegrown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How many terrorists have been stopped at the Greece/Turkey or Bulgaria/Turkey border? If it's not many, then that would suggest that your concerns are unwarranted. Bulgaria & Greece haven't been destroyed by war for the the past 4 plus years! " If they are not being stopped at the border, it shows they are not moving through ???? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem " This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Does syria have a leaky border or Turkey, or is it the other way round? Both ways. Don't you see a huge security risk with that? Are you really unable to see the difference between the European Union and Syria/Turkey? " Yes, I can easily see the difference between the eu and Turkey/ Syria. That's the issue. At what point in time, in the future, roughly, do you imagine that a they would be aligned enough to become part of the eu and schengen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though "So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, expand the 'EU' to emcompass other countries. Who would you envisage could be part of that, as examples? Turkey, some of the Balkans etc. it very much depends on which countries would like to be part of the project. (Out of interest, you haven't just posted one of those pesky questions you complain about other posters asking have you?) Yes, a question directly related to the point made, in order to clarify it. Earlier made a point about passport controlled borders not helping in this terrorist incident. Do you think having passport free travel to a country with a leaky border with Syria would have any security issues? Ignoring the other well discussed issues with Turkey for now. Syria doesn't have any of the things that I mentioned that makes it work in the EU. No, read it again. It has a leaky border to Turkey, the one you suggested. Does syria have a leaky border or Turkey, or is it the other way round? Both ways. Don't you see a huge security risk with that? Are you really unable to see the difference between the European Union and Syria/Turkey? I realise that it is a very right wing concept towant the world to stop evolving - but it does evolve. Seventy years ago the prospect of Free movement between European countries recently at war would seem inconceivable. Remember that just over 20 years ago, Croatia was at war. The EU has stabilised Europe and delivered a customs union and single market that has benefited everyone. No one knows what is going to happen in years to come because if we are now going on holiday to places that were at war just 20 years ago how can we possibly know what the situation will be like 20 years from now. Syria could end up as the new Jordan or Lebanon and Turkey the new Croatia. We just don't know. Dictating ho hugs should be in the future because of how things are now is silly and is aligned only to silly people like Nigel Farage be Donald Trump. " Exactly, also have you ever noticed that civil war errupts in places with economic problems? If the middle east was economically successful and that was felt by all citizens, the world would be a lot lot safer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem I thought all our terrorist here were mostly british and homegrown." maybe in Britain that's been the case but not so sure about the rest of Europe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time."The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber. "So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?"Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?
Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer."I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?
Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer.
I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things."Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?
Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer.
I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things.
Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on. "Cool. We'll save half an hour checking in. I'm sure it will work out fine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?
Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer.
I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things.
Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on.
Cool. We'll save half an hour checking in. I'm sure it will work out fine "Like I said above, the shoe bomber got through security, Lockerbie bomber got through security, 9/11 hijackers got through security, Andreas Lubitz got through security and flew the plane into the ground. Are you noticing a theme here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?
Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer.
I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things.
Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on.
Cool. We'll save half an hour checking in. I'm sure it will work out fine
Like I said above, the shoe bomber got through security, Lockerbie bomber got through security, 9/11 hijackers got through security, Andreas Lubitz got through security and flew the plane into the ground. Are you noticing a theme here? "Yes, you think security should be scrapped along with border controls. Most people don't. Your arguments haven't convinced me. How many didn't even attempt to get through with a knife / gun / bomb because they knew they would be detected?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?
Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer.
I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things.
Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on.
Cool. We'll save half an hour checking in. I'm sure it will work out fine
Like I said above, the shoe bomber got through security, Lockerbie bomber got through security, 9/11 hijackers got through security, Andreas Lubitz got through security and flew the plane into the ground. Are you noticing a theme here?
Yes, you think security should be scrapped along with border controls. Most people don't. Your arguments haven't convinced me.
How many didn't even attempt to get through with a knife / gun / bomb because they knew they would be detected??"Did you, or have you previously looked at the phenomenon of security theatre? I think you'll find that a few hundred million people living in the schengen zone have accepted no need for border controls within the zone. Obviously you think they are wrong, but equally they probably think you are wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wtf it's not the ones that are stopped tho it's the ones that get through that's the problem This is what I hate about airport security, it's called "security theatre" because it has never stopped anyone who the authorities didn't have prior intelligence about. I like that you are agreeing with me about the pointlessness of border checks though
So should all airport security be stopped in your logic / opinion? Perhaps they should take the airport fences down too, I've never seen anybody stuck in the barbed wire, so it's obviously a waste of time.
The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber.
So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped?
Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer.
I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things.
Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on.
Cool. We'll save half an hour checking in. I'm sure it will work out fine
Like I said above, the shoe bomber got through security, Lockerbie bomber got through security, 9/11 hijackers got through security, Andreas Lubitz got through security and flew the plane into the ground. Are you noticing a theme here?
Yes, you think security should be scrapped along with border controls. Most people don't. Your arguments haven't convinced me.
How many didn't even attempt to get through with a knife / gun / bomb because they knew they would be detected??
Did you, or have you previously looked at the phenomenon of security theatre? I think you'll find that a few hundred million people living in the schengen zone have accepted no need for border controls within the zone. Obviously you think they are wrong, but equally they probably think you are wrong. "Oh, and the pattern that you missed was that they all successfully got through security. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber. So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped? Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer. I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things. Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on. Cool. We'll save half an hour checking in. I'm sure it will work out fine
Like I said above, the shoe bomber got through security, Lockerbie bomber got through security, 9/11 hijackers got through security, Andreas Lubitz got through security and flew the plane into the ground. Are you noticing a theme here?
Yes, you think security should be scrapped along with border controls. Most people don't. Your arguments haven't convinced me.
How many didn't even attempt to get through with a knife / gun / bomb because they knew they would be detected??
Did you, or have you previously looked at the phenomenon of security theatre? I think you'll find that a few hundred million people living in the schengen zone have accepted no need for border controls within the zone. Obviously you think they are wrong, but equally they probably think you are wrong. "I understand the security theatre concept. There are interesting elements in it, as we are often reacting to the previous incident. However, I don't believe that applies to airport check-in security, I think you are wildly mistaken in believing removing it would be ok. Yes, most of the eu is in schengen, we aren't. That has been the accepted practice here throughout our membership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Oh, and the pattern that you missed was that they all successfully got through security. " Yes, I saw the pattern in the examples you gave. I didn't follow the logic in therefore dropping airport security as it failed on those occasions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The barbed wire didn't stop the Lockerbie bombing, or the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber. So should it be taken down, and airport security scrapped? Read up about security theatre and you will find the answer. I just wanted your personal opinion on the two things. Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on. Cool. We'll save half an hour checking in. I'm sure it will work out fine
Like I said above, the shoe bomber got through security, Lockerbie bomber got through security, 9/11 hijackers got through security, Andreas Lubitz got through security and flew the plane into the ground. Are you noticing a theme here?
Yes, you think security should be scrapped along with border controls. Most people don't. Your arguments haven't convinced me.
How many didn't even attempt to get through with a knife / gun / bomb because they knew they would be detected??
Did you, or have you previously looked at the phenomenon of security theatre? I think you'll find that a few hundred million people living in the schengen zone have accepted no need for border controls within the zone. Obviously you think they are wrong, but equally they probably think you are wrong.
I understand the security theatre concept. There are interesting elements in it, as we are often reacting to the previous incident. However, I don't believe that applies to airport check-in security, I think you are wildly mistaken in believing removing it would be ok.
Yes, most of the eu is in schengen, we aren't. That has been the accepted practice here throughout our membership."OK, you don’t think that is applies to airport check-in security, have a look at the below quote from wikipedia: "Two studies by a group of Cornell University researchers have found that strict airport security in the United States after the 9/11 attacks has the unintended consequence of increasing road fatalities, as would-be air travelers decide to drive and are exposed to the far greater risk of dying in a car accident.[4][5] In 2005, the researchers looked at the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and found that the change in passenger travel modes led to 242 added driving deaths per month.[4] In all, they estimated that about 1,200 driving deaths could be attributed to the short-term effects of the attacks. In 2007, the researchers studied the specific effects of a change to security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002. They concluded that this change reduced the number of air travelers by 6%, and estimated that consequently, 129 more people died in car accidents in the fourth quarter of 2002.[5] Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to "four fully loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year."[6]” So by having this security theatre the equivalent of 4 planes are dying in traffic accidents. That is a real, tangible, measurable loss of life, as a result of security theatre, that is not protecting people. My question to you, is do you find it acceptable, that just in America, 4 plane loads are dying each year, because of security theatre that by definition, does not offer any protection? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clcc so what would your answer be to airport security then pls don't answer with a question again " Ive answered that above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No you avent at all what would you do to replace airport security then I'm not disputing the above just intrested what you would do " "Keep the barbed wire, security check people who they have prior intelligence on." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did you, or have you previously looked at the phenomenon of security theatre? I think you'll find that a few hundred million people living in the schengen zone have accepted no need for border controls within the zone. Obviously you think they are wrong, but equally they probably think you are wrong. I understand the security theatre concept. There are interesting elements in it, as we are often reacting to the previous incident. However, I don't believe that applies to airport check-in security, I think you are wildly mistaken in believing removing it would be ok. Yes, most of the eu is in schengen, we aren't. That has been the accepted practice here throughout our membership. OK, you don’t think that is applies to airport check-in security, have a look at the below quote from wikipedia: "Two studies by a group of Cornell University researchers have found that strict airport security in the United States after the 9/11 attacks has the unintended consequence of increasing road fatalities, as would-be air travelers decide to drive and are exposed to the far greater risk of dying in a car accident.[4][5] In 2005, the researchers looked at the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and found that the change in passenger travel modes led to 242 added driving deaths per month.[4] In all, they estimated that about 1,200 driving deaths could be attributed to the short-term effects of the attacks. In 2007, the researchers studied the specific effects of a change to security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002. They concluded that this change reduced the number of air travelers by 6%, and estimated that consequently, 129 more people died in car accidents in the fourth quarter of 2002.[5] Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to "four fully loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year."[6]” So by having this security theatre the equivalent of 4 planes are dying in traffic accidents. That is a real, tangible, measurable loss of life, as a result of security theatre, that is not protecting people. My question to you, is do you find it acceptable, that just in America, 4 plane loads are dying each year, because of security theatre that by definition, does not offer any protection?" Right, a study by Cornell University in the USA extrapolated increased road deaths from reduced air travel (claiming increased security was the reason for the deaths, not general reluctance to fly). 1. I think the logic is flaky. 2. How does that translate to the uk? Unlike the USA, we tend not to fly domestically. I've never heard anyone use increased airline security as a reason to use other methods. Based that Cornell study, and it's shaky link to our travel methods you would drop airline security???? You are welcome to your opinion, but I really don't think it's going to fly in anybody else's mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did you, or have you previously looked at the phenomenon of security theatre? I think you'll find that a few hundred million people living in the schengen zone have accepted no need for border controls within the zone. Obviously you think they are wrong, but equally they probably think you are wrong. I understand the security theatre concept. There are interesting elements in it, as we are often reacting to the previous incident. However, I don't believe that applies to airport check-in security, I think you are wildly mistaken in believing removing it would be ok. Yes, most of the eu is in schengen, we aren't. That has been the accepted practice here throughout our membership. OK, you don’t think that is applies to airport check-in security, have a look at the below quote from wikipedia: "Two studies by a group of Cornell University researchers have found that strict airport security in the United States after the 9/11 attacks has the unintended consequence of increasing road fatalities, as would-be air travelers decide to drive and are exposed to the far greater risk of dying in a car accident.[4][5] In 2005, the researchers looked at the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and found that the change in passenger travel modes led to 242 added driving deaths per month.[4] In all, they estimated that about 1,200 driving deaths could be attributed to the short-term effects of the attacks. In 2007, the researchers studied the specific effects of a change to security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002. They concluded that this change reduced the number of air travelers by 6%, and estimated that consequently, 129 more people died in car accidents in the fourth quarter of 2002.[5] Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to "four fully loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year."[6]” So by having this security theatre the equivalent of 4 planes are dying in traffic accidents. That is a real, tangible, measurable loss of life, as a result of security theatre, that is not protecting people. My question to you, is do you find it acceptable, that just in America, 4 plane loads are dying each year, because of security theatre that by definition, does not offer any protection? Right, a study by Cornell University in the USA extrapolated increased road deaths from reduced air travel (claiming increased security was the reason for the deaths, not general reluctance to fly). 1. I think the logic is flaky. 2. How does that translate to the uk? Unlike the USA, we tend not to fly domestically. I've never heard anyone use increased airline security as a reason to use other methods. Based that Cornell study, and it's shaky link to our travel methods you would drop airline security???? You are welcome to your opinion, but I really don't think it's going to fly in anybody else's mind." What exactly do you find wrong with the research methodology of Blalock, Kadiyali and Simon (2005)? Do you think the sample size of road deaths 1994-2003 is too small? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right, a study by Cornell University in the USA extrapolated increased road deaths from reduced air travel (claiming increased security was the reason for the deaths, not general reluctance to fly). 1. I think the logic is flaky. 2. How does that translate to the uk? Unlike the USA, we tend not to fly domestically. I've never heard anyone use increased airline security as a reason to use other methods. Based that Cornell study, and it's shaky link to our travel methods you would drop airline security???? You are welcome to your opinion, but I really don't think it's going to fly in anybody else's mind. What exactly do you find wrong with the research methodology of Blalock, Kadiyali and Simon (2005)? Do you think the sample size of road deaths 1994-2003 is too small? " 1. Did they ask the dead drivers why they were driving rather than flying? 2. What would the numbers of road deaths be if airline security wasn't in place, putting off more flyers? 3. Would.flight numbers reduce due to a general unwiligness to fly after those incidents. 4. What would terrorist air deaths be if security wasnt in place? 5. How is it relevant to the uk, with a different travel structure entirely? 6. Who doesn't fly because of security? 7. It's clearly bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right, a study by Cornell University in the USA extrapolated increased road deaths from reduced air travel (claiming increased security was the reason for the deaths, not general reluctance to fly). 1. I think the logic is flaky. 2. How does that translate to the uk? Unlike the USA, we tend not to fly domestically. I've never heard anyone use increased airline security as a reason to use other methods. Based that Cornell study, and it's shaky link to our travel methods you would drop airline security???? You are welcome to your opinion, but I really don't think it's going to fly in anybody else's mind. What exactly do you find wrong with the research methodology of Blalock, Kadiyali and Simon (2005)? Do you think the sample size of road deaths 1994-2003 is too small? 1. Did they ask the dead drivers why they were driving rather than flying? 2. What would the numbers of road deaths be if airline security wasn't in place, putting off more flyers? 3. Would.flight numbers reduce due to a general unwiligness to fly after those incidents. 4. What would terrorist air deaths be if security wasnt in place? 5. How is it relevant to the uk, with a different travel structure entirely? 6. Who doesn't fly because of security? 7. It's clearly bollocks." Plus the rate of deaths per million miles travelled did not increase. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right, a study by Cornell University in the USA extrapolated increased road deaths from reduced air travel (claiming increased security was the reason for the deaths, not general reluctance to fly). 1. I think the logic is flaky. 2. How does that translate to the uk? Unlike the USA, we tend not to fly domestically. I've never heard anyone use increased airline security as a reason to use other methods. Based that Cornell study, and it's shaky link to our travel methods you would drop airline security???? You are welcome to your opinion, but I really don't think it's going to fly in anybody else's mind. What exactly do you find wrong with the research methodology of Blalock, Kadiyali and Simon (2005)? Do you think the sample size of road deaths 1994-2003 is too small? 1. Did they ask the dead drivers why they were driving rather than flying? 2. What would the numbers of road deaths be if airline security wasn't in place, putting off more flyers? 3. Would.flight numbers reduce due to a general unwiligness to fly after those incidents. 4. What would terrorist air deaths be if security wasnt in place? 5. How is it relevant to the uk, with a different travel structure entirely? 6. Who doesn't fly because of security? 7. It's clearly bollocks. Plus the rate of deaths per million miles travelled did not increase." Have either of you actually read the research that we are discussing, if you had, then you likely would already know the answers to the questions. I would also suggest that you read “A False Sense of Insecurity?” by John Mueller, published in the Fall 2004 edition of Regulations Magazine published by the Cato Institute. It is publicly available, so you don’t have to worry about a subscription or an open athens account. I would love to post a link, but forum rules do not allow me to do so. I have pulled out a few quotes for you, just in case you can’t be bothered to look it up and read it. "In fact, in almost all years, the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists anywhere in the world is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States.” "Until 2001, far fewer Americans were killed in any group- ing of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning, and almost none of those terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Even with the Sep- tember 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts.” Particularly pertinent to our current topic - "A bomb planted in a piece of checked luggage was respon- sible for the explosion that caused a Pan Am jet to crash into Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people. Since that time, hundreds of billions of pieces of luggage have been transported on American carriers and none have exploded to down an aircraft. “ Similar to the Blalock et al. (2004) research - "Accordingly, it would seem to be reasonable for those in charge of our safety to inform the public about how many airliners would have to crash before flying becomes as dan- gerous as driving the same distance in an automobile. It turns out that someone has made that calculation: University of Michigan transportation researchers Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan, in an article last year in American Scien- tist, wrote that they determined there would have to be one set of September 11 crashes a month for the risks to balance out. More generally, they calculate that an American’s chance of being killed in one nonstop airline flight is about one in 13 million (even taking the September 11 crashes into account). To reach that same level of risk when driving on America’s safest roads — rural interstate highways — one would have to travel a mere 11.2 miles.” "Accordingly, three key issues, set out by risk analyst Howard Kunreuther, require careful discussion but do not seem ever to get it: - How much should we be willing to pay for a small reduction in probabilities that are already extremely low? - How much should we be willing to pay for actions that are primarily reassuring but do little to change the actual risk? - How can measures such as strengthening the public health system, which provide much broader bene- fits than those against terrorism, get the attention they deserve?” "As Banks puts it, “If terrorists force us to redirect resources away from sensible programs and future growth in order to pursue unachievable but politically popular levels of domesticsecurity, then they have won an important victory that mortgages our future.” For instance, measures that delay air- line passengers by half an hour could cost the economy $15 billion a year, calculates economist Roger Congleton.” Obviously that is just the American economy, add on the $40bn budget for the Department of Homeland Security (FY2017) and its really incredibly expensive to slightly reduce a risk that is already very very very small. I know that you have both been posting on the thread about the recent prosecution of a mainly asian gang of rapists, do you think perhaps some of the security theatre budget could be better spent on stopping those crimes? “...people tend to be more alarmed by dramatic fatalities — which the September 11 crashes certainly provided — than by ones that cumulate statistically. Thus, the 3,000 deaths of September 11 inspire far more grief and fear than the 100,000 deaths from auto accidents that have taken place since then." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One day.When we stop waving flags, we'll realise we are one people on a little blue ball orbiting a main sequence star in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and we wont need passports or countries and no human will be an illegal immigrant because this little blue ball belongs to us all. "That will be great, one day, when everyone can live like that. Sadly that isn't the position we are currently in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One day.When we stop waving flags, we'll realise we are one people on a little blue ball orbiting a main sequence star in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and we wont need passports or countries and no human will be an illegal immigrant because this little blue ball belongs to us all.
That will be great, one day, when everyone can live like that. Sadly that isn't the position we are currently in."Have you ever taken any steps or actions to make that day closer, or further away? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One day.When we stop waving flags, we'll realise we are one people on a little blue ball orbiting a main sequence star in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and we wont need passports or countries and no human will be an illegal immigrant because this little blue ball belongs to us all.
That will be great, one day, when everyone can live like that. Sadly that isn't the position we are currently in.
Have you ever taken any steps or actions to make that day closer, or further away? "I live my life in a harmonious way with those around me, here and while travelling the world. I avoid killing and maming innocent civilians who are going about their everyday lives. Is that ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One day.When we stop waving flags, we'll realise we are one people on a little blue ball orbiting a main sequence star in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and we wont need passports or countries and no human will be an illegal immigrant because this little blue ball belongs to us all.
That will be great, one day, when everyone can live like that. Sadly that isn't the position we are currently in.
Have you ever taken any steps or actions to make that day closer, or further away?
I live my life in a harmonious way with those around me, here and while travelling the world.
I avoid killing and maming innocent civilians who are going about their everyday lives.
Is that ok?"That's fine, but nothing to do with the question asked about if you have done anything to make the day when we don't need passports any closer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One day.When we stop waving flags, we'll realise we are one people on a little blue ball orbiting a main sequence star in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and we wont need passports or countries and no human will be an illegal immigrant because this little blue ball belongs to us all.
That will be great, one day, when everyone can live like that. Sadly that isn't the position we are currently in.
Have you ever taken any steps or actions to make that day closer, or further away?
I live my life in a harmonious way with those around me, here and while travelling the world.
I avoid killing and maming innocent civilians who are going about their everyday lives.
Is that ok?
That's fine, but nothing to do with the question asked about if you have done anything to make the day when we don't need passports any closer. "I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One day.When we stop waving flags, we'll realise we are one people on a little blue ball orbiting a main sequence star in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and we wont need passports or countries and no human will be an illegal immigrant because this little blue ball belongs to us all.
That will be great, one day, when everyone can live like that. Sadly that isn't the position we are currently in.
Have you ever taken any steps or actions to make that day closer, or further away?
I live my life in a harmonious way with those around me, here and while travelling the world.
I avoid killing and maming innocent civilians who are going about their everyday lives.
Is that ok?
That's fine, but nothing to do with the question asked about if you have done anything to make the day when we don't need passports any closer.
I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue."Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously?" Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic?" So how do you marry up those two contradictory statements then? On the one hand you think it will be great when there is no need for passports, but on the other hand you don't believe we should be part of the Schengen zones, where passports aren't needed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clcc can I ask have you taken any steps to bring that world closer if yes can you pls say what they are " One example that I can give you is voting to remain in the EU. There have been no wars between member states in the EU, no civil wars in member states, and the whole host of reasons that make it work that I mentioned above, the same standards, free movement etc etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic? So how do you marry up those two contradictory statements then? On the one hand you think it will be great when there is no need for passports, but on the other hand you don't believe we should be part of the Schengen zones, where passports aren't needed?" What happened to the airport security question? Have you dropped that and moved on to something else now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clcc can I ask have you taken any steps to bring that world closer if yes can you pls say what they are One example that I can give you is voting to remain in the EU. There have been no wars between member states in the EU, no civil wars in member states, and the whole host of reasons that make it work that I mentioned above, the same standards, free movement etc etc." ffs always back to brexit same old shit wev ad the vote get over it _lcc wtf | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clcc can I ask have you taken any steps to bring that world closer if yes can you pls say what they are One example that I can give you is voting to remain in the EU. There have been no wars between member states in the EU, no civil wars in member states, and the whole host of reasons that make it work that I mentioned above, the same standards, free movement etc etc. ffs always back to brexit same old shit wev ad the vote get over it _lcc wtf " I See an end to countries and passports a natural progression thats been going on since the cave man clan on the hill became friends with the cave man clan by the river. Then from fortified hill forts to kingdoms. From kingdoms to unifying into countries. Then from countries to super states like the EU.Finally ending up with us all being from planet earth.Its inevitable but its going to take time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I See an end to countries and passports a natural progression thats been going on since the cave man clan on the hill became friends with the cave man clan by the river. Then from fortified hill forts to kingdoms. From kingdoms to unifying into countries. Then from countries to super states like the EU.Finally ending up with us all being from planet earth.Its inevitable but its going to take time. "Dead right
The arguments about the EU and Britains place in it have been going on since fuedal times. It started keeping outsiders away from local homesteads, to protecting communities, villages and towns and then on to regional battles between warring tribes.
The fuel for all of this type conflict has been fear, food and wealth disparity.
It is an absolutely logical and normal progression of humanity to be a part of something bigger and more protective. Unless of course, you are Brexiter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic? So how do you marry up those two contradictory statements then? On the one hand you think it will be great when there is no need for passports, but on the other hand you don't believe we should be part of the Schengen zones, where passports aren't needed?" Would you say that a terrorist in the Schengen zone can move freely between Schengen zone countries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic?" I thought the post had naturally moved on, however I am perfectly happy to go back to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic? So how do you marry up those two contradictory statements then? On the one hand you think it will be great when there is no need for passports, but on the other hand you don't believe we should be part of the Schengen zones, where passports aren't needed? Would you say that a terrorist in the Schengen zone can move freely between Schengen zone countries?" Well it depends what you mean by terrorist. A convicted terrorist would probably be serving a prisons sentence and not able to freely move. However if you are talking about a potential terrorist, or someone planning an attack then yes, they can move between countries freely within the schengen zone, by land at least, and in sime cases by sea. They could try putting little offices and signs up saying "please call into the office if you are a terrorist", but I doubt that would work. It would probably be as useful as the question on visa applications that ask "have you ever committed acts of genocide?" I doubt they have caught many people with that question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic? So how do you marry up those two contradictory statements then? On the one hand you think it will be great when there is no need for passports, but on the other hand you don't believe we should be part of the Schengen zones, where passports aren't needed? Would you say that a terrorist in the Schengen zone can move freely between Schengen zone countries? Well it depends what you mean by terrorist. A convicted terrorist would probably be serving a prisons sentence and not able to freely move. However if you are talking about a potential terrorist, or someone planning an attack then yes, they can move between countries freely within the schengen zone, by land at least, and in sime cases by sea. They could try putting little offices and signs up saying "please call into the office if you are a terrorist", but I doubt that would work. It would probably be as useful as the question on visa applications that ask "have you ever committed acts of genocide?" I doubt they have caught many people with that question. " From Sky news, November 2016. The vast majority of convicted terrorists jailed over the past 15 years are now back on Britain's streets, a Sky News investigation has discovered. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/news.sky.com/story/amp/warning-as-hundreds-of-jailed-terrorists-back-on-uk-streets-10639848 There are 15,000 people on the terrorist watch list in France alone. Wouldn't you agree that they are much more likely to be caught crossing between countries that have border controls than those with no border controls? 75% of convicted terrorists imprisoned in the UK since 9/11 have been released. That's 418 terrorists. In Britain alone. So much for "A convicted terrorist would probably be serving a prisons sentence and not able to freely move." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I was referring to us living harmoniously without killing people in the street or blowing up aircraft, in line with the current stage of the thread. Once we are at that stage then security and passports control will be a less problematic issue. Would you say that the countries in the schengen zone live harmoniously? Yes. I know your train of questions, but I don't believe we should be in schengen. Have you lost faith in dropping airport security now, and diverting topic? So how do you marry up those two contradictory statements then? On the one hand you think it will be great when there is no need for passports, but on the other hand you don't believe we should be part of the Schengen zones, where passports aren't needed? Would you say that a terrorist in the Schengen zone can move freely between Schengen zone countries? Well it depends what you mean by terrorist. A convicted terrorist would probably be serving a prisons sentence and not able to freely move. However if you are talking about a potential terrorist, or someone planning an attack then yes, they can move between countries freely within the schengen zone, by land at least, and in sime cases by sea. They could try putting little offices and signs up saying "please call into the office if you are a terrorist", but I doubt that would work. It would probably be as useful as the question on visa applications that ask "have you ever committed acts of genocide?" I doubt they have caught many people with that question. From Sky news, November 2016. The vast majority of convicted terrorists jailed over the past 15 years are now back on Britain's streets, a Sky News investigation has discovered. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/news.sky.com/story/amp/warning-as-hundreds-of-jailed-terrorists-back-on-uk-streets-10639848 There are 15,000 people on the terrorist watch list in France alone. Wouldn't you agree that they are much more likely to be caught crossing between countries that have border controls than those with no border controls? 75% of convicted terrorists imprisoned in the UK since 9/11 have been released. That's 418 terrorists. In Britain alone. So much for "A convicted terrorist would probably be serving a prisons sentence and not able to freely move." " Well someone serving a prison sentence isn't able to move. I thought it was well understood that people are released at the end of their sentences and that I didn't need to point that out. But yes, after you finish your sentence, you are usually released from prison. If you don't think that people should be released after their sentence is up, then I suggest you campaign for a change in either the law or the sentencing guidelines. They would "get caught" crossing between countries if there were border controls, however crossing a border within Schengen, or even within the EU, or with all countries that operate visa waiver schemes is not illegal, so there were be no need to arrest them. There maybe 15,000 people on watchlists in France (I will take your word for it as you haven't provided a source), however that is a very small percentage of the population of France. Also how many of those actually have committed a criminal act? How many terrorists have been involved in attacks in France? Less than 30? Do you see how restricting the civil liberties of the tens of millions of French citizens not involved in terrorism is not really justified for 30ish terrorists. I would posit that there are probably more paedophiles in France than terrorists, yet they dont get the same resources directed at stopping them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And according to a government report, 56% of convicted terrorists receive sentences of less than 5 years. 75% less than 10 years. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/terrorism-arrests-analysis-of-charging-and-sentencing-outcomes-by-religion/terrorism-arrests-analysis-of-charging-and-sentencing-outcomes-by-religion" Thanks for posting that link, its interesting. Were you surprised that only 41% of the people arrested on terrorism charges, and 41% of those charged for terrorism charges were Muslim? I must admit that I am. Islamic terrorism is so heavily reported on that I would have thought it would account for a much higher, probably double, proportion of terrorism offences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And according to a government report, 56% of convicted terrorists receive sentences of less than 5 years. 75% less than 10 years. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/terrorism-arrests-analysis-of-charging-and-sentencing-outcomes-by-religion/terrorism-arrests-analysis-of-charging-and-sentencing-outcomes-by-religion Thanks for posting that link, its interesting. Were you surprised that only 41% of the people arrested on terrorism charges, and 41% of those charged for terrorism charges were Muslim? I must admit that I am. Islamic terrorism is so heavily reported on that I would have thought it would account for a much higher, probably double, proportion of terrorism offences. " The French watchlist? Try google. Personally, I don't care what religion terrorists are. However, I suggest you read it again. Table 3.1 will help you. 41% of Muslims arrested ended up being charged. Not 41% of all those charged were Muslim. There were 436 Muslims charged and 55 other or no religion charged. Religion for 347 people charged was not available, so it can't be said what religion, if any, they were. But even if you say that all of the unknowns were not Muslim, then Muslims make up 52% of those charged. If they were all Muslim, then it's about 93%. 4.4 % of the British population are Muslim. So 4.4% of the population of the UK accounts for somewhere between 52% and 93% of those charged with terrorism in the UK. Table 4.1 shows that Muslims make up 75% of convicted terrorists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do." I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc?" Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then?" I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. " We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. " So you think Islamic terrorism is inconsequential? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures?" Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them. "So you think we haven't stopped any then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So you think we haven't stopped any then?"Yes, our intelligence services have stopped many, but not all. No country can have 100% security 100% of the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them. "So to summaries what you're saying; There's no point having anti-terrorist controls because we can't stop even individual terrorist attacks, and Islamic terrorism is an inconsequential threat anyway. Unbelievable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So you think we haven't stopped any then?
Yes, our intelligence services have stopped many, but not all. No country can have 100% security 100% of the time. "You've just said we can't stop them, and now you're saying we can... Make your mind up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So you think we haven't stopped any then?
Yes, our intelligence services have stopped many, but not all. No country can have 100% security 100% of the time.
You've just said we can't stop them, and now you're saying we can... Make your mind up!"Well what's your answer then? Can we stop them or can't we stop them. I have said that we have stopped some and haven't stopped others, am I wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So to summaries what you're saying;
There's no point having anti-terrorist controls because we can't stop even individual terrorist attacks, and Islamic terrorism is an inconsequential threat anyway.
Unbelievable."Before you said you didn't care about the religion of the terrorist, but you seem to be pretty hung up on Islamic terrorism. If you remove the label terrorism, and I asked you to support policy A or policy B. Policy A will save 35 lives a year, and policy B will save 10,000 a year. They both cost the same, which policy would you support? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So to summaries what you're saying;
There's no point having anti-terrorist controls because we can't stop even individual terrorist attacks, and Islamic terrorism is an inconsequential threat anyway.
Unbelievable.
Before you said you didn't care about the religion of the terrorist, but you seem to be pretty hung up on Islamic terrorism.
If you remove the label terrorism, and I asked you to support policy A or policy B. Policy A will save 35 lives a year, and policy B will save 10,000 a year. They both cost the same, which policy would you support? "It's you that started talking about Islamic terrorism. It's you that says we should have less, or in some cases no, anti-terrorism controls. Even though the controls we've got in place clearly aren't robust enough, as we still have terrorism happening, (we'll never get rid of all terrorism, but how many times have we now heard 'that were on our watchlist, but we'd stopped watching them'?)- and you want to reduce those controls. And you say the problem with Islamic terrorism is inconsequential and yet just weeks ago you said "a big threat is from islamic terrorism". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So to summaries what you're saying;
There's no point having anti-terrorist controls because we can't stop even individual terrorist attacks, and Islamic terrorism is an inconsequential threat anyway.
Unbelievable."I haven't said "there's no point having anti-terrorist controls" at all. You have just made that up. I'm talking about ridiculous measures that have no benefit. Such as a no more than 100ml liquids per container. Therefore a 200ml of liquid is a major threat, but 2x100ml of liquid isn't a threat at all. That is clearly bollocks. It makes no sense. If the threat is specifically about liquids, why cant you take ice on a plane? Yet again you keep on talking specifically about Islamic terrorism, rather than all terrorism, why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CLCC how does the conviction yesterday of Italian passport holder Nadeem Muhammad yesterday fit in with this? Jailed for 18 years after Manchester airport security staff found a pipe bomb in his hand luggage as he tried to board a Ryanair flight to Italy. Can you explain again the logic behind your idea to scrap airport security in relation to this incident." I think its a very very interesting case. He was stopped at airport security, with a bomb, was questioned by the police and then released, however by this time he had missed his plane and went home. He booked another flight and flew a few days later. The police in the UK later re-examined the device, decided that it was a viable explosive device and let their counterparts in Italy know of this. The Italian police then visited him at his home, held him for questioning, released him, and let him get on another plane, to travel back to the UK as a free man, before being arrested when he arrived back in the UK. So this proves that you can walk up to airport security with a viable bomb, and still be allowed to travel as a free man on at least two planes. Is that how you think the system should work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CLCC how does the conviction yesterday of Italian passport holder Nadeem Muhammad yesterday fit in with this? Jailed for 18 years after Manchester airport security staff found a pipe bomb in his hand luggage as he tried to board a Ryanair flight to Italy. Can you explain again the logic behind your idea to scrap airport security in relation to this incident. I think its a very very interesting case. He was stopped at airport security, with a bomb, was questioned by the police and then released, however by this time he had missed his plane and went home. He booked another flight and flew a few days later. The police in the UK later re-examined the device, decided that it was a viable explosive device and let their counterparts in Italy know of this. The Italian police then visited him at his home, held him for questioning, released him, and let him get on another plane, to travel back to the UK as a free man, before being arrested when he arrived back in the UK. So this proves that you can walk up to airport security with a viable bomb, and still be allowed to travel as a free man on at least two planes. Is that how you think the system should work?" A lot of the affair was a fuck up. But he was stopped from getting a bomb aboard. Under your system he would have been able to board and use it. Is that how you think the system should work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CLCC how does the conviction yesterday of Italian passport holder Nadeem Muhammad yesterday fit in with this? Jailed for 18 years after Manchester airport security staff found a pipe bomb in his hand luggage as he tried to board a Ryanair flight to Italy. Can you explain again the logic behind your idea to scrap airport security in relation to this incident. I think its a very very interesting case. He was stopped at airport security, with a bomb, was questioned by the police and then released, however by this time he had missed his plane and went home. He booked another flight and flew a few days later. The police in the UK later re-examined the device, decided that it was a viable explosive device and let their counterparts in Italy know of this. The Italian police then visited him at his home, held him for questioning, released him, and let him get on another plane, to travel back to the UK as a free man, before being arrested when he arrived back in the UK. So this proves that you can walk up to airport security with a viable bomb, and still be allowed to travel as a free man on at least two planes. Is that how you think the system should work? A lot of the affair was a fuck up. But he was stopped from getting a bomb aboard. Under your system he would have been able to board and use it. Is that how you think the system should work?" A device that was more likely to have harmed himself than anyone else, yes. And just think how many millions and millions of passengers could have passed through much quicker and the above mentioned savings (30min saving would equate to $15bn extra in the economy per year in the US). Also the judge stated that it couldnt be established that terrorism was the motive. This guy didn't have a shoe bomb, showing how ineffective those counter measures are, nor a liquid bomb, again making a mockery of 100ml limits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A lot of the affair was a fuck up. But he was stopped from getting a bomb aboard. Under your system he would have been able to board and use it. Is that how you think the system should work? A device that was more likely to have harmed himself than anyone else, yes. And just think how many millions and millions of passengers could have passed through much quicker and the above mentioned savings (30min saving would equate to $15bn extra in the economy per year in the US). Also the judge stated that it couldnt be established that terrorism was the motive. This guy didn't have a shoe bomb, showing how ineffective those counter measures are, nor a liquid bomb, again making a mockery of 100ml limits. " They found a bomb in his luggage and prevented it getting onto the aircraft. If you can't see something so obvious, then it's pointless having a discussion about it. I'll go and argue with the guy in the park who thinks the pigeons are watching him, I'll have more success. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A lot of the affair was a fuck up. But he was stopped from getting a bomb aboard. Under your system he would have been able to board and use it. Is that how you think the system should work? A device that was more likely to have harmed himself than anyone else, yes. And just think how many millions and millions of passengers could have passed through much quicker and the above mentioned savings (30min saving would equate to $15bn extra in the economy per year in the US). Also the judge stated that it couldnt be established that terrorism was the motive. This guy didn't have a shoe bomb, showing how ineffective those counter measures are, nor a liquid bomb, again making a mockery of 100ml limits. They found a bomb in his luggage and prevented it getting onto the aircraft. If you can't see something so obvious, then it's pointless having a discussion about it. I'll go and argue with the guy in the park who thinks the pigeons are watching him, I'll have more success." No one has denied that, but at what cost? As pointed out, he was still allowed to travel on two planes after being found with a bomb, that surely must show you how ridiculous the security measures are. How many wasted passenger hours and how many billions of pounds is it worth to stop a bomb that would likely have only injured the bomber? Would more hours be lost and billions more taken out of the economy if we reduced all speed limits in the UK to 20mph? That would save a lot more lives, but I doubt you would advocate that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A lot of the affair was a fuck up. But he was stopped from getting a bomb aboard. Under your system he would have been able to board and use it. Is that how you think the system should work? A device that was more likely to have harmed himself than anyone else, yes. And just think how many millions and millions of passengers could have passed through much quicker and the above mentioned savings (30min saving would equate to $15bn extra in the economy per year in the US). Also the judge stated that it couldnt be established that terrorism was the motive. This guy didn't have a shoe bomb, showing how ineffective those counter measures are, nor a liquid bomb, again making a mockery of 100ml limits. They found a bomb in his luggage and prevented it getting onto the aircraft. If you can't see something so obvious, then it's pointless having a discussion about it. I'll go and argue with the guy in the park who thinks the pigeons are watching him, I'll have more success. No one has denied that, but at what cost? As pointed out, he was still allowed to travel on two planes after being found with a bomb, that surely must show you how ridiculous the security measures are. How many wasted passenger hours and how many billions of pounds is it worth to stop a bomb that would likely have only injured the bomber? Would more hours be lost and billions more taken out of the economy if we reduced all speed limits in the UK to 20mph? That would save a lot more lives, but I doubt you would advocate that. " He had a bomb. The bomb didn't get on board. He is now in jail for 18 years. The security measures act as a deterrent and a proven block to that bomb getting on board. Sorry, but I don't think hundreds of people being killed in airline bombings is worth your notional savings. You obviously think human lives are worth the increase in productivity from the 30 minutes saved. Luckily you are virtually alone in that opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So to summaries what you're saying;
There's no point having anti-terrorist controls because we can't stop even individual terrorist attacks, and Islamic terrorism is an inconsequential threat anyway.
Unbelievable.
I haven't said "there's no point having anti-terrorist controls" at all. You have just made that up. I'm talking about ridiculous measures that have no benefit. Such as a no more than 100ml liquids per container. Therefore a 200ml of liquid is a major threat, but 2x100ml of liquid isn't a threat at all. That is clearly bollocks. It makes no sense. If the threat is specifically about liquids, why cant you take ice on a plane?
Yet again you keep on talking specifically about Islamic terrorism, rather than all terrorism, why is that? "People have suggested ‘simple border controls’ on this thread. You have said that you don’t believe border controls work. You were asked if you think there should be open borders between the EU and all countries, and which countries specifically. You answered – “Turkey, some of the Balkans etc.”. You said, "simple border control wouldn't stop the terrorist if he didn't cross the border would it?” What kind of stupid statement is that?!!! But your statement implies that simple border controls DO help to stop terrorists from crossing borders either as a deterrent or by catching the at the border. Some do get through, yes, but how many don't? (As an aside, the UK Border Control have today announced that they stop 150 illegal immigrants from crossing into the UK EVERY DAY – that’s over 50,000 every year. – Not suggesting any of them are potential or actual terrorists, but neither can you prove that any of them aren’t). You’ve even tried to justify removing airport security in order to reduce road deaths! You then said that convicted terrorists would not be able to move freely between open borders “because they would be in prison”; which, in fact, 75% of convicted terrorists in the UK have been released from prison. You were then pointed to a source for this data. At which point YOU then turned the subject onto Islamic terrorism – YOU WERE THE FIRST TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT IT. I'd actually up to that point been talking about all terrorism, and pointed this out to you. So I've responded to your questions about it (Islamic terrorism), and pointed out that you’d got the facts from it completely wrong (it was only half a dozen figures in 1 table! - the facts are, that Muslims in the UK are c.60 times more likely to be terrorists than the rest of the UK population ). You have also spoken about the ‘big threat from Islamic terrorism” on at least one other thread; it sounds very much like you’re the one who has a thing about Muslims. And now, 160 odd posts in to this thread, you say that you are talking about the 100ml liquid rule at borders – which you have not mentioned AT ALL before. No wonder you usually stick to just asking questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A lot of the affair was a fuck up. But he was stopped from getting a bomb aboard. Under your system he would have been able to board and use it. Is that how you think the system should work? A device that was more likely to have harmed himself than anyone else, yes. And just think how many millions and millions of passengers could have passed through much quicker and the above mentioned savings (30min saving would equate to $15bn extra in the economy per year in the US). Also the judge stated that it couldnt be established that terrorism was the motive. This guy didn't have a shoe bomb, showing how ineffective those counter measures are, nor a liquid bomb, again making a mockery of 100ml limits. They found a bomb in his luggage and prevented it getting onto the aircraft. If you can't see something so obvious, then it's pointless having a discussion about it. I'll go and argue with the guy in the park who thinks the pigeons are watching him, I'll have more success. No one has denied that, but at what cost? As pointed out, he was still allowed to travel on two planes after being found with a bomb, that surely must show you how ridiculous the security measures are. How many wasted passenger hours and how many billions of pounds is it worth to stop a bomb that would likely have only injured the bomber? Would more hours be lost and billions more taken out of the economy if we reduced all speed limits in the UK to 20mph? That would save a lot more lives, but I doubt you would advocate that. He had a bomb. The bomb didn't get on board. He is now in jail for 18 years. The security measures act as a deterrent and a proven block to that bomb getting on board. Sorry, but I don't think hundreds of people being killed in airline bombings is worth your notional savings. You obviously think human lives are worth the increase in productivity from the 30 minutes saved. Luckily you are virtually alone in that opinion." You believe that a speed limit of 70 mph is worth it even though that results in many many more deaths, just for some increased productivity over a speed limit of 20 mph, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So to put that in further context for you, Just over 1 person per 1 Million non-Muslims in the UK are convicted terrorists. 60 people per 1 Million UK Muslims are convicted terrorists. So Muslims are 60 times more likely to be convicted terrorists than non-Muslims. But again, I don't care what religion a terrorist is. You obviously do. I don't care what religion they are, one terrorist is as bad as the next. So if the rates of terrorism are one in a million for non-muslims, why do you think we need so much anti-terrorism security, policing, equipment, legislation etc? Don't you think that Islamic terrorism is anything to be worried about then? I think that we should look at it proportionally. Terrorism is exceptionally rare. The chances that anyone in the UK will be killed by terrorism of any kind, Islamic or not, is very very very tiny. We spend a disproportionately high amount on defending against terrorism, rather than other policing issues such as r@pe and sexual assault for example. Or against reducing public health crises that effect vastly more people. But at the end of the day it's all politics. There is only so much cake and we would all slice it in different ways if it were up to us. We need the controls in place to help stop individual terrorists, or small cells of terrorists, or don't you think we can stop them? Or do you think we'd be just as effective at stopping them with no border controls, no baggage checks, no passport controls, and less anti-terrorism measures? Well as we have had terrorist attacks, the obvious answer is no, we can't stop them.
So to summaries what you're saying;
There's no point having anti-terrorist controls because we can't stop even individual terrorist attacks, and Islamic terrorism is an inconsequential threat anyway.
Unbelievable.
I haven't said "there's no point having anti-terrorist controls" at all. You have just made that up. I'm talking about ridiculous measures that have no benefit. Such as a no more than 100ml liquids per container. Therefore a 200ml of liquid is a major threat, but 2x100ml of liquid isn't a threat at all. That is clearly bollocks. It makes no sense. If the threat is specifically about liquids, why cant you take ice on a plane?
Yet again you keep on talking specifically about Islamic terrorism, rather than all terrorism, why is that?
People have suggested ‘simple border controls’ on this thread.
You have said that you don’t believe border controls work.
You were asked if you think there should be open borders between the EU and all countries, and which countries specifically.
You answered – “Turkey, some of the Balkans etc.”.
You said, "simple border control wouldn't stop the terrorist if he didn't cross the border would it?”
What kind of stupid statement is that?!!!
But your statement implies that simple border controls DO help to stop terrorists from crossing borders either as a deterrent or by catching the at the border. Some do get through, yes, but how many don't?
(As an aside, the UK Border Control have today announced that they stop 150 illegal immigrants from crossing into the UK EVERY DAY – that’s over 50,000 every year. – Not suggesting any of them are potential or actual terrorists, but neither can you prove that any of them aren’t).
You’ve even tried to justify removing airport security in order to reduce road deaths!
You then said that convicted terrorists would not be able to move freely between open borders “because they would be in prison”; which, in fact, 75% of convicted terrorists in the UK have been released from prison.
You were then pointed to a source for this data. At which point YOU then turned the subject onto Islamic terrorism – YOU WERE THE FIRST TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT IT. I'd actually up to that point been talking about all terrorism, and pointed this out to you. So I've responded to your questions about it (Islamic terrorism), and pointed out that you’d got the facts from it completely wrong (it was only half a dozen figures in 1 table! - the facts are, that Muslims in the UK are c.60 times more likely to be terrorists than the rest of the UK population ).
You have also spoken about the ‘big threat from Islamic terrorism” on at least one other thread; it sounds very much like you’re the one who has a thing about Muslims.
And now, 160 odd posts in to this thread, you say that you are talking about the 100ml liquid rule at borders – which you have not mentioned AT ALL before.
No wonder you usually stick to just asking questions.
"You are the one who provided data that was specifically about the religion of terrorists, and have repeatedly mentioned "Islamic terrorism" rather than terrorism in general. You may have been confused about what I was talking about, because you didn't read any of the research that I suggested, or understand the topic at hand, security theatre. You were obviously unaware about people being released from prison after the end of their sentence, however it is a practice observed all over the world. With regards to how that impacts on freedom of movement though, people can be expelled from a member state on the grounds of public security, which could very easily apply to people convicted of terrorism. The 7/7 bombers didn't cross any international border, neither did Khalid Masood when he attacked on Westminster bridge and the palace of Westminster. Therefore it stands and is self evident, that border security does not help when an individual doesn't cross a border. No level of border control, or airport checks would have prevented those attacks. Adding security theatre measures such as the liquid bans, by definition, does not increase security, it mearly projects the illusion of security. However, that illusion has real world implications, such as increased road accidents, and less money to spend in other areas, for example on GCHQ or on the Security Service (MI5). You may be taken in by security theatre, and feel safe with the illusion of security, however I can see through it, and see the dangers that it creates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He had a bomb. The bomb didn't get on board. He is now in jail for 18 years. The security measures act as a deterrent and a proven block to that bomb getting on board. Sorry, but I don't think hundreds of people being killed in airline bombings is worth your notional savings. You obviously think human lives are worth the increase in productivity from the 30 minutes saved. Luckily you are virtually alone in that opinion. You believe that a speed limit of 70 mph is worth it even though that results in many many more deaths, just for some increased productivity over a speed limit of 20 mph, right? " Scrapping airline security is fucking stupid. It takes 30 minutes. If you want to save 30 minutes at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives, I despair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He had a bomb. The bomb didn't get on board. He is now in jail for 18 years. The security measures act as a deterrent and a proven block to that bomb getting on board. Sorry, but I don't think hundreds of people being killed in airline bombings is worth your notional savings. You obviously think human lives are worth the increase in productivity from the 30 minutes saved. Luckily you are virtually alone in that opinion. You believe that a speed limit of 70 mph is worth it even though that results in many many more deaths, just for some increased productivity over a speed limit of 20 mph, right? " Scrapping airline security is fucking stupid. It takes 30 minutes. If you want to save 30 minutes at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives, I despair." Where is your evidence that it would cost hundreds of thousands of lives? If you provide it, I will actually read it. You however refused to read the evidence that I have provided that proves that the security measures put in place after 9/11 have cost lives, yet you want to keep it, knowing that it is killing people! That is crazy. You have also refused to even contemplate other scenarios in which you are happy for people to die, so you can get somewhere quicker. Maybe you are happy to wait once or twice a year when getting on a plane, but are not so happy to wait everyday in the car. UK road deaths 2015 were 1,732 and 22,137 seriously injured. UK terrorist deaths 2015 were 0 (zero) and only 1 seriously injured. No borders crossed, no bombs, no liquid, nothing in his shoe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
