Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK

reply to post by Longy4eva

I agree with you completely here. If we were to go over to another country, and they said will you adhere to our laws and you said no, will they let you in? of course not. But yet what people are saying here is that they should be.

No one is advocating Britian allowing people if they're going to break the law. The UK has a right to not let someone in if at the Heathrow passport control says they're going to the Queen in the face.

What many of the posters in this thread are up in arms about is Britian not allowing people into the UK because of people's beliefs and things that they've said--which can't harm anyone. In effect, by not allowing people into England, such as Geert Wilders, whom have an opinion that isn't "accepted" by the British government, that want to share that opinion with the British public, the UK is censoring what the people can hear, and the people can't make a decision based on the facts and all view points. The government just tells them what's acceptable and the people accept it.

reply to post by octotom


I see your point. The issue with the British Government is their desire of inclusion of minorities (not just racial), but more often than not these efforts single them out even more. Overprotection comes to mind here, like the guy with the opinion on gay couples. In order to appease the gay community, ban him from the country. I'm pretty sure gay couples wouldn't care if he was in the country, who is he to them anyway?

it's this nanny state gone too far IMHO.

(EDIT)

But i still think this problem should be put on the back plate and banning violent, murderers/rapists etc. Government needs to sort its priorities, think more of the people and less about using the taxpayers' money to buy tonight's blue movie

[edit on 9/5/09 by Longy4eva]