Comment on Tony Hall has lived in the UK for 50 years. Why is the Home Office trying to deport him?
Armand1@lemmy.world 2 days agoWhy?
Comment on Tony Hall has lived in the UK for 50 years. Why is the Home Office trying to deport him?
Armand1@lemmy.world 2 days agoWhy?
mlcgdrhu@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
Not a citizen, committed violent crime. It’s pretty simple, it’s in the article.
crapwittyname@feddit.uk 1 day ago
25 years ago and he’s done the time. Man has paid his debt to society and should be left alone.
Armand1@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Well, maybe if he had been deported right after the crime (which wasn’t violent, it was a planned robbery). That’s the strongest argument you could make, to not punish him here but instead deport him. But he wasn’t, he served his time in the country he committed the crime (pretty standard I think) so now there is no reason to deport him.
What would it help to deport him? Wouldn’t help him, he doesn’t have any family where he was born. Wouldn’t help the state, or anybody in the UK.
The current state of things is also ridiculous. He can’t work, he has to waste government money and time checking in every two weeks. Travel which he has to pay out of pocket even though he has no job, god forbid he can’t pay one day and is arrested. For 14 years this waste of time has happened.
mlcgdrhu@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
No, I never said not punish him. Punish him then deport him. What would it help? It’d guarantee that he wouldn’t commit more crime in a county he’s a guest in.
Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Critical reading doesn’t seem your strong point buddy. I’m reading an entirely different story.
mlcgdrhu@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
Entirely different? Or you refuse to admit that conspiracy yo commit violent crime is less dangerous than actually being violent?
Buddy.
Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Sure. There’s a lot of context to consider here, but seems you comprehension is quite limited.
Senal@programming.dev 1 day ago
By definition it’s less dangerous.
One involves the violence, one is the planning of the violence (with no actual violence having happened).
It implies multiple parties and the intent to commit the violence in the future, but the violence hasn’t happened yet.
If they were the same ting there wouldn’t be a separate term and or crime.
It sounds like you want to argue that the planning (with intent) should carry the same sentence and repercussions, which is an entirely valid argument, have at it.
Pretending that planning and execution are the same exact level of danger serves only to undermine what might otherwise be a well reasoned argument.