George Bush has been banned from entering Britain.

Flukey

After today's policy announcement by the British Hoome Secretarty, George Bush will not be allowed into Britain ever again.

After the attacks in London, which killed 52 people, "the rules of the game" changed, according to Mr Clarke.

All of the following will be grounds for deportation or exclusion from entry into Britain:
Fomenting, justifying or glorifying terrorist violence.
Seeking to provoke terrorist acts.
Fomenting other serious criminal activity.
Fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.

He has ordered an immediate review of his powers to exclude and deport people, saying he wanted to ensure that any non-British citizen suspected of inciting terrorism was deported immediately.

"Individuals who seek to create fear, distrust and division in order to stir up terrorist activity will not be tolerated by the government or by our communities," said Mr Clarke

"By publishing the list today I make it absolutely clear that these are unacceptable behaviours and will be the grounds for deporting and excluding such individuals from the UK."

As part of a raft of measures to crack down on "preachers of intolerance and hatred", a new database will be drawn up of foreign-born radicals accused of encouraging acts of terrorism. The global database will list those who face automatic vetting before being allowed into the UK.

So there you go, George will never be seen in Britain again.

cal29

And the preacher Pat Robertson would obviously be barred as well following his calls for terrorist acts in Venezuela

Flukey

Half the cabinet probably won't be allowed back into the country after their holidays!

mike65

It would be fun to apply the criteria to all leaders of the 200 or so countries and see who'd get in.

Mike.

Flukey

Yes, it would exclude a lot of world leaders.

subfreq

Bertie would still sneak in for a cheeky pint and a flutter in a bookies in Kilburn some where.

Flukey

Well in fairness, we've never militarily invaded anyone, so he should be in the clear.

MrJoeSoap

First of all I thought this might be serious...

Then I thought "Oh right, he's taking the piss"...

Now I'm thinking, "Hmmm, GW certainly does fit those criteria, it is certainly difficult to argue against that"

A Dub in Glasgo

Of course he would get in... his actions are only 'democratic', just like the actions of the UK government

Mysteryfish

I agree with A Dub in Glasgo. Of course George will be let in, he's never promoted terrorism but is against it. Of course the fact that he's fighting fire with fire will not be addressed but he will just be held up by the UK government as a strong model which is how they would like their leader to seem. Britain isn't going to ban the US president right when they might need his help in defending their country.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Of course he would get in... his actions are only 'democratic', just like the actions of the UK government

You've put "democratic" in inverted comma's there.
Out of curiosity,what would be the percentage of voters who supported parties at recent elections in favour of Britain remaining in Iraq for now?
Close to 70% of the UK voters on a significant 61% turn out voted for the two main parties Westminister candidates who were both in favour of the Iraq war and who are in favour of a continued presence there. (source)


Like it or not, a democratic majority in the UK were of the view that voting for parties who supported the Iraq war was the right thing to do.Then yes unlike terrorists and regardless of your view on it, it is democratic at the moment.
Not everybody might like the reasoning for it but when put to a vote, theres a mandate.
That would be my fundamental problem with the gross (in my view) mis use of the word terrorism to describe the actions of democratically elected politicians.

Of course their wars have similar terrible and hardly justifiable casulties like terrorists do,but at least we have the power to stop them if there are enough of us to agree and it would appear that there isn't.

Flukey wrote:

All of the following will be grounds for deportation or exclusion from entry into Britain:
Fomenting, justifying or glorifying terrorist violence.
Seeking to provoke terrorist acts.
Fomenting other serious criminal activity.
Fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.


So there you go, George will never be seen in Britain again.

I know you are trying to take the píss, but your theory doesnt stand up tbh unless you consider GWB a terrorist and One cant in my book for similar basic reasons already stated(wrt the UK) regardless of ones views on what Agenda he may promote

RosConor

Of course he'll get it........ Britains his bitch.

Goodshape

Earthman wrote:

Close to 70% of the UK voters on a significant 61% turn out voted for the two main parties Westminister candidates who were both in favour of the Iraq war and who are in favour of a continued presence there. (source)

Is it still considered democratic when the voters are manipulated and lied to by those they are voting for?

• Iraq has "military plans" for the use of chemical and biological weapons, even against its own population
• Saddam is one or two years off building a nuclear weapon if he manages to obtain weapons-grade material from abroad
• Iraq is five years away from producing a nuclear weapon on its own
• Iraq's nuclear programme is "almost certainly" seeking an ability to enrich to weapons quality uranium mined in Iraq
• It has started deploying its al-Samoud liquid propellant missile and extended its range to at least 200km, beyond the 150km UN limit
• Some weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them
• [Blair] says he has become "increasingly alarmed" in recent months by evidence that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction in contravention of UN resolutions
• He says: "I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2277791.stm

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote:

Is it still considered democratic when the voters are manipulated and lied to by those they are voting for?

I suppose it must be when they still vote for those parties after the murkier side of things has become known.

yossarin

Flukey wrote:

Well in fairness, we've never militarily invaded anyone, so he should be in the clear.

heh. Its funny that there is no conspiracy theory involving the irish subverting the world economy through mass proliferation

LFCFan

Earthman wrote:

Like it or not, a democratic majority in the UK were of the view that voting for parties who supported the Iraq war was the right thing to do.Then yes unlike terrorists and regardless of your view on it, it is democratic at the moment.

I don't think it's quite as black and white as that. When you vote for someone you need to weigh up all the facts and then make your decision. The War in Iraq is just one of those facts, albeit a fairly major one. Some people might be happy with the economy, health service etc etc and the war is lower down on their priorities so vote them back in. So, there's no real way of knowing what percentage of the population in Britain actually support the war!

Flukey

Earthman wrote:

I know you are trying to take the píss, but your theory doesnt stand up tbh unless you consider GWB a terrorist and One cant in my book for similar basic reasons already stated(wrt the UK) regardless of ones views on what Agenda he may promote

It depends what you call terrorism. Just because it has the backing of a government and carried out by men in nice uniforms, doesn't mean it is not terrorism. If your home is destroyed or members of your family killed you won't worry about who did it, to you it is terrorism. Whether it's a suicide bomb or one dropped from an airforce plane, you are being terrorised.

According to my Oxford English dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

It says nothing about their uniforms or their backers. There is a lot of terrorism going on in Iraq at present, and it isn't all from one side. State terrorism is terrorism.

I may have been taking the piss a bit in starting this thread, but as people have pointed out, a lot of the criteria given for banning people Britain would apply to George Bush and I was conscious of that when I started the thread too. They won't ban him of course, but by their own standards they should. You can be damn sure that if he does come again, there will be thousands of people out on the street making that very point.

Flukey

Flukey wrote:

According to my Oxford English dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

It says nothing about their uniforms or their backers.

Exactly-"a person"-Your oxford english dictionary doesnt include democratically elected governments.There is a reason for that, the people who compile the dictionary dont define actions by democratically elected governments as terrorism.
I suspect they would describe the london bombers as terrorists though as their political/quasi religous aims are those of a tiny minority and because they dont have a majority to agree with them they have to use terror.


That said, there are loads of other terms to describe the actions of a democratically elected government who goes to war for whatever reason.
The term you use depends on what view you take of the war but terrorism wouldn't be one of them.

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

Exactly-"a person"-Your oxford english dictionary doesnt include democratically elected governments.There is a reason for that, the people who compile the dictionary dont define actions by democratically elected governments as terrorism.
I suspect they would describe the london bombers as terrorists though as their political/quasi religous aims are those of a tiny minority and because they dont have a majority to agree with them they have to use terror.


That said, there are loads of other terms to describe the actions of a democratically elected government who goes to war for whatever reason.
The term you use depends on what view you take of the war but terrorism wouldn't be one of them.

it's an arguement of semantics.... it's the actions conducted that define terrorism, not who does it.

If tomorrow a democratically elected governement decided to engage in slavery, that would not stop it being slavery.

Intimidation and control through violence and fear is terrorism, be it under the disguise of democracy, or of religious fanaticism. It is equally deplorable in both cases.

Flukey

Exactly Memnoch. It is not who does but what they do that makes it a terrorist act. As I pointed out, the victims don't worry about who is doing it. They don't say "My house has been destroyed and my family have all been killed, but it was done by an elected government, so that's alright then."

Flukey

Flukey wrote:

Exactly Memnoch. It is not who does but what they do that makes it a terrorist act.

Do you not realise, you are making up a definition of terrorism there to suit your viewpoint.

Memnoch wrote:

it's an arguement of semantics.... it's the actions conducted that define terrorism, not who does it.

Yes it is to an extent an element of semantics,I've not said if a democratic government orders what you consider wrong, that it is a right though.I wouldnt say that unless I thought it was a right.
Speaking in general terms:
I've just pointed out the definition of terrorism relates to the fact that theres nothing at all democratic about it.
Theres no vote,and no mandate.
In the case of the actions of a democratically elected governments ,it boils down to view points.
If they act differently to your morals, yet they are still elected again,then there is no concensus to conclude that their actions are condemnable in exactly the fashion that you would condemn them.
It's only a view and or a different moral approach.

You couldnt apply that logic to what is conventionally accepted as a terrorist for the very simple reason of the lack of a mandate or any other reasonable check or balance to what they do.
Thats why definition wise theres a different description for a band of lunatics that do what are terrible things and an elected government who by extention of a war they start cause equally terrible things.

Only way to avoid this is perfection, a peacefull world where everybody agree's,nobodies selfish, love is all around and no one acts to the detriment of the others happiness.
Because we are human and based on the history of humanity to date,I think it's safe to say that ain't ever going to happen.
Best you can hope for is push for the ideal yourself.
But even if you do that yourself on the micro level, you wont be altruistic about it either and if you say you are going to be I simply wont believe it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Terrorism is a term given to an act which a state disagrees with. If that is the limit of what truly is terrorism, it is an irrelevant description as many states (democratic or otherwise) have engaged in terrorism but that label apparantly does not fit. It is the action that defines terrorism not the perpertrator.

Well strictly speaking it has to be unlawfull-ergo if a government commits heinous acts in its own country,it probably might not be un lawfull as they probably might have wrote the laws to cover their actions.
I'm speaking of a democratic country though where the government is elected and the laws reflect what the majority of people want.
Thus terrorism is not an appropriate definition for the actions of a government(within their own country) where its government is elected.

Whole different ball game when you go to them acting a war in a separate country.

A Dub in Glasgo

What if the 'democratic' will of the people is to hunt down and slaughter innocent people that do not fit in to their view of society... is that terrorism? The reason I put ' ' around democratic is the fact that governments can rule and make laws with the approval of the minority, not the majority

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What if the 'democratic' will of the people is to hunt down and slaughter innocent people that do not fit in to their view of society...

Not in the eyes of the people that vote for it certainly,I don't know of an E.U country that does that or whose government has a mandate to do it-which "democratic" country outside of the E.U were you thinking of ?

The reason I put ' ' around democratic is the fact that governments can rule and make laws with the approval of the minority, not the majority

Oh they can but in a free democracy, thats not sustainable for too long unless you can persuade a majority that the laws are justified.Maggie had to abandon her poll tax for instance.