Welcome to Sky Blues Talk!

You're currently viewing the forum as a guest. Join thousands of fellow Coventry City fans today!

Register Log in

Immigration and Asylum (2 Viewers)

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
It's relevant because we are constantly seeing people let off with a slap on the wrist for serious offences, when in comparison hurty words on the internet are heavily punished. That's not a sign of a normal functioning country.

You have got a crystal clear comparison in this case of words online versus a physical action. How can they be the same? 100+ people illegal enter the country. They are housed and given a free ticket for life, but the one person who tries to stop them has bail denied, yet 5 people arrested for terrorist offences are granted it.

Most normal people are looking at this and thinking something is very off with the way our country is being operated.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that, I'm not advocating for him to receive lesser sentences, I'd punish more and for longer, but her ridiculous case for crime and sentence that was stupidly harsh, bears no reasoning on any case before or after. It's isolated and was wrong, I'd have thought she'd want buried in the past if it wasn't for her newfound celebrity from it, but each case should be on its own merits and nothing to do with what she did or didnt get.
 
rob9872 said:
I agree with all of that, I'm not advocating for him to receive lesser sentences, I'd punish more and for longer, but her ridiculous case for crime and sentence that was stupidly harsh, bears no reasoning on any case before or after. It's isolated and was wrong, I'd have thought she'd want buried in the past if it wasn't for her newfound celebrity from it, but each case should be on its own merits and nothing to do with what she did or didnt get.
Click to expand...
A like for the general principle.

It's worth noting her sentence was in context, along with those for the riots in Birmingham back in... 2012? 2013? Civil disorder will always be cracked down on harshly so it doesn't spiral, as will incitement to civil disorder at such times.

I mean I think I'm with you that it's a bit stupid defending one against the other really, as they can both be arses!
 
LarryGrayson said:
A like for the general principle.

It's worth noting her sentence was in context, along with those for the riots in Birmingham back in... 2012? 2013? Civil disorder will always be cracked down on harshly so it doesn't spiral, as will incitement to civil disorder at such times.

I mean I think I'm with you that it's a bit stupid defending one against the other really, as they can both be arses!
Click to expand...
In context with others or not, I'll never be convinced that anything is that bad for a one off post of a few words being worth any time in jail at all, let alone what she received. It was stupid and ill thought, but I very much doubt anyone saw her tweet and thought yeah cracking idea, I'm off to find some fuel to carry it out. If it was systematic and targeted as some do, then I understand the process (after warning), but as a stand alone crime, with low prison spaces and limited resources, it shouldn't have even been investigated and certainly not prosecuted. Even then, community service would have made more sense. However, I do stand by my previous post that the comparisons with completely unrelated crimes are pointless and cheap point scoring.
 
rob9872 said:
I agree with all of that, I'm not advocating for him to receive lesser sentences, I'd punish more and for longer, but her ridiculous case for crime and sentence that was stupidly harsh, bears no reasoning on any case before or after. It's isolated and was wrong, I'd have thought she'd want buried in the past if it wasn't for her newfound celebrity from it, but each case should be on its own merits and nothing to do with what she did or didnt get.
Click to expand...

I hear you, it has been done to death. I just think at this point our justice system is absolutely fucked.
 
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
It's relevant because we are constantly seeing people let off with a slap on the wrist for serious offences, when in comparison hurty words on the internet are heavily punished. That's not a sign of a normal functioning country.

You have got a crystal clear comparison in this case of words online versus a physical action. How can they be the same? 100+ people illegal enter the country. They are housed and given a free ticket for life, but the one person who tries to stop them has bail denied, yet 5 people arrested for terrorist offences are granted it.

Most normal people are looking at this and thinking something is very off with the way our country is being operated.
Click to expand...
Poor example to make the point that Farage and tice and others are trying to make that white people feel the full force of the law and non white people get lenient sentences

How does what you’ve said

It’s completely false to say people on boats are entering the country illegally. Unless you are a lawyer and can tell us all

They are not given a free ticket for life

Been consistent that although there has to be a line around incitement to criminal action I’m deeply uncomfortable with criminalising what people say rather than what they do

Most of the lenient sentences are in line with the sentencing guidelines and these change and the best way to change them is sensibly and over time not reacting to this and that

Our criminal justice system has been copied the world over for good reason and its struggling trying to be all things to all people rather than just follow rules on sentences within the remit they have as judges

The alternative is a complicit judiciary and we should fear that. I know that’s what people feel Starmer did with the riots but we really can’t have riots up and down the country and it does require a firmer approach

We cannot go from a society that believes in prison as punishment, society’s safety and rehabilitation to one that believes prison should be just about punishment and societys safety.

Why are we imprisoning so many people and is it improving society?
 
Sky Blue Pete said:
Poor example to make the point that Farage and tice and others are trying to make that white people feel the full force of the law and non white people get lenient sentences

How does what you’ve said

It’s completely false to say people on boats are entering the country illegally. Unless you are a lawyer and can tell us all

They are not given a free ticket for life

Been consistent that although there has to be a line around incitement to criminal action I’m deeply uncomfortable with criminalising what people say rather than what they do

Most of the lenient sentences are in line with the sentencing guidelines and these change and the best way to change them is sensibly and over time not reacting to this and that

Our criminal justice system has been copied the world over for good reason and its struggling trying to be all things to all people rather than just follow rules on sentences within the remit they have as judges

The alternative is a complicit judiciary and we should fear that. I know that’s what people feel Starmer did with the riots but we really can’t have riots up and down the country and it does require a firmer approach

We cannot go from a society that believes in prison as punishment, society’s safety and rehabilitation to one that believes prison should be just about punishment and societys safety.

Why are we imprisoning so many people and is it improving society?
Click to expand...

I mean, this is all just babbling nonsense. The majority of this doesn't make any sense, and you are also factually incorrect at multiple points.
 
Sky Blue Pete said:
It’s completely false to say people on boats are entering the country illegally. Unless you are a lawyer and can tell us all
Click to expand...
The law has nuance, which a phrase like completely false doesn’t.

It is definitely illegal for a non-British citizen to enter the UK without a valid visa or other permission, the one exception to which is if they have a valid claim for asylum, which they must make at the earliest possible moment after entry. Which many/most do, at which point the action is shifted to what might be termed a grey zone.

However, knowingly making a false claim for asylum is itself illegal, as is presenting inaccurate information during that claim. And the terms for asylum are themselves quite narrowly defined.

There are a number of reasons why some of the countries from which people originate are unlikely to qualify, however the point that applies to virtually every channel crossing is that asylum will not be granted where the individual “spent time in a safe country where it would have been reasonable to ask for protection (sic asylum) but chose not to do so”. Which most would argue applies to France and most of the countries passed through en route.

So, there is an interesting moot to be had as to whether the mere claiming of asylum on entry shifts the action, at least temporarily, from illegal to legal or whether the fact that (a) the terms of asylum are unlikely to be met and known to be so by the migrant and/or (b) the failure to previously ask for the protection of asylum means that the action remains illegal throughout.

Whichever view is taken, an argument that defines a view that crossings, or ar least the majority of the them, should be deemed illegal is “completely” false seems to be simplistic.

That’s my understanding though happy to be educated further.
 
Last edited:
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
It's relevant because we are constantly seeing people let off with a slap on the wrist for serious offences, when in comparison hurty words on the internet are heavily punished. That's not a sign of a normal functioning country.

You have got a crystal clear comparison in this case of words online versus a physical action. How can they be the same? 100+ people illegal enter the country. They are housed and given a free ticket for life, but the one person who tries to stop them has bail denied, yet 5 people arrested for terrorist offences are granted it.

Most normal people are looking at this and thinking something is very off with the way our country is being operated.
Click to expand...
Hurty words? She admitted and plead guilty to inciting racial hatred. She deserved what she got, people think they can say what they want, when they want online with zero consequences, and her tweet was viewed by 300k people. Her sentence was on the backdrop of the violence and disorder what happened at the time, of which no doubt her tweet added fuel to the fire to some of those people who were involved.
 

Attachments

  • GrnpKguXUAASOU5.webp
    GrnpKguXUAASOU5.webp
    51.1 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Nonamesonshirts said:
The law has nuance, which a phrase like completely false doesn’t.

It is definitely illegal for a non-British citizen to enter the UK without a valid visa or other permission, the one exception to which is if they have a valid claim for asylum, which they must make at the earliest possible moment after entry. Which many/most do, at which point the action is shifted to what might be termed a grey zone.

However, knowingly making a false claim for asylum is itself illegal, as is presenting inaccurate information during that claim. And the terms for asylum are themselves quite narrowly defined.

There are a number of reasons why some of the countries from which people originate are unlikely to qualify, however the point that applies to virtually every channel crossing is that asylum will not be granted where the individual “spent time in a safe country where it would have been reasonable to ask for protection (sic asylum) but chose not to do so”. Which most would argue applies to France and most of the countries passed through en route.

So, there is an interesting moot to be had as to whether the mere claiming of asylum on entry shifts the action, at least temporarily, from illegal to legal or whether the fact that (a) the terms of asylum are unlikely to be met and known to be so by the migrant and/or (b) the failure to previously ask for the protection of asylum means that the action remains illegal throughout.

Whichever view is taken, an argument that defines a view that crossings, or ar least the majority of the them, should be deemed illegal is “completely” false seems to be simplistic.

That’s my understanding though happy to be educated further.
Click to expand...
Why don’t we treat it as such?
To be fair though it’s only a few hundred thousand people
 
stupot07 said:
They should and they do. It's not about being a pussy or not.
Click to expand...

If you think a person should go to prison for making a silly tweet then you are pussy, and there's really nothing else to talk about. The fact her sentence is the only thing you picked up from the previous post exchange about a broader topic is also very telling.
 
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
If you think a person should go to prison for making a silly tweet then you are pussy, and there's really nothing else to talk about. The fact her sentence is the only thing you picked up from the previous post exchange about a broader topic is also very telling.
Click to expand...
its a sily tweet until it incites violence.
 
Nonamesonshirts said:
asylum will not be granted where the individual “spent time in a safe country where it would have been reasonable to ask for protection (sic asylum) but chose not to do so”
Click to expand...
Firstly (and apologies for this sounding patronising!) thankyou for a bit of normality in this thread! I don't necessarily agree with all you say but have a like for not dehumanising people.

Anyway, you are in many ways correct in what you say, although to muddy the waters even more, the quote above is a UK specific bit that is performative rather than actionable, as it's not the position of the UN or international law. In fact returning people was made even harder after Brexit when our return agreements ended up null and void as a result...

International law has no requirement for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country. It also recognises ways into a country to claim asylum aren't necessarily as simple as buying a ticket for a scheduled flight. It is however fair to say that most people do indeed claim asylum at countries they come to before the UK. We end up taking less than many,

What is also fair to say is that instead of the performative anger about small boats, responsible politicians wishing to reduce illegal immigrants would be heading for car washes, food delivery services, taxi drivers etc. As it happens we're actually seeing some action in those areas for the first time in years. You could argue it suits people and politicians to turn a blind eye if they're getting cheap delivery on their pizza and a nice clean car for a tenner...
 
Last edited:
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
If you think a person should go to prison for making a silly tweet then you are pussy, and there's really nothing else to talk about. The fact her sentence is the only thing you picked up from the previous post exchange about a broader topic is also very telling.
Click to expand...
You're a "pussy". Haha fucking hell how old are you.

Yes I got your broader point, but the comparison with LC is bollocks, they are completely different offences with completely different sentencing guidelines.

Looking at the sentencing guidelines, he was found guilty:

Culpability - Cat B - Offender was reckless as to whether life was endangered

And as the fire alarm went straight off, was put out quickly, no harm to people and only £4k damage, it's likely to have fallen as:

Category 3
No or minimal physical and/or psychological harm caused
Low risk of serious physical and/or psychological harm
Low value of damage caused

The sentencing guidelines for that is either a 6 months community order or a custodial started at 1 year. He got 2 years 7 months. He didn't get special treatment however much GB news bangs on about it.

Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered

sentencingcouncil.org.uk sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Lucy Connolly is completely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
stupot07 said:
You're a "pussy". Haha fucking hell how old are you.

Yes I got your broader point, but the comparison with LC is bollocks, they are completely different offences with completely different sentencing guidelines.

Looking at the sentencing guidelines, he was found guilty:

Culpability - Cat B - Offender was reckless as to whether life was endangered

And as the fire alarm went straight off, was put out quickly, no harm to people and only £4k damage, it's likely to have fallen as:

Category 3
No or minimal physical and/or psychological harm caused
Low risk of serious physical and/or psychological harm
Low value of damage caused

The sentencing guidelines for that is either a 6 months community order or a custodial started at 1 year. He got 2 years 7 months. He didn't get special treatment however much GB news bangs on about it.

Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered

sentencingcouncil.org.uk sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Lucy Connolly is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
stupot07 said:
No his issue is you should be able to tweet any racist or abuse with impunity
Click to expand...

You think it is ok to put people in prison for tweets, that's not a flex. Whilst you've completely missed the point here as you windmill around anyway, your comments about people's age contain a serious lack of self-awareness.
 
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
You think it is ok to put people in prison for tweets, that's not a flex. Whilst you've completely missed the point here as you windmill around anyway, your comments about people's age contain a serious lack of self-awareness.
Click to expand...
Yes I do, if the content and the context of the tweet or any social media post warrants it.

I'm not the one windmilling calling people pussy's. I don't believe I have posted anything about anyone's age on this thread. My point was about you being immature calling me a pussy because you don't agree with me. You could be 13 or 83 years old, its still immature.
 
Last edited:
mmttww said:
is your issue that she should've been able to say what she did, or that she should've been able to say it online i.e. online and IRL aren't the same?
Click to expand...
She shouldn't have been able to say or tweet it, it's disgusting and for that she should be punished ... but she had zero previous convictions and it should have been community service or minimal short shock sentence. I'll never be convinced that 2.5 years in jail was the right course of action.
 
stupot07 said:
Shame on you if you think it's acceptable for people to incite racial hatred and encourage them to burn down hotels with asylum seekers in them. Just a reminder she plead guilty to inciting racial hatred.
Click to expand...
Still deeply uncomfortable anyone being imprisoned for what they say but it’s not outside of the sentencing guidelines
 
mmttww said:
is your issue that she should've been able to say what she did, or that she should've been able to say it online i.e. online and IRL aren't the same?
Click to expand...

If a woman was walking down the street and said 'burn the migrant hotels down for all I care' I would scoff and tell her to stop being silly, I wouldn't expect her to be put in prison.

Only a weak coward would think it's right, or try hide behind 'sentencing guidelines', and there's evidently some on this thread.
 
LarryGrayson said:
Firstly (and apologies for this sounding patronising!) thankyou for a bit of normality in this thread! I don't necessarily agree with all you say but have a like for not dehumanising people.

Anyway, you are in many ways correct in what you say, although to muddy the waters even more, the quote above is a UK specific bit that is performative rather than actionable, as it's not the position of the UN or international law. In fact returning people was made even harder after Brexit when our return agreements ended up null and void as a result...

International law has no requirement for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country. It also recognises ways into a country to claim asylum aren't necessarily as simple as buying a ticket for a scheduled flight. It is however fair to say that most people do indeed claim asylum at countries they come to before the UK. We end up taking less than many,

What is also fair to say is that instead of the performative anger about small boats, responsible politicians wishing to reduce illegal immigrants would be heading for car washes, food delivery services, taxi drivers etc. As it happens we're actually seeing some action in those areas for the first time in years. You could argue it suits people and politicians to turn a blind eye if they're getting cheap delivery on their pizza and a nice clean car for a tenner...
Click to expand...
I actually didn’t express a view one way or the other, more how I understood the legal position (admittedly to include Home Office interpretation).

Like many subjects political, this is a complex issue, one that when it is reduced to soundbites, from whichever side, serves only to trivialise and increase misunderstanding. I have no interest getting into debates in forums like this - if the discussion can rapidly become abusive or personal when discussing if last year’s Championship was a strong or weak competition - then I want to keep away from migration as well as wealth taxes, social security budgets, pensions and the best way to fund healthcare.

What I do think, is that good meaning people can come to opposing views on many of these subjects for very good reasons which often reflect their personal experiences and that it is not necessarily a test of character. Equally, opinions, on both sides, can sometimes primarily reflect an innate prejudice rather than the result of enquiry and reflection.

As someone born in the 60s, I perhaps have a rose coloured view of some elements of past political discourse. Of the times when there were 3 or 4 channels, when current affairs programmes lasted 50 minutes, and where each side of a debate was presented. I had and have my own strong views, but I hope I at least understood and could present the arguments against. Today, it’s the world of the echo chamber and the sound bite and the superficial and it’s dangerous for democracy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JulianDarbyFTW
    • Like
Small Wins
Replies
3
Views
217
King Dougs Quiff
King Dougs Quiff
F
    • Like
Big decisions needed before the window closes
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Skybluedogwood
S
Becksy
    • Like
My take on the Pompey implosion
Replies
17
Views
3K
Cally Fedora
C
Sky Blue Pete
    • Like
Supporters forum minutes and questions - 20th July
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Balli001
Balli001
better days
Bristol City calling for salary cap
2
Replies
66
Views
7K
Frostie
Frostie

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom