Can you provide evidence he is not a security threat?....the ones refusing entry do not have to provide proof or reason.....entry is not an entitlement.
When you get turned away from nightclubs for wearing your plaid shirt and jeans with an iron seam in the front....do you demand proof/reason from the bouncer?
im not asking them to provide proof, im asking you to provide proof.
i do demand proof, i dont just walk away like schlep.
im not asking them to provide proof, im asking you to provide proof.
i do demand proof, i dont just walk away like schlep.
Ummm why do you think I have proof? I'm just telling you it's at the govs/homeland securities discretion who they let in REGARDLESS of whether there is a threat or not.
Proof of that? you can google it....do it yourself, I'm not the British Police force... :lol:
EDIT:
So you admit to wearing plaid shirts and jeans with an iron crease in them......
Ummm why do you think I have proof? I'm just telling you it's at the govs/homeland securities discretion who they let in REGARDLESS of whether there is a threat or not.
Proof of that? you can google it....do it yourself, I'm not the British Police force... :lol:
EDIT:
So you admit to wearing plaid shirts and jeans with an iron crease in them......
oh, it sounded like you were saying he was a threat because you knew something about it
so your taking the word of an organisation who got one email?
over the berkshire police who went to see this lad, had a look round etc and decided he wasn't a threat?
im not saying he has the right to entry, but if you are banned from entry for a specific reason the reason has to hold water.
so your taking the word of an organisation who got one email?
Yes I'm taking the word of those that are the ONLY ones that get to make the decision.......no one elses opinion matters.
over the berkshire police who went to see this lad, had a look round etc and decided he wasn't a threat?
Hmmm lets see....US homeland security over Berkshire police who probably were on the way to get some tea and biscuits from the shop, on a matter about US security not Berkshire security.....
Do I really need to answer further? :lol:
im not saying he has the right to entry, but if you are banned from entry for a specific reason the reason has to hold water.
It does with those that make the decision...they really don't need to explain it to bloody foreigners.... :lol:
If your neighbor after calling your wife across the fence than then knocking on your door and calling you a dick needs an explaination why he can't come in....would you respond 'Yes sir, would you like it in word format or a notarized document?' ..or would you just shut the door.
Yes I'm taking the word of those that are the ONLY ones that get to make the decision.......no one elses opinion matters.
Hmmm lets see....US homeland security over Berkshire police who probably were on the way to get some tea and biscuits from the shop, on a matter about US security not Berkshire security.....
Do I really need to answer further? :lol:
It does with those that make the decision...they really don't need to explain it to bloody foreigners.... :lol:
If your neighbor after calling your wife across the fence than then knocking on your door and calling you a dick needs an explaination why he can't come in....would you respond 'Yes sir, would you like it in word format or a notarized document?' ..or would you just shut the door.
Again the only opinion that matters are those making the decisions....it doesn't need to hold water with anyone else..only those that get to decide...freedom is moot as he is not a US citizen.
It just seems a gross overreaction to ban a 17 year old who obviously suffered from a failure of judgement (as 17 year olds are wont to do) for his entire life. I don't dispute the right of the United States government to do it, I just think it's a gross knee-jerk overreaction to do so.
Even here, when someone arrives from the UK or elsewhere and commits an actual crime that results in jail, we only ban them generally for 5 years once they've been let out of jail.
It seems that the terrorists aren't the real enemy, the terrorists do minuscule amounts of damage in the grand scheme of things. It's government reactions that actually do the damage. "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it" - "in order to save due process and freedoms set forth originally in the Magna Carta, we have to destroy them". You just have to look at the grossly illiberal[0] Terrorism Act (and how it's already been abused many times) to see what I mean.
[0] illiberal in the traditional sense, nothing to do with the political meaning.
Yes, because that's what freedom of speech is. Obama should've just added him to his blocked sender list on hotmail.
With you on that.
Besides if he is below the age of 18 , he is considered a minor and he can't have any legal effects unless he actually harms someone physically.
Never heard of anyone taken to court for calling his Teacher or so names.
And I insist , freedom of speech , is just that. From anyone.
If you are not a citizen of a country you must shut up? (This is like Facism or communism) This is what will destroy the world slowly and the reason Army and terrorism exists in the first place.
Yes if I beleive a politician is doing wrong I should be able to tell him to his face never mind just an Email.
How so?
I mean you're no ninny, you know that we are talking about "freedom of speech" in general, and then "freedom of speech" as applied to US Citizens and formed in their Constitution.
Don't worry ... we're on the same page, and I don't really mean to call you a ninny :razz:
Comments
im not asking them to provide proof, im asking you to provide proof.
i do demand proof, i dont just walk away like schlep.
Ummm why do you think I have proof? I'm just telling you it's at the govs/homeland securities discretion who they let in REGARDLESS of whether there is a threat or not.
Proof of that? you can google it....do it yourself, I'm not the British Police force... :lol:
EDIT:
So you admit to wearing plaid shirts and jeans with an iron crease in them......
Look, We don't know the content of the email. I coulda been racist abuse or any of that kettle of fish, rather than political.
Maybe it wasn't a threat but a misinterpreted teen comment 'You da bomb'
oh, it sounded like you were saying he was a threat because you knew something about it
so your taking the word of an organisation who got one email?
over the berkshire police who went to see this lad, had a look round etc and decided he wasn't a threat?
im not saying he has the right to entry, but if you are banned from entry for a specific reason the reason has to hold water.
Yes I'm taking the word of those that are the ONLY ones that get to make the decision.......no one elses opinion matters.
Hmmm lets see....US homeland security over Berkshire police who probably were on the way to get some tea and biscuits from the shop, on a matter about US security not Berkshire security.....
Do I really need to answer further? :lol:
It does with those that make the decision...they really don't need to explain it to bloody foreigners.... :lol:
If your neighbor after calling your wife across the fence than then knocking on your door and calling you a dick needs an explaination why he can't come in....would you respond 'Yes sir, would you like it in word format or a notarized document?' ..or would you just shut the door.
ive already rendered that analogy redundant.
as for you argument, it holds little water.
Even here, when someone arrives from the UK or elsewhere and commits an actual crime that results in jail, we only ban them generally for 5 years once they've been let out of jail.
It seems that the terrorists aren't the real enemy, the terrorists do minuscule amounts of damage in the grand scheme of things. It's government reactions that actually do the damage. "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it" - "in order to save due process and freedoms set forth originally in the Magna Carta, we have to destroy them". You just have to look at the grossly illiberal[0] Terrorism Act (and how it's already been abused many times) to see what I mean.
[0] illiberal in the traditional sense, nothing to do with the political meaning.
Freedom of speech .... :P I write when I have something important to write about. I also have the right to remain silent and only read!
With you on that.
Besides if he is below the age of 18 , he is considered a minor and he can't have any legal effects unless he actually harms someone physically.
Never heard of anyone taken to court for calling his Teacher or so names.
And I insist , freedom of speech , is just that. From anyone.
If you are not a citizen of a country you must shut up? (This is like Facism or communism) This is what will destroy the world slowly and the reason Army and terrorism exists in the first place.
Yes if I beleive a politician is doing wrong I should be able to tell him to his face never mind just an Email.
"Free Speech" in the USA as per the "US Constitution" applies only to US Citizens ... so ... err ... yeah, what you say makes absolute sense.
How so?
I mean you're no ninny, you know that we are talking about "freedom of speech" in general, and then "freedom of speech" as applied to US Citizens and formed in their Constitution.
Don't worry ... we're on the same page, and I don't really mean to call you a ninny :razz:
You offered him the toilet?
Water closet if you please....no need to be course.