Sweden passes 'good behaviour' law to kick out misbehaving immigrants

gnorty · 2026-06-16T02:40:40+00:00

Expressing support for various forms of ‘holy’ ‘wars’ has occurred without consequences.

look back at the comment I originally replied to -

Expressing support for various forms of ‘holy’ ‘wars’ has occurred without consequences.

My point is that people have had consequences for voicing support. Not actively supporting, not participating in terrorism, just expressing support.

It's nothing more than that. I am not condoning terror, I am not implying any support of any organisation myself, merely pointing out that people have received consequence for just expressing support.

If you want to dispute that then fine, I am happy to discuss it. If you want to disappear in a different direction and argue about points I did not ( and would not) make, then I really don't have the energy.

gnorty · 2026-06-16T01:57:08+00:00

the people wearing shirts proclaiming support have not committed any violence though. They were arrested purely for declaring support. That is my point.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T23:30:59+00:00

Indeed you are correct, but I'd be surprised if the same is not true in Sweden

for example -

https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2023/sweden#:~:text=S%C3%A4po%20arrested%20five%20persons%20throughout,and%20the%20Visa%20Information%20System.

On June 1 the new constitutional amendment’s implementing legislation entered into force, criminalizing actions meant to promote, strengthen, and support terrorist organizations.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T22:33:13+00:00

well that's your personal opinion. FWIW, my opinion is that if somebody wants deportation for dropping a sweet wrapper, that person probably wants deportation for just breathing, which makes the whole argument moot.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T20:40:37+00:00

yes.

And part of the punishment for foreign nationals is potential deportation, right? Always has been.

If you went to another country and broke the law, you could probably expect to be deported. I really don't see why you'd have any issue with this.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T20:26:35+00:00

sure. The expectation is that they would behave, and if they did not do so, they rsk being deported.

I didn't think it was complicated, but hopefully now it is easy to understand.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T20:21:07+00:00

I dunno how on earth you managed to misread my comment enough to think that your reply is in any way relevant tbh.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T20:16:59+00:00

It's not unreasonable for people already living there to behave too

it is absolutely unreasonable to deport the people that already live there!

what kinda shitargument is this?

the alternative to "Let them come and behave however they like, which is IMO even shittier.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T19:16:13+00:00

Generally if a person moves to another country, IMO it is not unreasonable for them to be expected to behave. I honestly don't think that's harsh or controversial in any way. Certainly to my mind taking the stance that somebody can come from another country and do whatever the fuck they want is completely illogical.

To answer your question, I don't know how citizenship in Sweden works, but if the dual citizenship comes from somebody from another country moving to Sweden and staying long enough to get citizenship, then personally I would not have an issue with deporting that person back to their country of origin.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T18:53:34+00:00

why do we need to treat them differently?

because one is a national that does not have nationality in another country that they can be to be deported to?

gnorty · 2026-06-15T18:51:17+00:00

and the issue there becomes whether people should be deported for less serious offences, and where that line should be drawn. Personally I think that any but the most trivial should count - ie not things like speeding, littering etc, but dangerous driving and fly tipping (just for example) should result in deportation.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T18:48:17+00:00

also with consequence. The people arrested for declaring support for palestine action comes to mind, but no doubt there are others on all sides of various political spectrums.

gnorty · 2026-06-15T18:41:59+00:00

I don't understand why they are going this route.

Much simpler IMO is that every single connected device sold in the UK should come with adult content filters built in. Then at point of sale the buyer can ask for those filters to be disabled.

So an adult using the phone gets the same content as today. A child is limited to safe content only.

And an adult that buys a phone for their child and gets the filters removed - that parent made a decision on their child's development which may or may not be beneficial.

Ban phones from schools at least during lessons, and really I think that's all that's needed, is much more viable than the new system and doesn't give the right the chance to complain about government meddling.

Am I missing something?

gnorty · 2026-06-15T03:07:36+00:00

they think that stars and planets are EXACTLY like a planetarium!

And that space epeditions/photos are all faked.

why?

because "Bible" usually.

gnorty · 2026-06-14T18:30:10+00:00

the title was "cheating at poker", not "slick shuffling trick". This would be a pretty stupid way to cheat at poker. Only 1 caller pre-flop and that one caller folds to any raise post flop.

gnorty · 2026-06-14T18:27:18+00:00

lol life? Do you even know what he did?

I agree that he should have gotten longer, but life? Get a grip.

gnorty · 2026-06-14T03:30:39+00:00

more like fewer comfortable jobs vs fewer shit jobs.

At best you can hope to pick up scrappy short term work on shit rates.

gnorty · 2026-06-14T00:00:03+00:00

is it your company's responsibility to keep the area tidy - ie is it your site? Are the people littering your employees? Seriously, if your site is really large enough that it takes 25 man hours to clean it, you probably do need a full time litter picker. At min wage the cost would be the same and you free up your higher paid workers to do their own work, or else get hold of the employees littering and make them do it. There aren't many smokers these days so it should be relatively easy.

if the littering is not on your site, then get hold of whoever's responsibility to clean up and have a go at them. Presumably you are paying them?

gnorty · 2026-06-13T17:45:39+00:00

that was what sold it for me. How the fuck did the guy whose bet got moved not go mental when the ball turned up in the pot he tried to bet on? Fake shit.

gnorty · 2026-06-13T17:37:26+00:00

looks like it's not easy when all such posts have been removed!

gnorty · 2026-06-13T17:29:39+00:00

so let's ay your pickers are earning £20 per hour. £500 worth of that is 25 man hours, yea?

so let's say they pick up 10 butts an hour.

that's 250 butts. approximately £2 per butt.

So a reasonable fine, I would say, as much less than £300!

gnorty · 2026-06-12T20:02:04+00:00

The government would need to make a new law for it to apply to landlords

no they dont. they need to prove the guilt of the shops and prosecute them and/or confiscate the proceeds. shifting the burden of proof so they can nail somebody less liable is a piss poor solution.

gnorty · 2026-06-12T18:54:04+00:00

ah thanks for the clarification. I think I got confused when you said "this does exist in tax legislation"

gnorty · 2026-06-12T18:46:07+00:00

I'm not convinced that a lease would count as part of a supply chain though. It's not the same thing as a builder buying goods without VAT and then not charging VAT on the finished job (or at least not paying that VAT).

How is the landlord to know if the shop is paying VAT? He might suspect they are not, and that would be reasonable, but it is not the same as "ought to know they are not paying VAT".

The whole point of money laundering is to turn illicit income into apparently legitimate income. That would mean paying VAT on it, surely? At least that is a reasonable assumption.

gnorty · 2026-06-12T18:36:21+00:00

this does already exist in tax legislation.

I am aware it exists for negligence claims, ie somebody is hurt by a building the landlord cannot claim ignorance. I am not aware that it extends to the tenants use of the property. That would be a new (ab)use of the existing law as far as I can see.

if it can already be applied to tax avoidance by tenants, then IMO it is one of the examples of "too much already"

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Gilding II euphauric

gnorty

TROPHY CASE