I just spotted the face of Batboy in a slice of toast too! Or maybe it was the Virgin Mary... Ack... dammit I shouldn't post while drunk! By this time tomorrow I'll be banned from the Vatican. Haggis may be a secondary concern, but really, I think it comes down to Tea Party decisions to keep area 51 yeti sightings away from public awareness, for the sake of their Mars program.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Original story is from the Sun. Aren't they about as valid as the National Enquirer?
Thanks, was about to say the same myself, with the addition that the Sun is about as valid as Fox.
Actually the original story is from the Bedfordshire on Sunday, which came out on saturday, and and which wasn't credited by The Sun
As for the validity, the Beds on Sunday is completely spotless when it comes to scare-mongering, it's won best regional paper something like twice in the past 10 years.
There is nothing in the list of reasons for banning a foreigner from entry which allows them to be banned for dissing the President.
It isn't a crime in the USA or in the UK.
There isn't a law which allows the police to visit you and take your photo.
Unless he gave them his address in his email, they would have had to get a court order to make his ISP divulge that info.
Either the story is BS or else we aren't being given all the details. For example, it is a crime in the USA to threaten the life of the President. They take it pretty seriously. Perhaps he did that and has been put on the FBI's list of suspicious persons.
Didnt Amy Wine-House get banned from entering the US country for her award party? (sorry I'm not up on pop singer spelling but that's how its pronounced).. I know that Genesis P. Orridge, the singer from Throbbing Gristle was banned from the UK back in the day for saying derogatory lewd things about the Queen too. I guess it's not unheard of.
I'm still more worried about seeing the face of the Virgin Mary in my toast though.
Awesome how DoHS bans a 17yo from entering the US for calling PresbO a "prick" but the underwear bomber was on a terrorist watch list for 2 years and he got onto a plane paying cash for a one-way ticket and had no luggage at all.
Way to go Napolitano. Keep showing the US how much of an idiot you really are.
The story consists of two things, a kid being banned from entering the US, and that kid's version of what he did to incur the banning. From the kid's story the banning seems comically excessive. This might be, shockingly enough, because kids who get in trouble don't always tell the truth. It's likely he said a whole lot more, most likely would be a threat to the president's life.
Now, I want to go to the US someday, and I think Obama is alright if a little ineffectual, but I like a gamble and I like to find stuff out... so let's see if calling Obama a prick will actually get someone banned from the US.
Obama is a prick.
Now we play the waiting game... will I get banned?! Excitement!
Actually I wasn't allowed OUT of the U.S. because of a drug charge over a bowl o weed that never got cleared up. Despite having a British passport, heading to Canada (a commonwealth member) they actually wouldn't let me OUT until I go back to Arizona over a minor drug infraction 12 years old. Some states take a bowl of weed pretty seriously. Now I'm a brit trapped in the U.S. with a British passport and not allowed to go to Britain or any of the commonwealth. Not allowed out. . Yeah that was a fun scenario to deal with. stupid stupid stupid
Guitardian wrote:Actually I wasn't allowed OUT of the U.S. because of a drug charge over a bowl o weed that never got cleared up. Despite having a British passport, heading to Canada (a commonwealth member) they actually wouldn't let me OUT until I go back to Arizona over a minor drug infraction 12 years old. Some states take a bowl of weed pretty seriously. Now I'm a brit trapped in the U.S. with a British passport and not allowed to go to Britain or any of the commonwealth. Not allowed out. . Yeah that was a fun scenario to deal with. stupid stupid stupid
I would really contact your embassy, I mean I can't imagine the brits like their citizens to be held against their will and all that.
Frazzled wrote:I bet he threatened the Pres with haggis. That's a definite threat in my book.
EDIT: In fact, if you disagree, you're either drunk or a Scot, or even worse a drunk Scot.
Does a drunk Scot slur his broug into his emails? Where's MDG when I need him?
I'm a Scot; been living not hugely far from Bedford, and no haggis here! Although there are exceptions, the English really don't eat it. Since moving to England I've only found it stocked in shops around Burns' Night.
(Unless there's some in-joke I've missed which inspired the haggis reference in the first post...)
ShumaGorath wrote:Haggis looks good. I dont understand the hate.
It's really nice. I think it's the 'sheep's stomach' thing that puts people off, but you don't eat that bit, that's like an outer packaging that you remove. It's bit like stuffing, but not really.
Not that this story has any validity beyond what a kid is telling a gossip rag, but...
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:So much for free speech.
Original. You would fit right in with those ignorant enough to beleive the rights of american citizens apply to those who arent citizens.
Magna Carta doesn't apply to me, why should the U.S. Constitution apply to you?
It seems self entitlement isn't a strictly american phenomenon anymore.
If the story is actually (and surprisingly) factual, then the blame lies squarely on Homeland Security put into place by Bush, not Obama. But of course such a right wing sensationalist 'news' organization is going to place the blame on Obama. Fox understands the true power of selective amnesia.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:One kid gets deported and we are eating fat people?
Mmmm....bacon...wait we deported someone?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Haggis looks good. I dont understand the hate.
Thats because you're a yankee.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:Actually I wasn't allowed OUT of the U.S. because of a drug charge over a bowl o weed that never got cleared up. Despite having a British passport, heading to Canada (a commonwealth member) they actually wouldn't let me OUT until I go back to Arizona over a minor drug infraction 12 years old. Some states take a bowl of weed pretty seriously. Now I'm a brit trapped in the U.S. with a British passport and not allowed to go to Britain or any of the commonwealth. Not allowed out. . Yeah that was a fun scenario to deal with. stupid stupid stupid
Give me $2,000 and I can help you with that. You don't have an aversion to swimming across rivers do you?
Haggis is good. Haggis is great. Haggis with Neeps and Tatties. Haggis on my plate!
But this morning, I had a Breakfast PIE!
Yes, you can stick your 'All Day Breakfast' Sandwiches, with their flacid bread, dull, wet tomato and crappy filling. I'm talking Breakfast PIE.
And it was delicious. Cold Water Pastry case, then a slice of Black Pudding (Pigs Blood. Mmm!) Baked Beans, rasher of Bacon, scrambled egg, two ickle Sossies, and then a bit of cheese. BARP! Breakfast of Champions!
I have an admission to make to the American government. I've been encouraging plants to produce an 'oxygen' in your country for some time now, creating an ageing (you might know it as 'aging') effect that has been stressing your wives and eventually killing your presidents for centuries. I like to call it oxygenocide.
Then again, I didn't want to visit anyway. Have fun with your 'aging' women!
Guitardian wrote:Actually I wasn't allowed OUT of the U.S. because of a drug charge over a bowl o weed that never got cleared up. Despite having a British passport, heading to Canada (a commonwealth member) they actually wouldn't let me OUT until I go back to Arizona over a minor drug infraction 12 years old. Some states take a bowl of weed pretty seriously. Now I'm a brit trapped in the U.S. with a British passport and not allowed to go to Britain or any of the commonwealth. Not allowed out. . Yeah that was a fun scenario to deal with. stupid stupid stupid
Wait, was that "Wah wah, I was involved in something I knew was illegal and then I suffered reprecussions from it, laws are stupid, wah wah" I just read?
Guitardian wrote:Actually I wasn't allowed OUT of the U.S. because of a drug charge over a bowl o weed that never got cleared up. Despite having a British passport, heading to Canada (a commonwealth member) they actually wouldn't let me OUT until I go back to Arizona over a minor drug infraction 12 years old. Some states take a bowl of weed pretty seriously. Now I'm a brit trapped in the U.S. with a British passport and not allowed to go to Britain or any of the commonwealth. Not allowed out. . Yeah that was a fun scenario to deal with. stupid stupid stupid
Wait, was that "Wah wah, I was involved in something I knew was illegal and then I suffered reprecussions from it, laws are stupid, wah wah" I just read?
No that was... sometimes countries dont let you out. yeah one day I'll pay my little fine or serve my 5 days... but restricting me from access to my home country over a bowl of weed years and years ago? yeah I was obviously trying to flee the country over that, right?
oh wait what was that? I was a stuffshirt who never commited any minor infraction as a kid? Damn that makes you pretty
and yeah the "since 9/11" excuse has made any law regarding crossing national borders pretty difficult and complicated nowadays. It's fun to be a non-citizen in a country that wont let you leave, vote, or work except under the table. So take your judgemental ass to PM next time.
If you're gonna go somewhere and break the law, I think you lose all moral high ground when it comes to the consequences. Glad you're going to go sort it out instead of complaining about it as if you were powerless.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Silly little tw*t, they should have put him in an orange jumpsuit and taken him to a secluded holiday camp near the sea...
So you don't believe in free speech either?
I would take this seriously because it sets a bad precedent. The US can refuse entry to whoever they like, but critiquing the President is a bad excuse, it party politicises the immigration system for a start and looks bad for America. Believing in the current leader should not be a category defining entry into the USA, especially entry on any Visa. A ban on entry is different from refusal of residency. Now if the teenager had made threats against the President, or against the office then that would count as terrorism or wanting to overthrow the government respectively. Both are good grounds for refusal, and also constitutional. However a personal dislike of the person of the leader is not a good excuse, there must be plenty of visitors to America who have not liked the president in charge at the time. Many of whome would be more than happy to express their opinions. This shouldn't of itself be an issue for immigration.
The UK has a party politicised immigration policy, or at least it had until recently. immigration access was targeted to those cultural groups that were expected to vote Labour, however bad this was it still didn't account for individuals. If someone wanted to stay and disliked the Prime Minister or even the Queen they could stay. Often they do and say what they will before and after entry.
However a personal ban for distain for the President smacks of pride. I have a multiple indefinate entry visa on my passport, and I think Obama is a p***k, does that mean I should have that visa revoked? Admittedly I wouldn't email this to him, but then the teenager who did so went no further. If he had mailed a bag of faeces with the note or wrote a threat or something else then maybe, but an opinion is an opinion. If he thinks Obama is a poor president and is vocal about it good for him. At this point it is fair to ask if you have better chances of getting the Visa you want if you support the Democrat party, because it appears critics of Obama are not wanted.
I would complain if I were you, not for the teenager, stuff him, but for what this means. You need clear sourcing of the story, not the Sun, a double sourcing beyond the local paper that orginated the story. It doesn't really matter where the person was from, she could have been French for all we care, but this is an excellent beatstick to hit Obama with. And a needed one too. The White House gets a lot of mail, not all of it is going to be friendly. However it need not be, someone in that position should be able to take critique, its ominously bad if they cant.
The U.S. doesn't ban people for that Orlanth. We don't actually know what was said, and I'm still not entirely convinced this happened at all concerning the source material and lack of openness about the entire issue. The Teen would know what he wrote if it wasn't threatening, he has a sentbox where he can review the email.
Frazzled wrote:Oh DG I'm agreeing with Shuma. Its the Seventh Sign!!!
Even a broken clock (you) is right twice a day.
Agreeing with you Shuma is a strange use of the word 'right'.
Would you prefer 'left'? Whassa matta orly, not conspiratorial enough for ya?
I got the conspiracy fix of the day when I read that the police came around photo'ed the kid and then said 'we aren't pressing charges'. Which is a way of saying, 'we cant, and wouldnt need to press charges anyway, your marked which is a lot worse'.
Plenty to look at there. That mark will go a lot further than no entry visa, it will have to go on police file somewhere. I think it was an extreme response frankly almost irregardless of what he wrote in an email. This can (depending on what future the kid wants for himself)l haunt the kid for a very long time, close a lot of doors and it wont be easy to overturn.
Frazzled wrote:Oh DG I'm agreeing with Shuma. Its the Seventh Sign!!!
Even a broken clock (you) is right twice a day.
Agreeing with you Shuma is a strange use of the word 'right'.
Would you prefer 'left'? Whassa matta orly, not conspiratorial enough for ya?
I got the conspiracy fix of the day when I read that the police came around photo'ed the kid and then said 'we arent prssing charges'. Which is a way of saying, 'we wont need to press charges, your marked which is a lot worse'. Plenty to look at there.
Yeah, if I were living in your country I would complain.
Frazzled wrote:We haven't seen what was actually sent. All we have is the word of the teenager which to me is less than nothing.
Indeed. The follow up reports announced his message was rude and threatening, the message being sent whilst the teenager was drunk and having watched a documentary on 9/11. Rumour doing the round in the Uk media circles is that is was a long rant detailing Obamas/the USA Govts as a whole involvement in covering the "real" events on said day. I don't know if that's true but it is somewhat odd that if the boy had only called the President a prick he has been remarkably unable to produce a copy of said email to validate his claims.
I've been more amused by the number of idiots who seem to be under the impression that it was Obama personally who did this, as he sits answering and checking emails all day. I'd be surprised if Obama had heard anything about this case at all prior to it being announced as "news".
I gather there are, apparently 60 odd reasons one can be denied entry to the USA and yet they have accepted Piers Morgan with open arms. Extraordinary.
reds8n wrote:
I've been more amused by the number of idiots who seem to be under the impression that it was Obama personally who did this, as he sits answering and checking emails all day. I'd be surprised if Obama had heard anything about this case at all prior to it being announced as "news".
I dont think anyone is thinking that, but what is done in the leaders name is in the leaders name unless he states otherwise. The White House hasn't said someone went too far with a life ban.
reds8n wrote:
I've been more amused by the number of idiots who seem to be under the impression that it was Obama personally who did this, as he sits answering and checking emails all day. I'd be surprised if Obama had heard anything about this case at all prior to it being announced as "news".
I dont think anyone is thinking that, but what is done in the leaders name is in the leaders name unless he states otherwise. The White House hasn't said someone went too far with a life ban.
And the UK government hasn't said that someone went too far with the collusion. It's as if the kid is lying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think we're glossing over this ale thing way to easily...
You want to talk about beer start a thread about it. Stop trolling this fething forum.
Orlanth wrote:
I dont think anyone is thinking that,
I see you haven't had the misfortune to happen upon some of the more....... interesting..... comments and discussions in the various "have your say" and comments sections in some of the media outlets and forums.
Very wise. Insanity and rabid stupidity is still here for the longterm it appears.
You want to talk about beer start a thread about it. Stop trolling this fething forum.
Thats a negative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
I dont think anyone is thinking that,
I see you haven't had the misfortune to happen upon some of the more....... interesting..... comments and discussions in the various "have your say" and comments sections in some of the media outlets and forums.
Very wise. Insanity and rabid stupidity is still here for the longterm it appears.
It's not like the UK hasn't disallowed entry to people who say stuff we don't like... Our country, our rules. Same goes for the USA, and good luck to them.
It is possible that in an effort to close our borders in general, a move such as this may just be an excuse to set a precedent. We need excuses for our government's proclaimations, whether it is WMD or Sh!t-Talking. Whatever it is, you can always use the "since 9/11" clause to excuse any kind of national security risk, even if it's a dumb drunk kid.
Orlanth wrote:
I dont think anyone is thinking that,
I see you haven't had the misfortune to happen upon some of the more....... interesting..... comments and discussions in the various "have your say" and comments sections in some of the media outlets and forums.
Very wise. Insanity and rabid stupidity is still here for the longterm it appears.
@ Mr. Frazzled : the fifth horseman.
No I havent. I will rephrase 'I dont think anyone here is thinking that' which is what I actually meant.
Albatross wrote:It's not like the UK hasn't disallowed entry to people who say stuff we don't like... Our country, our rules. Same goes for the USA, and good luck to them.
Serves the little spanker right, if you ask me.
In general I agree, only that on the face of the report (which I disbelieve as indicated above) it is a case of "our country, not our rules".
I.e. the UK can ban someone because he is a notorious ranter of "hate speech" which is against our law. No matter how unjust our law may be he did at least have the chance to know it before he started hate speeching.
The teen drone in the report didn't break any UK or US laws though, even including the list of reasons for refusing entry.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Silly little tw*t, they should have put him in an orange jumpsuit and taken him to a secluded holiday camp near the sea...
So you don't believe in free speech either?
I don't believe sending an email to a world leader threatening them is a smart thing to do.
I don't believe the resources then wasted in employing the intelligence services to investigate the threats and who made them is a particularly good use of taxpayer dollars.
I don't think we have read the email and ascertained how the threat was made nor who this little sh*t claimed to be or represent.
The freedom of speech and veto were fought for over hundreds of years across the western world by brave people placing their lives on the line for a belief in civil rights. This little puke is an affront to that heritage. Let him suffer these (fairly minor) consequences.
oh and I want to pick your brain about BFG when you have some time.
Albatross wrote:It's not like the UK hasn't disallowed entry to people who say stuff we don't like... Our country, our rules. Same goes for the USA, and good luck to them.
Serves the little spanker right, if you ask me.
In general I agree, only that on the face of the report (which I disbelieve as indicated above) it is a case of "our country, not our rules".
I.e. the UK can ban someone because he is a notorious ranter of "hate speech" which is against our law. No matter how unjust our law may be he did at least have the chance to know it before he started hate speeching.
The teen drone in the report didn't break any UK or US laws though, even including the list of reasons for refusing entry.
That's part of why I disbelieve the report.
Sounds like he got a knock on the door from our authorities - the US would do the same thing to one of their citizens who threatened our head of state. If that's what happened - something which is admittedly unclear.
Kilkrazy wrote:Under US law it is an offence to threaten the life of the President and you get a file on you at the FBI.
True.
But calling someone a p***k isn't any sort of threat.
In Obama's case, it's a statement of FACT.
Plus, we're supposed to have "Freedom of speech", whatever that means now that the PC crowd is in control...
No, it's still opinion, it's like me hypothetically calling you a fan-fluttering, simpering turd... That would be my hypothetical opinion, not necessarily everyone else's (I'm sure your mother would hold a different view, if I asked her).
If I hypothetically said you're a fan-fluttering, simpering turd and I'm going to come round to your house with my extremist buddies and reach my fist down your throat and tear out your ever-flapping tongue and strangle you with it, well, now that is threatening and if this kid was using that sort of sentence towards a state leader, you can see why the security services reacted as they did.
Indeed, and if, hypothetically, I called you a boorish 'tard who didn't understand the difference between the literal and figurative, that'd be additional FACT.
If, hypothetically, I informed you that "I'd like to see you try, because I'll kill you", that'd also be a FACT.
And bringing things back to reality, I would gladly invite you into my home. California has a model Castle Law, and I'd be glad to school you on it. I'm deadly serious about this offer.
Kilkrazy wrote:Under US law it is an offence to threaten the life of the President and you get a file on you at the FBI.
Hahaha I must have racked up several of those during the Dubyah years using myspace. I think they can sort out the sarcastic joking around from the truly dangerous threats though. At one point I challenged him to a sword duel to the death, just to see if they were 'watching'. Nobody has actually gotten ahold of me about it yet, but we all know how efficient government bureaucracies are; They'll get around to it when I'm 80 or something.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I don't believe the resources then wasted in employing the intelligence services to investigate the threats and who made them is a particularly good use of taxpayer dollars.
I don't see how you can say that unless you think the President's security should not be handled by taxpayer dollars. If someone sends a threat to the person who's being guarded, a good bodyguard organization investigates the threat. If they don't, they're going to look really stupid if the guy later attacks the person they were supposed to be guarding. You can't determine that a threat is not real until you investigate it, so you have to spend some 'resources' on it. Though really I suspect this is more of having one guy read the email, check on the guy, send a couple of emails, get a signature on the 'do not enter', and email or fax the UK PD, not some sort of multi-agency investigation with dozens of people crossing the globe to get to the bottom of it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I don't believe the resources then wasted in employing the intelligence services to investigate the threats and who made them is a particularly good use of taxpayer dollars.
I don't see how you can say that unless you think the President's security should not be handled by taxpayer dollars. If someone sends a threat to the person who's being guarded, a good bodyguard organization investigates the threat. If they don't, they're going to look really stupid if the guy later attacks the person they were supposed to be guarding. You can't determine that a threat is not real until you investigate it, so you have to spend some 'resources' on it. Though really I suspect this is more of having one guy read the email, check on the guy, send a couple of emails, get a signature on the 'do not enter', and email or fax the UK PD, not some sort of multi-agency investigation with dozens of people crossing the globe to get to the bottom of it.
The sentence, as you've quoted me by taking it out of context, has the reverse meaning to what I was saying.
If the investigation of a threat against the president led to a spotty little gakker with no means to anything out, then the resources deployed to do so were wasted as was the time used.
Over here there is a crime called wasting police time, which can carry a prison sentence. If he's ended up activating the security services and so on, that's going to cost and ultimately that money was wasted because some little chump was sending hatemail.
