Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK

[Lores]

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 79127.html

[Toucan]

what made me laugh is one of the kkk's head honcho's had the surname black

oh the irony

[BenQ]

We're next to ban our own people from "thinking" the wrong way.

was gonna say more.. but im a minority

[Flatulance]

We're next to ban our own people from "thinking" the wrong way.

was gonna say more.. but im a minority

Your a minority? cool, what you like a leprachaun or something?

Just jesting.

Benq say more please, say what you want man, i usually do.

[gelfling]

The barred radio dj, Michael Savage says he will sue the UK for defamation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8035114.stm

Is he trying to pretend that he doesn't hold extremist views and that he didn't say the things that got him barred from the UK in the first place?

[Lores]

Gelf, ever listen to Savage? I catch a little of his show from time to time. I concider him more like a crumpy old man. He certainly is not a terrorist.

Wasnt it a simular situation just prior to WW2. But then it was Churchill who wasnt allowed to air his views when Neville Chamberlain was busy with his appeasement of Hitler.

[gelfling]

Unless he is able to broadcast in Australia, no, I wouldn't know where to hear one of his shows (he's obviously not allowed to broadcast in the UK). I had a look at his Web site but it's just a lot of links to articles on news sites and self-aggrandising text.

The British Home Office gives its reasons here for banning him here: http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-re ... d-UK-named and the BBC elaborates here: Who is on UK 'least wanted' list? and the in the article linked above.

If he's innocent of the accusations levied at him by H.M. Gov. then I hope he is exonerated. Especially if he's simply a grumpy old man or a curmudgeon: there's nothing wrong with either. Hate-mongering isn't something that either a grumpy old man nor a curmudgeon is known for and somehow, somewhere along the line it seems he must have either said something that qualified him or I suppose he pissed off the wrong person. Nevertheless, I maintain that a. suing any Government seems ludicrous and b. suing someone for defamation of character because of something you actually said is ridiculous.

The present British Gov. is well known for its attempts to force political correctness and nanny the people but on this matter, I think they've simply had enough of the hate-mongering.

My other guess is that they are hoping to avoid a repeat of the debacle that was this saga: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3752517.stm Now there's someone who certainly wasn't happy in the UK and really shouldn't have been allowed in to even visit.

You couldn't possibly be making a serious comparison between this DJ and Sir Winston Churchill so I'll refrain from commenting on that

[Toucan]

visiting a country you are not a citizen of is a priviledge, not a right

[Lores]

No, I am saying that shuting up opposing views can have unexpected consequences(see WW2 and the appeasement of Hitler). The solution to "hate speech" isnt a gag it is more speech by those who oppose him. To put him in the same status of known terrorist and muderers does not speak well for the state of affairs in your great country.

We let the leader of Iran run his mouth over here and all he did was say ridiculus statements such as Iran doesnt have homosexuals like the US does( you can skip to 3:50 for his comments should you choose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xou92apNN4o ). Listening to the viewpoints of only oneside is exactly what we have been talking about with the election of Obama and "free thinkers".

This is really the first salvo in the next great takeover of the liberal media/politician to shut up opposing views. The left wish to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" which will make radio talkshows have equal time for opposing viewpoints. Free market is dictating who gets to talk now. The left already have, tv talkshows, news, newspapers, magazines. tv/movies, much of internet and much of the radio.

[Lores]

Touc, I agree that it is a privledge. Read above to understand where Im coming from.

[gelfling]

He's been put on a list of people barred from the UK. He hasn't been called a terrorist or a murderer.

I don't think this is a salvo at all. Not even close.

These people have seemingly been barred for actively encouraging hatred and violence, not for holding opposing views. Their views have not been barred but their physical presence has. This is supposedly vehement hatred they are touting and not a peaceful representation of a point of view that is unlike that of the nation they hope to visit. Afaik no one in the UK is barred from reading what these people have to say or from viewing (or listening) to their broadcasts. All you need is a library ticket, access to newspapers or a computer with Internet access to find out more if you want to do so.

I do wonder why on Earth someone who hates a culture and country would want to enter it and talk to its people?

[Lores]

I said he was on a list with terrorist and muderers.

I go back and ask, did the people involve listen to his show? Im not supporting what he is or is not saying. I only support his right to say it and I doubt very seriously that those who made this deceision listen to any part of his show.

[Lores]

OK, well I stumbled on this while on Drudge Report: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/333633.html

Oh my, I agree with him.

[Flatulance]

On this I have to take toucans stance, its not a right but a priviledge to enter anothers country.

And I believe countries should have the final say on who enters, regardles of being an extremist, or shit taliking dj that apparently doesnt have plans to enter the UK anyway.

The sad thing is, he is gonna sue the UK and its gonna end up costing the tax payer a hell of a lot of money and make the man savage rich. And judging by the brit legal pc system he will win.

I can understand why she considered him being banned, but what the hell does the home secretary think hes gonna do, that immegrants that she so lets in isnt gonna do.
I let in several thousand immegrants that are alowed to spew hatred toward the UK but not an american dj.

Christ if she had any forsight she would have realized the guys gonna sue, hes gonna win and cost me lots of money as a uk taxpayer.

What I think is pathetic is that, we can deny him entry to uk, But he can sue us and will probably win. Well done home secretary, you just wasted the taxpayers money. What I dont understand is when he attemps to sue, why dont the brit gov just say - fuck off, and thats it.