hypochondriac

@sadoldgit

Do you speak with a measure of itk? Rohl I hope.

My mates were at the game and went to the saints bar at half time never to return. I think more people will opt out of this season.

How is this a good thing?

It's in the legislation. You can be prosecuted for praying in your home.

Agreed. Also, not sure if you saw but CNN followed German police around to go and arrest people for writing something offensive on social media. With increasing amount of these types of activities being criminalosed, the direction of travel is one towards greater clampdowns and more time wasted intimidating non criminals.

Being a nation 99% built on immigration doesn't then mean that you now are obligated to have a terrible immigration policy.

No one has yet been prosecuted. The suggestion was that you could be prosecuted if someone heard you praying and was intimidated by it.

I think they should speak a passable level of English for a start. Any hate preachers who aren't British citizens should potentially face investigation with a view to deportation. Anyone who receives a custodial sentence should lose their right to stay here. Anyone who is unable to support themselves financially should not be able to stay and no one who isn't a British citizen should be able to claim anything but the most basic of benefits. Having said that, individuals who respect the laws and culture and are a net benefit to our society should be very welcome regardless of their colour or nationality. No policy is perfect by any means and that won't stop some abuse of the system but it will be much improved from what it is now.

Like I said, I think there's a case to create more safe and legal routes. Priority should be ensuring that anyone coming in is respectful of our existing culture and has necessary skills that we actually need and will end up being a net benefit to our country.

We don't have capacity to take in the entire world. We should absolutely be selective about who we allow to come here.

I'd allow people to apply from abroad as many already can. Bottom line is if you come in illegally you need to be booted out.

Right which is why we have legal schemes to apply through and why there is a reasonable argument for allowing sensible amounts in via that route.

There was a specific scheme set up to allow them to come here legally. They didn't just arrive in a safe country and then cross over to the UK in a dinghy because they preferred being in a different safe country. In your scenario, I would be in an emergency situation in France and there should be an option to apply to go to Italy through legal means. What I wouldn't be doing is trying to smuggle myself into Italy because I fancied living with some Italians I know.

What part of "I think there's a case for a more liberal legal immigration policy" don't you understand? And I've never listened to Katie Hopkins in my life, that's your lookout. Ukrainian refugees fleeing war have been allowed to come here and I fully support that. Kindertransport children did not come here illegally did they dummy.

So if you are unlucky enough to be a refugee you can just break into any country you choose at any time in perpetuity? No chance.

You are a refugee up to the point that you reach the first safe country. Once you're in the safe country and you subsequently make a choice to illegally cross into another country because you prefer the conditions in the country you're no longer a refugee fleeing war are you.

It's a difficult one because whilst I agree that in certain circumstances like the one you describe I could support abortion, I'm also equally appaled by the way that certain people live their lives without consequence and use abortion as a form of birth control. I'm decidedly uneasy about supporting a lifestyle like that

He could be there for three weeks, I still wouldn't agree with prosecuting someone for standing silently with their head bowed. There's nothing intimidating about someone standing silently and no one would have been aware of his presence there if he hadn't alerted people beforehand to his presence in order to test the law. The argument against abortion is that killing the unborn baby is ignoring the rights of the foetus and their right to exist. I'm not saying I agree with that but that's what is believed. Besides, there isn't an outright abortion ban is there? I thought they'd left it to the individual states to sort their own laws on it which arguably is providing a greater degree of freedom than a blanket ban.

Right I understand the context of the Christian preacher and why he was prosecuted. He was essentially prosecuted though for standing in the buffer zone with his head bowed which I still disagree with even if I think the blokes a weirdo and shouldn't be doing it. I also don't think there should be badly drafted laws that appear to suggest that praying in your own home could potentially be criminalised even if that law is not enforced. The argument about abortion isn't a free speech one is it. Their argument would be about the rights of the foetus and about ending a life and clearly there's strong views on both sides of that but it's not a free speech argument.

I don't see why it is controversial to say that we should be as tough as possible towards anyone entering this country illegally, whether they are fleeing war or not. Personally I'd deport all of them without question and then possibly look at a more compassionate legal migration policy. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that we could take a decent amount of legal migrants who want to contribute to society and respect our existing culture whilst having no truck whatsoever with anyone who breaks the law and comes illegally. If you come here illegally and you're discovered then you're removed end of story.

Right. You can't blame the individual for wanting to try to cheat the system and get to the country they prefer but that doesn't mean they should be treated differently or not labelled as an economic migrant if they've chosen to reject a number of safe countries prior to arriving at the one they prefer. They have a choice in that scenario and have chosen to break the law and go to the country they fancy.

Have you seen the state of our armed forces? Talking heads said yesterday it would be physically impossible for us to have boots on the ground in Ukraine as we simply don't have the numbers. The resources and manufacturing required for us to continue to fight the war is significant and would last for a number of years.

Christ...

The citizens of Europe aren't going to start impoversihing themselves to try to out produce Iran and North Korea in order to lengthen a war that nobody really wants.