U.K. Does that stand for Unusually Kracked?

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK
By Beverley Rouse, Press Association
Tuesday, 5 May 2009

AP
Talk show host Michael Savage - real name Michael Weiner - is on the banned list
Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.
The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.
"I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Ms Smith told GMTV.
"Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.
"We are publishing the names of 16 of those that we have excluded since October. We are telling people who they are and why it is we don't want them in this country."
She said the number of people excluded from Britain had risen from an average of two a month to five a month since October.
The list of the 16 "least wanted" includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner.
"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.
Also named are American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, who have picketed the funerals of Aids victims and claimed the deaths of US soldiers are a punishment for US tolerance of homosexuality.
"If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place. Not to open the stable door then try to close it later," Ms Smith said.
"It's a privilege to come to this country. There are certain behaviours that mean you forfeit that privilege."
Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe are also on the list released today.
Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, the former leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang which committed 20 racially motivated murders, are also banned from coming to Britain. Both are currently in prison.
Making up the rest of the 16 named by the Home Office today are preachers Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi and Amir Siddique, Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar and Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html

And your point is?

TS

Uh.....well gee.....do you think this socialist nation full of bad teeth with leadership that prefers Camilla to Diana is a safer place by keeping conservative radio talk-show hosts out.......well.....okay for you.

The reason I ask is because all you did was post the AP article and did not really add your usual commentary,. although with your past postings it probably obvious which side you are usually leading to or trying to convey, but in this one I did not see any commentary.

I do not know the radio talk guy, but the others I have heard about and I too would keep them out if I could. but then you get into the territory of freedom of speach, which at least here in the USA is sacred. Probably the same in your country.

While I do not agree with what any of those folks say, they should have the right to express themselves if they so choose too. Stopping them from coming into the country is one thing, but nothing is stopping these folks from preaching their thoughts on the internet, tv etc, so their words can still reach those in the UK, which I think has a far more bigger impact
(be it good or bad) than being there in person.

TS

Hey TS the article was not an AP article, rather, the attribution in the dateline was "Press Association". Thegladhatter's posts seem to follow the trait of ignoring the mainstream media and only posting bogus “articles” with extremist views like Newsmax, which don't require any logical thought or additional comment.

The Independent is not an extremist newspaper and is firmly in the mainstream.

As for the people listed; if Phelps' banning is reasonable, considering Michael Savage's past remarks of a similar nature (that has gotten him fired previously) then his banning is also reasonable being along the same lines, no?
Don't you agree that:
"If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place."

Seeing as freedom of speech has been mentioned; does freedom of speech mean the freedom to offend?

Hey TS the article was not an AP article, rather, the attribution in the dateline was "Press Association". Thegladhatter's posts seem to follow the trait of ignoring the mainstream media and only posting bogus “articles” with extremist views like Newsmax, which don't require any logical thought or additional comment.
Bogus? That's rich. You don't get out much, do you? Such a reasonable and well thought out response! Let's just shrug off the message and attack the messenger.

What difference does it make WHERE the news comes from if it is accurate?

This Jacki Smith, British Home Secretary obviously lacks credibility and I don't think she has both oars in the water. :screwy:

Add to that a hypocrite. :shakehead



Source: ABC News

British MP Jacqui Smith's Expenses Leaked
British Voters Angered by Lavish Expenses During Credit Crunch

Link to Article (http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=7269420&page=1)



Source: BBC

Smith 'sorry' for expenses claim

The Home Secretary is to pay back parliamentary allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, reportedly including two adult films.

Link to Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7970492.stm)




Who the hell wants to visit the U.K anyways. :uhoh:........:grinno:

I'm curious, is Rush Limbaugh also banned from the U.K.?

You can't get much more extreme conservative than him!

U.K. Does that stand for Unusually Kracked?


Undeniably Kooky!

The Independent is not an extremist newspaper and is firmly in the mainstream.


:lol: That is true.

With banning people like this the UK must have very strict standards as to who can and cannot live there. Must be a very pure society.



Not.


They can throw my name on the list as I don't plan on visiting there though. :lol:

The uk has banned entry to other people before, namely a few rap stars and the occasional regular pop star so the banning is nothing new. One thing that's come to me though: is the fuss over the fact that he is banned or is it because he is on a list that mainly consists of known violent terrorist threats? While I can understand the rationale behind his banning (as per the Phelps example) I can't really see how if fits on that list because Phelps is on the lower end of that spectrum anyway.
Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.3; Series60/3.2 NokiaN96; Safari

Without commenting on specific individuals, I'm looking at this with a different slant...could it be that Britain is taking a "why can't we all just get along" position?

From the article (and I agree that source does NOT matter if the news is accurate) it seems that all of these folks were offensive in some way to some large group -- and that the offensiveness goes beyond the normal free speech and into insults.

Actually, if I were the cynical type, I'd say that this list was released now to draw attention away from the current MP expenses fiasco.

Every day, more and more top tier MPs are revealed to have abused their expenses.

it seems that all of these folks were offensive in some way to some large group -- and that the offensiveness goes beyond the normal free speech and into insults.

True. Britain, like many other G20 nations must strike a balance between the free speech of citizens and travelers in the country vs. the interests/rights/freedoms of others to NOT be offended or impeded by the results of that free speech.

What that article does not point out is, this list is not written in stone.
If these individuals believe the UK government has made an error, they or their representative can challenge it in court.

IMO this article does not point this out because it is trying to portray the UK as somehow unfairly biased or unreasonable. IMO it's typical sensationalist 'yellow' journalism.

I'm curious, is Rush Limbaugh also banned from the U.K.?

You can't get much more extreme conservative than him!
You haven't heard much Michael Savage have you?

Some years ago, I used to listen to Limbaugh on a regular basis. I even bought and read one of his books.
His views are pretty mainstream conservative; not very radical at all, and not worthy of banning etc.

My objection to Limbaugh is that he is an intellectual lightweight. His views, at the time, were deliberately simplified to make them palatable to a lowest common denominator.

I recently saw him on TV speaking at a Republican party function and, oh dear, he has not improved. Where's Henry Kissinger when we need him?

You haven't heard much Michael Savage have you?

Yes I have heard of and do listen to Savage once in a while.

I call him and Mark Levin "angry conservatives" Limbaugh has more control of his emotions. Thats why I like listening to him and Sean Hannity more than Savage.

And MR, you might be right Limbaugh is an "intellectual lightweight"
But what he says is right (that is "correct" :)

I never liked listening to Kissinger because he has such a strong accent,
I can barely understand him!

And MR, you might be right Limbaugh is an "intellectual lightweight"
But what he says is right (that is "correct" :)

haha.

I have agreed with much of what Limbaugh had to say in the past, particularly on issues of government finance and personal responsibility.

I disagree with his somewhat disingenuous focus on partisan politics. He has a tendency to disagree with some politicians based on their personal characteristics and party affiliation rather than an intelligent discourse on policy.
Yes, I know many politicians do the same thing; I just find it distasteful, regardless of the source.

Occasionally, his criticism is amusing. I found his take on Ted Kennedy a few years ago to be hilarious.

Magicrat, I'm curious, if you consider Limbaugh an "intellectual lightweight",
Who, other than Kissinger, would you consider and intellectual "heavyweight"
on the right?

thanks, cl8