Prevent Donald Trump from making a state visit to the United Kingdom - petition

[alfredmizen]

So it's not you. sooooooo sorry.... As for my dead end job, I was thinking of taking up an apprenticeship or going back to college. Mind you, at 56 I might not find many options
However had a heart to heart with the boss only yesterday and he is considering giving me a 4 % pay rise on condition I tell no one else. Good eh, my first raise since 2014 and it will be eaten up by inflation within the year ... Ah well.

You've just been given a pay rise and you're still moaning seriously though , hope your situation improves.

 

[GT49er]

HypocritE is spelt with an E on the end

Yes, but you know how there's got to be all sorts of cuts and privations now that the world is ending post-referendum. Need to save every 'E' in case it's needed later......

 

[BigGully]

Big Gully,did'nt Obama come up with the list in the first place ?

Well thats the second part and while we are at it, at the height of the atrocities in Syria, with the barrell bombing and chemical weapons being used against women and children and quite the most wretched of circumstance for civilians in recent times, Obama in 2012 chose to allow only 31 Syrian refugees and 36 in 2013 into the USA.

Again totally overlooked by the new offended anti Trump brigade, how can you care about a temporary travel ban of just 120 days until procedures for national security are deemed fit for purpose and not Obamas total exclusion of refugees at the time they were genuinely in most need.

 

[ROKERITE]

And the petition has been rejected, and rightly so.[/QUOTE

Nice to see the true Spirit of Britain is fighting fit, it's what won us two world wars. Not rolling over and being told what to do.

Exactly, that's what won the vote for BREXIT.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Well thats the second part and while we are at it, at the height of the atrocities in Syria, with the barrell bombing and chemical weapons being used against women and children and quite the most wretched of circumstance for civilians in recent times, Obama in 2012 chose to allow only 31 Syrian refugees and 36 in 2013.

Again totally overlooked by the new offended anti Trump brigade, how can you care about a temporary travel ban of just 120 days until procedures for national security are deemed fit for purpose and not Obamas total exclusion of refugees at the time they were genuinely in most need.

Well i think it is safe to say that when The Usual Suspects kick-off when Donald arrives, 73 Gunnersbury Avenue is Off Route !

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

But isnt the point that the FBI advised Obama that a number of Iraqis who should be considered a terrorist threat to the USA had got in through its own refugee channels, Obama then tightened up controls but took six months to do it, eventually Obama reduced the number of refugees coming in from Iraq to nearly none, yet no-one cared to mention either the policy nor its presumed ineffectiveness that you lend Trumps policy.

And there we agree. A lot of the current opposition to the travel restrictions is rather hypocritical. However coming from a different place than rent-a-protest I still think they are a poor idea as they do not discriminate between law abiding citizens and criminals.

 

[studio150]

Yes, but you know how there's got to be all sorts of cuts and privations now that the world is ending post-referendum. Need to save every 'E' in case it's needed later......

Lots of people are on Es

 

[BigGully]

And there we agree. A lot of the current opposition to the travel restrictions is rather hypocritical. However coming from a different place than rent-a-protest I still think they are a poor idea as they do not discriminate between law abiding citizens and criminals.

Surely if you knew who the terrorist were individually then there would be no need for any real security or policies anyway, but we dont and there is a risk and that risk remains high and heightened with movement from peoples from some countries that have a prevalance of Islamic terrorism to western countries.

It seems absolutely reaonable for Trump to order a 120 day temporary ban until it reviews the previous administration policies and vetting procedures on peoples moving from identified countries (by Obama) that might pose a real threat to its national security.

With a backdrop of some pretty severe yet ignored Obama immigration and refugee policies, it just all becomes hypocrisy.

 

[studio150]

Surely if you knew who the terrorist were individually then there would be no need for any real security or policies anyway, but we dont and there is a risk and that risk remains high and heightened with movement from peoples from some countries that have a prevalance of Islamic terrorism to western countries.

It seems absolutely reaonable for Trump to order a 120 day temporary ban until it reviews the previous administration policies and vetting procedures on peoples moving from identified countries (by Obama) that might pose a real threat to its national security.

With a backdrop of some pretty severe yet ignored Obama immigration and refugee policies, it just all becomes hypocrisy.

Given that Trump is saying that he is doing only what he said he would do when he became president, and his sidekicks saying how wonderful he is by doing all this in 3 weeks when others have taken years to take action on election promises, the worry must be what he said during the election run in.

Which you will recall was a total and complete shutdown of borders to Muslims

I wait to see how reasonable you believe this is when he signs the decree to enact this promise.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Given that Trump is saying that he is doing only what he said he would do when he became president, and his sidekicks saying how wonderful he is by doing all this in 3 weeks when others have taken years to take action on election promises, the worry must be what he said during the election run in.

Which you will recall was a total and complete shutdown of borders to Muslims

I wait to see how reasonable you believe this is when he signs the decree to enact this promise.

That particular commitment disappeared from his website on the day of the election. That is the cynicism of the man.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Surely if you knew who the terrorist were individually then there would be no need for any real security or policies anyway, but we dont and there is a risk and that risk remains high and heightened with movement from peoples from some countries that have a prevalance of Islamic terrorism to western countries.

It seems absolutely reaonable for Trump to order a 120 day temporary ban until it reviews the previous administration policies and vetting procedures on peoples moving from identified countries (by Obama) that might pose a real threat to its national security.

With a backdrop of some pretty severe yet ignored Obama immigration and refugee policies, it just all becomes hypocrisy.

I think that to be poor policy. There are threats from many sources including for instance Belgium. There is no need to shut down movement from certain countries. If there is a threat then make entry conditions ever more stringent rather than ban everybody.

 

[portslade seagull]

Oh well this has been rejected then. Maybe the header should now be changed ??

 

[vegster]

You've just been given a pay rise and you're still moaning [emoji38]ol: seriously though , hope your situation improves.

Thanks for that, he said he was considering it and he did genuinely say that his costs had gone up due to the £/$ exchange rate!
My advice for anyone is get training, qualifications and skills that are transferable across as wide a range of businesses as possible, do it while you are young, even though you may not see a need for it at the time. I stayed loyal to companies, always worked hard and took on extra responsibilities and went the extra mile whenever they asked. To end up with 2 redundancies ( technically 3) and still working hard for less than I was earning in 2006.

It's an employers market and they will screw you over whenever it suits them.

 

[portslade seagull]

Thanks for that, he said he was considering it and he did genuinely say that his costs had gone up due to the £/$ exchange rate!
My advice for anyone is get training, qualifications and skills that are transferable across as wide a range of businesses as possible, do it while you are young, even though you may not see a need for it at the time. I stayed loyal to companies, always worked hard and took on extra responsibilities and went the extra mile whenever they asked. To end up with 2 redundancies ( technically 3) and still working hard for less than I was earning in 2006.

It's an employers market and they will screw you over whenever it suits them.

Too late for me, now hopefully working until I retire unless that is forced of course

 

[BigGully]

I think that to be poor policy. There are threats from many sources including for instance Belgium. There is no need to shut down movement from certain countries. If there is a threat then make entry conditions ever more stringent rather than ban everybody.

I am not sure if you wish to broaden the travel bans or not.

Surely there needs to be a determined and intelligence lead policy where if an indentified country poses a greater risk than another one then the vetting process must represent that risk, some with screening other a more harder line until deemed safer.

It is a 120 day temprorary ban on predetermined (FBI & Obama) Islamic extremist countries that are nearly 'failed states' that your own security services presume a greater risk than those that do not.

I am happy to add Belgium if our intelligence agrees with your own unsubstantiated concerns about our near european neighbours, personally fill yer boots with restrictions unless in all probabilty the risk is not greater than anyone else.

 

[BigGully]

Given that Trump is saying that he is doing only what he said he would do when he became president, and his sidekicks saying how wonderful he is by doing all this in 3 weeks when others have taken years to take action on election promises, the worry must be what he said during the election run in.

Which you will recall was a total and complete shutdown of borders to Muslims

I wait to see how reasonable you believe this is when he signs the decree to enact this promise.

Address the points that I have raised, bluster and inuendo isnt the unique skill set of either Remain or Brexit nor Republican or Democrats.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

As the US lurches into another constitutional crisis Trump is more concerned about having this photo which shows his dodgy tan and hair weave removed from the internet.

Looks as if he’s morphed into Neil Kinnock

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I am not sure if you wish to broaden the travel bans or not.

Surely there needs to be a determined and intelligence lead policy where if an indentified country poses a greater risk than another one then the vetting process must represent that risk, some with screening other a more harder line until deemed safer.

It is a 120 day temprorary ban on predetermined (FBI & Obama) Islamic extremist countries that are nearly 'failed states' that your own security services presume a greater risk than those that do not.

I am happy to add Belgium if our intelligence agrees with your own unsubstantiated concerns about our near european neighbours, personally fill yer boots with restrictions unless in all probabilty the risk is not greater than anyone else.

The threat from within Belgium is not unsubstantiated. It is the base from which attacks in France were planned and the terrorists were Belgian nationals. However I do not think we should react by imposing a travel ban on all Belgian nationals. This is what I mean by bad policy because the supposed security benefits (which are unquantifiable) cannot be shown to outweigh the damage that would be done to our relations with the innocent people of Belgium. The travel ban takes no account of these unintended consequences. It would be far better to acknowledge that we have a security problem and tighten border control for everyone so that innocent people who have business or personal reasons to travel are not prevented from doing so. I am advocating inconvenience over exclusion which seems like a more proportionate response.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I am not sure if you wish to broaden the travel bans or not.

Surely there needs to be a determined and intelligence lead policy where if an indentified country poses a greater risk than another one then the vetting process must represent that risk, some with screening other a more harder line until deemed safer.

It is a 120 day temprorary ban on predetermined (FBI & Obama) Islamic extremist countries that are nearly 'failed states' that your own security services presume a greater risk than those that do not.

I am happy to add Belgium if our intelligence agrees with your own unsubstantiated concerns about our near european neighbours, personally fill yer boots with restrictions unless in all probabilty the risk is not greater than anyone else.

What you're seemingly saying boils down to a choice of whether one is happy with a tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush approach to security... or not. Personally I'm not, for a number of reasons.

 

[The Clamp]

I am not sure if you wish to broaden the travel bans or not.

Surely there needs to be a determined and intelligence lead policy where if an indentified country poses a greater risk than another one then the vetting process must represent that risk, some with screening other a more harder line until deemed safer.

It is a 120 day temprorary ban on predetermined (FBI & Obama) Islamic extremist countries that are nearly 'failed states' that your own security services presume a greater risk than those that do not.

I am happy to add Belgium if our intelligence agrees with your own unsubstantiated concerns about our near european neighbours, personally fill yer boots with restrictions unless in all probabilty the risk is not greater than anyone else.

claptrap