• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Home Office taking..."

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Quite. Much of the article is meaningless really, just a few cases quoted with very little information and some of those look rather dubious. A guy was really taken to a removal centre because his landlord attacked him? I suspect there is rather more to it. And "clear mental health problems" could mean anything from depression to dangerous psychosis.

    Whatever side we are on, maybe we should not draw conclusions without a lot more information.
    well said, maybe someone should tell the Granuiad?

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    the custodian sentence for driving is the only one you could easily argue the paper gave enough info on why he should be removed
    Quite. Much of the article is meaningless really, just a few cases quoted with very little information and some of those look rather dubious. A guy was really taken to a removal centre because his landlord attacked him? I suspect there is rather more to it. And "clear mental health problems" could mean anything from depression to dangerous psychosis.

    Whatever side we are on, maybe we should not draw conclusions without a lot more information.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    If British people were being removed from other EU countries and the Commission ignored the complaints, the Daily Express would be outraged.
    Only if they had a blonde haired blue eyed middle class British woman under 45 to use as one of their victims. Everyone else can go feck themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    The guy with the custodian sentence for driving is the only one you could easily argue the paper gave enough info on why he should be removed.

    Plus he is a Swedish national and we tend to be less prejudice against Nordic nationals that those from the former Eastern bloc.

    Oddly no complaints about us removing Romanian nationals from a certain cultural background.
    If British people were being removed from other EU countries and the Commission ignored the complaints, the Daily Express would be outraged.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    To be fair UK judges tend to refer upwards when they aren't sure and think we need clarification so it isn't surprising we lose.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Driving offences may not be minor and, if there was a custodial sentence, they clearly weren't in the case quoted.
    The guy with the custodian sentence for driving is the only one you could easily argue the paper gave enough info on why he should be removed.

    Plus he is a Swedish national and we tend to be less prejudice against Nordic nationals that those from the former Eastern bloc.

    Oddly no complaints about us removing Romanian nationals from a certain cultural background.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Is there a court case ?

    In any case that is not a very representative statistic as it only represents the cases brought to a full hearing. Most cases don't get that far, and the UK wins almost all cases that are brought to the preliminary hearings.



    The Express printing their anti-EU propaganda again. All of it total tripe.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 1 October 2017, 13:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Done while on my phone.

    Need to give The Guardian Cambridge boys feed back about not being able to share links.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    They haven't taken any decisions yet so all these remonstrations are purely hypothetical. Classic anti-EU propaganda, make stuff up about what they might theoretically do, but don't actually do.

    Yeah Baby


    Britain loses three of four cases taken to European Court of Justice | UK | News | Express.co.uk


    Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group found that the UK has been defeated in 101 out of 131 legal actions taken to the European Court of Justice over the last 40 years.*
    Rulings against the UK Government included prolonging a ban on world-wide export of British beef and scrapping a cut in beer duty.*
    The failure rate of 77.1 per cent for Britain in the Luxembourg-based court was last night being seen as fresh evidence of the urgent need for country to quit the EU.*

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    36 weeks at her majesties pleasure suggests they were pretty serious.

    I thought the EU & remainers said we had a right to decide who stayed in our country? Leaving was unnecessary.

    Taking back control Brussels stylie?
    They haven't taken any decisions yet so all these remonstrations are purely hypothetical. Classic anti-EU propaganda, make stuff up about what they might theoretically do, but don't actually do.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Driving offences may not be minor and, if there was a custodial sentence, they clearly weren't in the case quoted.

    36 weeks at her majesties pleasure suggests they were pretty serious.

    I thought the EU & remainers said we had a right to decide who stayed in our country? Leaving was unnecessary.

    Taking back control Brussels stylie?

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    Driving offences may not be minor and, if there was a custodial sentence, they clearly weren't in the case quoted.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ed-eu-citizens

    Bit of an SE cocky upy there.

    Leave a comment:


  • BR14
    replied
    linky no worky

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    started a topic Home Office taking...

    Home Office taking...

    the p*ss.

    Under directive 2004/38/EC you are allowed to deport other European nationals for not being able to support themselves, being a threat to national security or public policy but that doesn't include for doing SFA, being mentally ill or being a victim of crime.

    http://<br /> https://www.theguardia...y_to_clipboard

Working...
X