drat01 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 The Tory party is seemingly full of quite objectionable people, determined to persist with the North / South divide Perfect example here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723 Fracking should be carried out in the North East of England, where there are large, "desolate" areas, a former energy secretary has said .............. should also be pointed out it was the view of one Tory Peer and not the whole party , indeed Downing street distanced themselves from it ... but using your logic that one man brands a party a disgrace does that make the Labour party the Anti Semitic party after the views of Nazir Ahemd Tory party leading member (related to the Chancellor) perpetuates the North / South divide with some scandalous comments (as pointed out ignoring the south having similar resources) - North - South divide being a major problem for this country especially with a PM who claims we are "all in this together" You go into "ahh but Labour " auto reply and mention a disgraced Labour member, relating to a story that has nothing to do with either of the two subjects - North / South and Fracking uproar. At least debate the subjects please, it's now quite tiresome how you are deflecting again from any of the subjects being discussed 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 The Tory party is seemingly full of quite objectionable people, determined to persist with the North / South divide Perfect example here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723 should also be pointed out it was the view of one Tory Peer and not the whole party , indeed Downing street distanced themselves from it ... but using your logic that one man brands a party a disgrace does that make the Labour party the Anti Semitic party after the views of Nazir Ahemd Tory party leading member (related to the Chancellor) perpetuates the North / South divide with some scandalous comments (as pointed out ignoring the south having similar resources) - North - South divide being a major problem for this country especially with a PM who claims we are "all in this together" You go into "ahh but Labour " auto reply and mention a disgraced Labour member, relating to a story that has nothing to do with either of the two subjects - North / South and Fracking uproar. At least debate the subjects please, it's now quite tiresome how you are deflecting again from any of the subjects being discussed it's quite tiresome how you try and deflect everything with ahhhhhhhh but .. so stop your whining fact is it ISNT govt policy , it's the view of one man ..juts like Nazir was the view of one man .. so the 2 events were linked ..it's called giving an example .. in courts of law I believe they cite precedent do they not ? , the judge doesn't then turn around and say , I sentence you to 30 days contempt of court for "ahhh but " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Graphs which use something other than zero as the base are misleading. Nevertheless, there's no mistaking the long-term trend line here, even if it should be flatter than presented. Hopefully they will one day be just a horrible chapter in a history book. If you genuinely believe that you're far more naive than I've given you credit for. Like them or no they have been around for the last 300 years and there will always be a political party to represent the interests of the privileged and those that aspire to join them. That's why I said hopefully, it's something I would hope would happen, I didn't say it will happen. Completely over your head of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Tony - sorry but how the heck are Nazir's "offences" linked to the comments that this leading Tory made? I appreciate that the North South divide is something you enjoy and is something that seemingly leading Tory members are happy to continue, but attempts to link Nazir as a similar subject are quite funny really, especially when it's obvious that it's just yet another attempt to deflect any discussion about the subject in hand. That scraping sound you can hear is no longer the bottom of the barrel re your arguments, its actually below gone through that and is now the pavement. Interestingly it seems that Gideon's dad-in-law has now had to apologise for his crass comments. Note: At least if you are going to say a "ahh but Labour ...." tyoe comment it should have a) some relevance be as some sort of real justification and you should explain why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 there was no " probably" about it as I recall you were fairly adamant he had done ... I even recall posting countless times about why not wait and see before everyone condemns him but was in a minority of one because twitter told you all he did it and referred to the dozens of witnesses (oops ) .. the evidence now suggests he possibly didn't do it .. not that anyone cares now of course Ah, recollection! What I actually said is a little different. This, for example. And no, the story's not based on Twitter. That was just an early expression of it. no that was way after the event plebgate took place in Sept and the pages around 311 are more reflective of the mood and lead nicely into people jumping to false conclusions on Osborne and his first class ticket and "do you know who I am " that never was (you quote that on page 326 btw ) ...also reported on twitter ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 there was no " probably" about it as I recall you were fairly adamant he had done ... I even recall posting countless times about why not wait and see before everyone condemns him but was in a minority of one because twitter told you all he did it and referred to the dozens of witnesses (oops ) .. the evidence now suggests he possibly didn't do it .. not that anyone cares now of course Ah, recollection! What I actually said is a little different. This, for example. And no, the story's not based on Twitter. That was just an early expression of it. no that was way after the event plebgate took place in Sept and the pages around 311 are more reflective of the mood and lead nicely into people jumping to false conclusions on Osborne and his first class ticket and "do you know who I am " that never was (you quote that on page 326 btw ) ...also reported on twitter ... The twitter thing I can see is on 309, simply referring to the police log being published the next day. You seem to think people were drawing their information from Twitter, but in fact it seems to be from the Telegraph. The mood was one of general contempt at Mitchell, as far as I can see. And I'm not sure what you think it is he possibly didn't do. He's always admitted swearing at the police (an arrestable offence) and hasn't denied threatening them with further action. Do you mean only the word "pleb", or is there more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) When you read a witness account of other things, do you disbelieve it unless they have followed methodology designed for conducting statistically valid samples for publication in professional journals? Or is it just this case? Sorry Peter, but I don't believe he stood there long enough to form an accurate picture of who they were stopping. Also, the other witness says "foreign people". These two eye witness accounts contradict each other. Wouldn't it be foreign people who immigration officers need to target anyway? Besides, you originally said they were stopping black people (!?). Where's the evidence of that? I guess you meant 'non whites'. So, therefore, do you only usually believe the eye witness account that suits you or is it just this case? Edited July 30, 2013 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 When you read a witness account of other things, do you disbelieve it unless they have followed methodology designed for conducting statistically valid samples for publication in professional journals? Or is it just this case? Sorry Peter, but I don't believe he stood there long enough to form an accurate picture of who they were stopping. Also, the other witness says "foreign people". These two eye witness accounts contradict each other. Wouldn't it be foreign people who immigration officers need to target anyway? Besides, you originally said they were stopping black people (!?). Where's the evidence of that? I guess you meant 'non whites'. So, therefore, do you only usually believe the eye witness account that suits you or is it just this case? The article Peter quotes also states that a Brazilain, a Ukranian and an Indian person had been arrested. It's quite likely that none of them were 'black'. On a wider point, how exactly should the UK Border Agency do their job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 On a wider point, how exactly should the UK Border Agency do their job? As a starting point, they should do so within, and not beyond, their legal powers. Before seeking to question someone, an IO will need to have information in his possession which suggests that the person may be of immigration interest (that is there are doubts about that person’s leave status). Under these circumstances the IO may lawfully seek to stop that person with a view to asking them consensual questions about their identity and leave status away from the point of entry to the UK and after the date when that person first entered the UK . The information in the IO’s possession should be sufficient to constitute a reasonable suspicion that that particular person may be an immigration offender. Any IO stopping and questioning an individual will need to be in a position to justify the reasons why they considered that threshold to be satisfied in that particular case. In other words, based on specific intelligence, not by random stop and searches. The descriptions suggest random, not targetted (if you knew who you were looking for, you'd be unlikely to know which station they used but not where they live or work). This operation appears to conflict with Home Office guidance and the law. I'll be interested to see if anyone challenges this, so we can find out one way or the other. Pretty clearly, it's an operation carried out for political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) How can you possibly say that. If I heard a conversation at a station on the way to work, where perhaps someone was offering cash in hand for work, Or heard a conversation between groups of people talking about such things and passed that info on. Well wouldn't that be the first place to start. If you think about it, public places would be where info is first heard or seen. The work or home would be the last place I would have thought Edited July 30, 2013 by colhint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 When you read a witness account of other things, do you disbelieve it unless they have followed methodology designed for conducting statistically valid samples for publication in professional journals? Or is it just this case? Sorry Peter, but I don't believe he stood there long enough to form an accurate picture of who they were stopping. Also, the other witness says "foreign people". These two eye witness accounts contradict each other. Wouldn't it be foreign people who immigration officers need to target anyway? Besides, you originally said they were stopping black people (!?). Where's the evidence of that? I guess you meant 'non whites'. So, therefore, do you only usually believe the eye witness account that suits you or is it just this case? Both gave their view on who they saw being stopped. They don't pretend to have seen the operation from start to finish - pretty obviously, they were commenting on what they individually saw, over presumably a short time, as you pointed out earlier. No, they don't contradict each other, for the same reason. I'm sure they stopped some white people as well. If they hadn't, their actions would be so clearly contrary to both the law and a later section in the guidance I referenced above that they would be open to immediate disciplinary action, and the agency to legal challenge. But is it likely that most of the people stopped were black? Well, 30 years' experience of how stop and search powers actually possessed by the police have been used, tend to make anyone of a rational cast of mind think that there will be a similar chance of black people being disproportionately stopped. Against that, you might want to point out that Brent is the borough with (I think) the highest black population in London, so of course there will be a lot of black people stopped. Would you go with that argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 The Tory party is seemingly full of quite objectionable people, determined to persist with the North / South divide Perfect example here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723 Fracking should be carried out in the North East of England, where there are large, "desolate" areas, a former energy secretary has said .............. Edit: Lord Howell is the father in law of Gideon - 'nuff sai Present or past the Tories really are a revolting mob aren't they. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 "Street operations are UKBA led operations that target immigration offenders where intelligence has shown that they are gathered at specific locations at certain times. In every case, UKBA will apply a set of information and prepare an intelligence profile justifying their involvement in such an operation and the decision to base themselves at a particular location. " "Reasonable suspicion that an individual may be an immigration offender could arise in numerous ways but an example might be where an individual attempts to avoid passing through or near a group of IOs who are clearly visible, wearing branded UKBA clothing, at a location which has been targeted based on intelligence suggesting that there is a high likelihood that immigration offenders will be found there. This behaviour could not necessarily be considered to be linked to, for example, evading payment of the train fare if IOs are wearing vests or other items of work wear which clearly show which agency they belong to. In such circumstances the IO could legitimately stop the individual and ask consensual questions based on a reasonable suspicion that that person is an immigration offender. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 I'm sure they stopped some white people as well. If they hadn't, their actions would be so clearly contrary to both the law and a later section in the guidance I referenced above that they would be open to immediate disciplinary action, and the agency to legal challenge. Drnnnng, wrong! "IOs should not engage with and question all persons in an attempt to demonstrate that they are undertaking these operations in a non-discriminatory manner. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 How can you possibly say that. If I heard a conversation at a station on the way to work, where perhaps someone was offering cash in hand for work, Or heard a conversation between groups of people talking about such things and passed that info on. Well wouldn't that be the first place to start. If you think about it, public places would be where info is first heard or seen. The work or home would be the last place I would have thought What I'm saying is that the law requires them to have intelligence about individuals before stopping them - see the guidance I quoted. It doesn't mean they can hang around at stations and stop people because they have been told that someone overheard a conversation there last week. That's pre-1990 East Germany you're thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 I'm sure they stopped some white people as well. If they hadn't, their actions would be so clearly contrary to both the law and a later section in the guidance I referenced above that they would be open to immediate disciplinary action, and the agency to legal challenge. Drnnnng, wrong! "IOs should not engage with and question all persons in an attempt to demonstrate that they are undertaking these operations in a non-discriminatory manner. " If you think this contradicts the point I made, read again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 well what intelligence would you expect people to pass on, Mr X from Acacia avenue works at jones brothers and catches the 7.52. I would honestly think that its more likely that a few people have called the Border control with similar tales about a public place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 "Street operations are UKBA led operations that target immigration offenders where intelligence has shown that they are gathered at specific locations at certain times. In every case, UKBA will apply a set of information and prepare an intelligence profile justifying their involvement in such an operation and the decision to base themselves at a particular location. " "Reasonable suspicion that an individual may be an immigration offender could arise in numerous ways but an example might be where an individual attempts to avoid passing through or near a group of IOs who are clearly visible, wearing branded UKBA clothing, at a location which has been targeted based on intelligence suggesting that there is a high likelihood that immigration offenders will be found there. This behaviour could not necessarily be considered to be linked to, for example, evading payment of the train fare if IOs are wearing vests or other items of work wear which clearly show which agency they belong to. In such circumstances the IO could legitimately stop the individual and ask consensual questions based on a reasonable suspicion that that person is an immigration offender. " See highlighting. What is a specific location? A station? Brent? London? What is a "reasonable suspicion that an individual may be an immigration offender" when you're in a station exit and stopping people as they pass by? These are points which I hope a legal challenge will explore, because setting up blocks and searching people at random is not what the guidance authorises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 well what intelligence would you expect people to pass on, Mr X from Acacia avenue works at jones brothers and catches the 7.52. I would honestly think that its more likely that a few people have called the Border control with similar tales about a public place I think people are likely to pass on things like "xxx restaurant employs illegal immigrants and houses them in a shed out the back". Don't you? That would pass the test of being intelligence-led, and a specific location. And if someone phoned UKBA and said "there's a lot of dodgy people pass through Kensal Green station of a morning. Illegals, if you ask me", then I hope the service would put the phone down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Reasonable suspicion that an individual may be an immigration offender could arise in numerous ways but an example might be where an individual attempts to avoid passing through or near a group of IOs who are clearly visible, wearing branded UKBA clothing, at a location which has been targeted based on intelligence suggesting that there is a high likelihood that immigration offenders will be found there.Sounds rather like the sus law....ask consensual questions...That's doublespeak, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts