₦airaland Forum

I tire. It even applies to European who are from countries outside the EU and it also applies to even Americans so I don't get all the way we cry like we are victims all the time.

I don't get our sense of entitlement.

geosegun:
People are so gullible and refused to grow up when it comes to sensational journalism.

The rule is applicable to all immigrants from anywhere in the world except the Europeans.

However, because jourlists want to sell their products, they twist the headlines by specifically mentioning Nigeria. As gullible as most Nigerians are, they bought into it and start to formit trash-

I cry for my beloved country.

Yes they do need migrants but there is only so much they can take and don't forget they also have lots of people coming in from EU countries including the newer members like Romania so they will not be short of low job workers.

Countries like Australia and Canada have more favourable immigration policies now because they need people but it will not always be the case as at some point they too will tighten rules to control immigration. It's a matter of demand v supply.

jantavanta:
.....my fair lady.....!

The bridge cannot carry everybody forever. But they seem to always need immigrants. It is like a cycle of need now then deport later.

Really and you do?

So you expect Nigerian ambassadors drive UK immigration policy right? Same way Britain drives Nigerian immigration policy? Or the way Ghanaian ambassador makes demand to Nigerians foreign ministry?

Also the title is totally wrong and the OP just used it to drive traffic as he knows we will jump on and start abusing.

They are not deporting people already in the UK but saying in the future if you want to remain in the UK via work permit then you must be earning no less than 35k gbp. They have every right to do so and I still do not see what the Nigerian ambassador or high commissioner will say about it. Also this is not targeted at Nigerians but non EU migrants.

Btw if you are not earning 35k as a graduate after 5 years then maybe you should return to Nigeria as it means you have not been able to secure a good professional job.

PeteVlogger:
You don't know foreign policy that's why you are asking this ignorant question

And what exactly should your ambassadors do? Determine UK immigration policy?

The title is misleading btw, he put Nigerians to sensationalise the story. It is not targeted at Nigerians but non EU migrants.

PeteVlogger:
This news is a very sad one... What are our ambassadors doing

Bros Thailand prisons are notorious. Probably worse than kiri kiri.

ChappyChase:
Source!
*modified*
I can bet my left balls that, that boy ain't no drug pusher, he just one of those "smart" nigerian who will rather stay in a prison outside nigeria instead of coming back to nigeria to suffer this scam APC call change!!!!
See the way the guy is smiling, for him mind he don cheat bubu scam government!
Well, I won't mind going to switzerland to go enjoy my prison vacation while I wait for this Government to leave office abeg any body fit help me with the connection!

God bless you. The way we shout racism over everything is tiring. Always playing the victim card and ignoring logic.

Siena:
[color=Blue]I have no issues sticking up for anyone, regardless of race IF there is something to actually defend. In this case, there was none.

Whatever came this guy's way, whatever indignities he suffered were as a result of his attitude. Resisting arrest IS an offense, regardless of why you are being arrested.

This was NOT a racist issue. This guy failed to purchase a valid ticket, failed to pay the fine, disobeyed direct instruction from a police officer, resisted arrest. What exactly are you defending? You need to see Caucasian's resisting arrest for what was originally a minor offense. They get treated even worse than this guy did, some end up with black eyes. Is this racism too?

This guy was the architect of his own misfortune.[/color]

What will the visa status of the child be?

If the child I already in the UK you just register him in your catchment school. Every area has a school assigned and they are obliged to take the child as long as he lives within the catchment area. There ar all other types of schools private etc which have more stringent entry requirements such as tests etc.

If you are asking of how to get a visa for a toddler to study in the UK, well don't think you can get a student visa for a toddler so it depends on your status.

wirelessfalcon:
Please can any one help with information if i want to start my todler in a nursery or primary school in the UK? any contacts or weblinks to find schools and VISA info will be of great help.
i am a non resident and a nigerian
may need mum and child to stay for a year or 2

Thanks

This is the conclusion I wa talking about in my other post. How have you concluded that he didn't know why he was being arrested? Where Where the video did he say why are you arresting me?

You ignore that fact the video did not start from the beginning and you start ma assumptions

Excuzeme:
Please stop being silly!

By asking you for your "I.D", the Cop has already given you a reason for Stopping you.... even without you asking!
That is good Policing.

Now imagine if you were just taking a walk and he shouted "Lie down,..Lie down,...l say lie down.."
I am sure the first word that will come out of your mouth is "Officer, WHY"?
That is you asking for a "reason".


It is natural.... except one has become a human being without any shred of Dignity...... which might be a reflections of one's position in the "food chain".

Yes I have made a lot of assumptions because I do not have the full picture and neither do you. Reaching a conclusion on that video alone and saying the police must be charged is wrong.

While my assumptions are best guess, they are based on my understanding of how the process works and I agree they cannot be 100% accurate as neither i nor anyone here have the full picture.

Before thinsg will have escalated to the point the video was taken, it would have been a while probably about 30mins.

Let's look at it logically.

Guy comes off train and there are ticket inspectors at barriers. Cannot produce ticket to go through barriers so they probably approached him and attempted to fine him. I know this because I have been in similar situation before where I went outside my zone, but difference is i knew I was wrong and paid the 20 pound penalty fine.

He probably argues with them and for them to call police means things escalated and the ticket inspector felt they couldn't handle it.

Police will come and they will not start shouting lie down immediately unless there was a threat. they probably tried to talk to him to pay the fine and he refused, they attempt to arrest him and he resisted and started struggling. you can see in the video they attempted to handcuff him and he was flailing his arms and struggling. that is resisting arrest pure and simple.

By the time the video was shot things had already escalated so all the people shouting here that the police must be charged are wrong as a lot has happened before the video.

From the video you can see he was saying ok i will come with you but he didn't want to be handcuffed. well if he didn't want to be handcuffed he should have either paid for his ticket or paid the fine. I am very very sure there was a lot of opportunity to settle things before it escalated to that level. unfortunately you do not have the right or choice to decide if you want to be handcuffed or not when you are arrested. That is the prerogative of the police officers on the scene.

I have not crucified the man, all I have said is all of you crucifying the police based on same video are jumping to conclusions without facts. If he feels he was wrongly arrested there will be lawyers who will take his case on a no win no fee basis. he can also file a complaint with the independent police body. But people saying police must be charged or shouting raicism based on the video are jumping to conclusions and ignoring the fact that a lot must have already happened before the video.

Excuzeme:
Maybe something happened not cuaght on video...CCTV will show that one.

But you have made a lot of "suppositions" ...and used it to crucify the man!

Its either it happened, ...or it didn't happen. It can be "May be" it happened.

You cannot base your argument on the video as it was obviously not the start of the situation.

Some eye witness accounts said they were struggling earlier and one of the officers fell down. Now I agree he did not hit the officer but that's what can happen when you are resisting arrest, any small thing out of the struggle can be attributed to being violent and body harm to the officers.

Before the police would have been called he must have been arguing with train staff about not paying a fine. If he was a fare dodger as stated then he should have calmly accepted the 20 pound fine, but he probably tried to do the Nigerian agboju and it escalated to that point.

Excuzeme:
Ofcourse, that never happened, he was "resisting arrest"! ...unfortunately, we live in an era of 'phone-to-video'.




We all saw the Video and we know he never touched the officers....yet he is being charged for Assault and occasioning bodily harm (to the officers!)

See, it sis not only Naija Police that can lie, British Police sef too lie against darky people!

He just needs to get a good Lawyer and counter-sue them so that both cases are heard simultaneously.
Video evidence is there.

How have I contradicted myself?

Maybe the way I typed it was a bit jumbled up so I will clarify.

The police do not have to handcuff you to arrest you, but they are well within their rights to do so for both their protection and that of the suspect.

The proper procedure when you are getting arrested is to comply with police orders, get a lawyer and defend yourself not struggle with them. We do not know what transpired before the video started, and I wouldn't even be surprised if he wasn't in a situation with someone else e.g. if as some people are suggesting it is relating to fare dodging then it would have started with the train station staff who would then call police because things escalated. Before they would call police he must have been threatening or done something to warrant that.

When police come they will not immediately put their hands on you trying to grab and arrest you, it obviously escalated to that point most likely because he was arguing and resisting arrest.

If he feels he did no wrong and was wrongly arrested or manhandled then he is free to lodge a complaint with the independent police body who will investigate. If his claim is that they wanted to handcuff him then sorry he has no right not to be handcuffed if he is being arrested. You do not have the right to choose your mode of arrest.


There are escalation levels for dealing with different levels of suspects I agree [/b]e.g. if the suspect is armed more force will be used, but it is basic for suspects to be handcuffed to protect both the police and the suspect. The police do not have to handcuff a suspect, but they are within their rights to do so based on their judgement and will not negotiate with you on not being handcuffed simply based on please don't handcuff me I will follow you.

We do not know what transpired before the video started so we are speculating about the cause but if the police have reason to arrest you and want to handcuff you do not really have the right to say no. the procedure is you obey, follow them to the station, give your statement, you have the right to call a lawyer and defend yourself.

Thanks for the insult btw, shows you can conduct a mature conversation doesn't it?

Excuzeme:
[b]
Just read what you wrote and how you keep contradicting yourself......... just to argue for argument sake!

Yeah, but N600m expensive.... especially considering the state of the eocnomy

Goldenheart:
Dogs Are Generally Expensive,

Another extract from a legal website on resisting arrest so I don't not see anything from that video that will lead to the officers being charged.

he should have obeyed, go to the station and get a lawyer. Even if he can't afford a lawyer there are lot of pro bono lawyers around, the law states you will always be provided a lawyer to defend you.

One universal rule police officers must follow is that they are not allowed to use excessive force or treat the arrestee cruelly. Generally, police officers are only allowed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves and bring the suspect into police custody. This is why people are advised to never resist an arrest or argue with police. The more a suspect struggles, the more force is required for the police to do their job.

erico2k2:
They would be charged for it and also the home office will deal with him.Police ha e no right to hit anyone of they ain't violent. And it's on video.did yoy see how the rest of the officers put thier hands at thier back??they where excluding themselves from the event.

This is an extract form the UK police procedure and it clearly states that the police have the right to use reasonable force to arrest you if you resist. The video started with just 2 officers and he kept resisting until they brought in reinforcement. If he truly believes he hasn't done anything he should have obeyed the police, go to the station, ask for his right to make a call and call a lawyer to defend himself.

You do not resist arrest and argue that you do not want to be arrested. What do you expect the police to do, beg him?

Also we do not know what happened why they are arresting him as the video did not start from the beginning of the situation. Things must have escalated before the police were called in the first place so I still do not see why you are so convinced the police will be charged.

Try to look at it logically and not emotionally, and look at it if that was a white man would you say the same?

Police powers to use reasonable force

If you try to escape or become violent, the police can use ‘reasonable force’, eg holding you down so you can’t run off.

You can also be handcuffed.

The police have powers to search you when you’re arrested.


https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights

erico2k2:
They would be charged for it and also the home office will deal with him.Police ha e no right to hit anyone of they ain't violent. And it's on video.did yoy see how the rest of the officers put thier hands at thier back??they where excluding themselves from the event.

I agree that if the police were wrong they should be tried, but from the video I don't see what they can be charged on.

They want to arrest him, he resisted saying he didn't want to be handcuffed. The police do not have to negotiate with you on whether you are handcuffed or not, and he refusing to be handcuffed is legally resisting arrest which is it a crime in itself.

Sylverbox:
The best thing about this is that I am sure he will get justice for all of this here in the Uk. Even if did something wrong, he was willingbto cooperate but was still being beaten. Trust me thise police men will be tried. I am too sure of that

How do we know he wasn't told why he was being arrested? I don't recall him saying anything like "what did I do or why are you arresting me" in the video which suggests he knows why.

Also the video obviously did not start from the beginning so I am sure they must have told him why he was being arrested. From my watching the video, the issue seemed to be he didn't want to be handcuffed not that he didn't know why they were arresting him.

How do we know if the issue probably didn't start with the station staff who had to radio the police? Sometimes if you evade train fares and the station staff try to fine you and you resist or are violent against them they will call the police to intervene.

GeneralShepherd:
He is by law entitled to an explanation as to why he is being arrested. You don't just scream orders and expect the man to lie down like a dog

Really, there are escalation levels for getting handcuffed? Really?

There are escalation levels for dealing with different levels of suspects I agree e.g. if the suspect is armed more force will be used, but it is basic for suspects to be handcuffed to protect both the police and the suspect. The police do not have to handcuff a suspect, but they are within their rights to do so based on their judgement and will not negotiate with you on not being handcuffed simply based on please don't handcuff me I will follow you.

We do not know what transpired before the video started so we are speculating about the cause but if the police have reason to arrest you and want to handcuff you do not really have the right to say no. the procedure is you obey, follow them to the station, give your statement, you have the right to call a lawyer and defend yourself.

Thanks for the insult btw, shows you can conduct a mature conversation doesn't it?

Excuzeme:
I am sure you dont know "Police Procedures" otherwise you will know that there are "levels of escalation" that an offender gets to, (if he is not violent), ......before he can be HANDCUFFED, IN PUBLIC?.

Or are you one of those "I just wrote my JAMB Exam today"? In that case, you are exonerated.

Go and learn more but dont spew rubbish online.

What about the actions of the police officers was wrong?

What I saw in the video, the 2 police officers were trying to arrest him, reason why I do not know but they must have a reason.

He kept saying he would follow them but he didn't want to be handcuffed, but like it or not that is police procedure to handcuff people when hey are arrested and this applies to white. black, blue red people. While I can understand that he wants to follow them and doesn't want to be handcuffed, unfortunately that is resisting arrest as the police procedure does not allow them to negotiate with suspects. They have to follow procedure. He kept resisting and they called reinforcement and were forceful in arresting him and I saw one of the officer hit him.

While I do not like the police hitting people, they have the batons for a reason don't they? and he resisted arrest so they were within their rights. If he feels otherwise he can easily file charges against the police.

Now you explain your PoV as to why you think the police were wrong.

TheGoodJoe:

When once the actions carried out by the Police is not right, they become criminals. So the question, what did he do does not come into play here.

The question is, are the actions of the police officers correct?

How is it racism? Why do you guys shout racism at every opportunity? Do you really know what racism means or are you saying the UK police do not arrest white Britons? You can search for drunk whites being arrested in the UK everyday.

There is a rule of law and procedure and as part of that the police were within their rights to handcuff him if they were arresting him, but if you listen to the video you will see he kept saying I will come with you but don't handcuff me. He didn't want to be handcuffed and that is against procedure simple.

If he is innocent he will be acquitted through the legal process and if he believes he was wrongly arrested he can file charges. It's different from Nigeria where it is all about paying money to the police.

Stop shouting racism everytime, it is an insult to people who actually suffer racism.

kelzi11:
Racism

Don't mind MIPNIG. The guy clearly didn't want to be handcuffed and that is resisting arrest simple.

The re is a process to follow and if he feels he is innocent then he obeys the police, follows due process, get a lawyer and defend yourself.

People saying this cannot happen in Nigeria are just jokers. Have they forgotten the video of cadets who beat a guy? Or is the way Nigerian police fight with people everyday for money that we have forgotten.

xp17:
the guy was resisting arrest. He should learn to obey orders and stop constituting public nuisance. Some folks think because they're black, it's inappropriate for a white policeman to arrest them. I call that bullshit



Can you hear yourself? The same Nigeria that the military ordered the assault of warri women who were peacefully protesting yesterday.
Which other country does that?

That's not true. They will pay tax in every company they operate based on revenue they earn there. What you are talking about is the consolidated earnings which is based on where they are head quarters eg Google is obviously hq'd in California but are expected to pay tax on their UK earnings.

As per the op we do not know that Google does not pay tax in Nigeria, I expect rhey do but it wouldn't be that significant when you look at it against their global earnings and tax payments.

Kaykaymil:
They have company in Nigeria but the rule is you only pay tax where your company is head quartered, so if they have a headquarter in London they are bound by English laws. That is why to avoid tax most big corporate organization choose their headquaters in countris with low tax rate.
Similarly If u register a company here in Nigeria and same company in Uk and choose Nigeria as your quarter base of operations you are not bound to pay tax in UK.

It's not racism. Stereotyping due to fear over the recent terrorist attacks but not racism.

DankemzI:
Racists

You can't really compare expenses in the US and Nigeria based on exchange rates. Firstly the N380 exchange rate is not necessarily the true value of the naira but is driven by speculation and the current situation.

Anyway a lot of other factors need to be taken into consideration as well such as cost of living, average earning etc.

If you are planning to feed and transport yourself with $10 for a week in NY, be prepared to fast and walk everywhere that week lol.

I feel for people though with the way things are increasing in price and yet salaries are not increasing to match.

deraluv:
@ lady KashyBaby. with such amount I will feed myself and both transport for a week + in school .
really happy for you i pray 4 better days ahead!

They are already exporting oil to Europe and other areas.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/03/first-crude-oil-shipment-exports-from-u-s-after-40-year-ban-lifted/

Shale operators are claiming that with the latest operational efficiency they can be profitable at $40 a barrel and will crank up operations should oil price rise above $40.

Ofodirinwa:
This man is an slowpoke. The price is low because the US has more oil than both Saudi and Russia and is no longer importing the way it used to. Soon they will even export adding to world over supply. The US is no longer interested in foreign oil. They can freeze whatever they want to freeze the price will keep dropping as they find oil in new places here in the US.

Hey Lekkie073 CastedDude and others, I checked his profile and he is a robotics professor who develops drone software for the military.

Lekkie073 is correct those are commercially available drones in the pictures, but he may just be using the commercial drones for tests etc as he doesn't build the actual drones.


His full name is Dr. Osato Osemwengie.

A quote from his profile:

My corporation is currently working on a military game and collision avoidance software for drone.



This argument could have been easily avoided if our journalists were more professional and reported exact fact.

CastedDude:
Ur own education seems to be faulty due to the fact that the op NEVER said that the drones in the pictures are military drones.......the op said that the man makes drones for the US army.. so how are they related.....do u expect military drones to be in his office? the drones in his office are probably prototypes or ordinary ones because that is what he does

It's quite unfortunate that u can write BUT CANNOT READ

I no dey vex bro. But what do you mean they don't allow people in exit row to use trays?

I have never heard of this and I have sat in exit row seats a few times, and I saw trays in front and in the arm. You are allowed to use their trays when you seat on exit row seats. The difference is in bigger planes where there is bigger leg room it is no practical to have your tray on the front seat as it is too far forward hence it is in the arm. This is the same with seats at the front of sections where the seat is far from the front panel, too far to eat from hence it is in the arm.

This is NOT because you are not allowed to use your tray in exit seats. Smaller planes with smaller leg room on exit seats have trays in front.

The bolded is totally wrong. Maybe you are referring to Nigerian airlines, if not no airlines do not secure trays that you cannot use it on exit seats. And if you look at the pic you will see the lock is broken hence why they patches it up. Has nothing to do with safety but poor maintenance.

HEIR:
Bros calm down, I know you've a platinum abi gold card flying around the world. Isn't obvious they allow pers in other seats but these use theirs for some reasons, SAFETY! Most airlines using such aircraft, usually removed it altogether or secure nicely.
Newer planes carry improved design of more leg room and access and an in seat tray. Arik needs to improve on this anyways.

Unless that is particular to Nigerian airlines, I have NEVER been on an airline that does not allow you use trays for emergency reasons.

The use of the inserted in the arm seat tray is due to the fact exit seats tend to have wider leg room which means having the tray in front will be too far forward to eat on. It's not because of safety or emergency.

Think of it, isn't easier and quicker to put up a tray in front compared to the in the arm one?

Not all planes have in arm trays on exit row seats because not all planes have wide enough legroom there to require one. The driver for having an in arm tray is the width of the legroom ie how far in front will the tray be and not safety.

It is actually quicker to put up and latch an in front tray than an in arm one.

Owoloku1:
No airline allows you to use the tray behind those seats for emergency reasons..
They rather have a smaller and portable tray that is inserted in the arm-rest of your seat..that you can use and fold back in..thanks

Really? No they do not, please stop making excuses for the airline.

HEIR:
These are old Boeing aircrafts, newer models have the trays fitted inside the arm rest for seats close to the emergency exits. It possess a serious safety hazard during emergency. Airlines abroad using such old planes also seal theirs too, albeit with better astestic appeal. Please don't be too hard on them.

Use of an in seat tray has nothing to do with it being an exit seat. In seat trays are used in bigger planes where the gap between the seats on the exit row is wide or the seats at the beginning of a section eg the economy section where the gap between the seat and the panel in front is a wide gap which makes using a tray in front impossible.

It has nothing to do with an exit seat or safety.

Also you say there is nothing wrong with it. It shows the airline doesn't care about is image. They know Nigerians have no choice and will take it. We talk about the need to start exporting products and services to diversify from oil, well we must be ready to up our standards to compete shouldn't we?

How will accepting such poor services help us be competitive against other international airlines?

thegreengooner:
This is Arik...I've flown on this aircraft before.

Whilst it is tacky, there is nothing wrong with putting a sign there...best thing to have done however would have been to remove the tray from behind the seat.

For most exit row seats, an in-seat tray is used and not the one at the back of the seat in front of you.