criminals are more protected

Yep, Northern Iraq is actually a pretty safe part of the world these days - unless he's been a 'bad boy' there, there's no reason to expect that his Human Rights would be violated upon his return.
His financial status would take a dive to be sure and his standard of living would be way different, but that's about all. You can even buy booze there - they have off-licences in the towns selling openly as Kurds aren't subject to islamic restrictions on alcohol - so everyone becomes 'Kurdish' when they do the shopping.

So: Apply unsuccessfully for asylum, stay in the UK illegally, drive a car illegally, run someone (pref. a small child) down so as to ensure a high-profile court case, wait 8 years and become a UK citizen...Seemples...
 
....
 
Last edited:
According to the BBC news he's been caught driving again after he killed the little girl - you couldn't make it up really ... totally ignores justice for the victims.
 
This will be closed just as my thread on the same subject was LINK

My option is that if a foreign national is convicted of a criminal offence then they should be automatically deported , without exception.

I have already written to my MP to voice my disgust at the courts decision, HAVE YOU?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No need for it to be closed it's not politics, causing arguments over Lib/Lab/Con, it's a comment on the state of EU law and the effects of the Human Rights Act. There's comment on it in every other area of the media in the UK and rightly so, it's a disgrace!
 
Agreed - when the Criminal Justice System doesn't reflect the wishes of the majority-held view then things need to be looked at a lot more closely.

Our Laws are just the expression of the will of the people - though it does takes time for the paperwork to catch up to be sure - if enough people contact their MP on this matter then something will be done.

I personally like Yardbent's suggestion sent via PM...
If the Law fails you utterly, then maybe it is time to take it into your own hands - just be man enough to do the job right and accept the consequences.
My daughter? Yep - I wouldn't hestitate either John...
 
gramps said:
No need for it to be closed it's not politics, causing arguments over Lib/Lab/Con, it's a comment on the state of EU law and the effects of the Human Rights Act. There's comment on it in every other area of the media in the UK and rightly so, it's a disgrace!
Click to expand...

Outrageous event.
The story appears to have disappeared from the BBC website in less than a day although Sky is still carrying it.
 
Arkady2 said:
If the Law fails you utterly, then maybe it is time to take it into your own hands - just be man enough to do the job right and accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

No, that can never be right - the law needs to regain respect but anarchy is never acceptable and if everyone felt free to gain reprisals for whatever they viewed as a personal grievance that is what we would get and everyone would suffer the eventual injustice.
 
gramps said:
No, that can never be right - the law needs to regain respect but anarchy is never acceptable and if everyone felt free to gain reprisals for whatever they viewed as a personal grievance that is what we would get and everyone would suffer the eventual injustice.
Click to expand...

Sorry but after eight years of trying that route this is the result?

Nope: "Hello matey, meet my friends Mr Smith and Mr Wesson..."
 
The HRA is nothing to do with EU law. The rights it enshrines predate the EU, the EC and the EEC.

Repealling the HRA would make no difference to the rights enjoyed by residents of this country, aside from increasing legal costs which will ultimately be paid by the taxpayer. It's a good scapegoat though for certain sections of the media, but utilmately the blame (if you believe there to be blame at all) lies at the feet of our last wartime prime minister.
 
The EU was formed in 1993, the HRA was incorporated in 1998 - it's not a scapegoat, it is the single most resented piece of legislation when matters of injustice like this come to light because it one-sidedly imposes rights.
This issue is about the right of the criminal to enjoy his family life ... he can do that wherever he chooses or is forced to live, whereas the father of the dead girl has no opportunity to enjoy his right to family life ... it has been taken away from him.
 
Arkady2 said:
Sorry but after eight years of trying that route this is the result?

Nope: "Hello matey, meet my friends Mr Smith and Mr Wesson..."
Click to expand...

Understandable reaction but will always be wrong and will never lead to an improved society.
 
Arkady2 said:
Sorry but after eight years of trying that route this is the result?

Nope: "Hello matey, meet my friends Mr Smith and Mr Wesson..."
Click to expand...

I've always, and am still against capital punishment (but that's a discusion for another day!) and Arkady's 'take it into your own hands' is a discussion I've had with several friends and the "what if it was your daughter" came up....one can never predict how one would react, but my resolve would be tested, to put it mildly.
 
gramps said:
Understandable reaction but will always be wrong and will never lead to an improved society.
Click to expand...

errr... Removing an illegal immigrant guilty of negligent manslaughter and other persistent offences not an improvement to society?

What society do you live in then? Mordor?
 
whiteflyer said:
This will be closed just as my thread on the same subject was LINK

My option is that if a foreign national is convicted of a criminal offence then they should be automatically deported , without exception.

I have already written to my MP to voice my disgust at the courts decision, HAVE YOU?
Click to expand...
So Wrong.... I fully intend to write a letter.... I listened to the father last night on Radio 4..... not a lot more can be said.

http://www.writetothem.com/

Terran
 
Arkady2 said:
errr... Removing an illegal immigrant guilty of negligent manslaughter and other persistent offences not an improvement to society?

What society do you live in then? Mordor?
Click to expand...


So you would prefer that everyone were free to go around killing the ones they felt they had a grievance against? That surely would lead to a total breakdown in society and reduce those involved to the same level as this man.
No, it is a change in the law that is required so that we don't need to see gun law as being the only resort for justice.
The alternative has been tried in other places, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda ..... and it simply doesn't bring good results.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
The EU was formed in 1993, the HRA was incorporated in 1998 - it's not a scapegoat, it is the single most resented piece of legislation when matters of injustice like this come to light because it one-sidedly imposes rights.
Click to expand...

The rights enshrined in the HRA were already enjoyed by UK residents long before the HRA existed. Repealling it will make no difference to those rights, only to the way remedies are obtained when those rights are violated.

The purpose of all human rights legislation all the way back to some sections of the Magna Carta is to protect individuals from having their rights abused by the state. It has nothing to do with one individual abusing the rights of another. That's what much of the criminal law in this country is there for. Why do people not understand this?

If this person had been a British citizen he could not have been deported. He would have got the same sentence, been released, broken the law again, possibly been imprisoned again etc. etc. The HRA wouldn't have come into it at all, yet the crimes would have been the same.
 
"They are obsessed with the rights of others from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are my human rights?" - Mr. Houston
Click to expand...


the same criminal was also apparently charged with burglary, possesion of drugs, and harrassment, in addition to driving without license and insurance! WTF!
 
gramps said:
So you would prefer that everyone were free to go around killing the ones they felt they had a grievance against? That surely would lead to a total breakdown in society and reduce those involved to the same level as this man.
No, it is a change in the law that is required so that we don't need to see gun law as being the only resort for justice.
The alternative has been tried in other places, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda ..... and it simply doesn't bring good results.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier - as a last resort, maybe it should.

This guy has been trying for eight years to get justice and the system has failed him...
 
onomatopoeia said:
If this person had been a British citizen he could not have been deported. He would have got the same sentence, been released, broken the law again, possibly been imprisoned again etc. etc. The HRA wouldn't have come into it at all, yet the crimes would have been the same.
Click to expand...

he's not a British citizen when he committed the crime, and if he is now, he should not have been allowed to be in the first place. If he can't be deported now then he should stay in prison for the rest of his life. How about his family life? His wife can take care of his kids and he can go to prison and 1000 strokes of the cane!


Arkady2 said:
Sorry but after eight years of trying that route this is the result?

Nope: "Hello matey, meet my friends Mr Smith and Mr Wesson..."
Click to expand...

I agree with this, or hire an assasin, I'll gladly sell my camera and donate the money.
 
Last edited:
So, should the moral of this story be that either after the deportation order there should be no right of appeal OR that after the deportation order changes of personal circumstances (fathering children in this case) should not be permitted to be included in the decision making?
 
strobemonkey said:
...I agree with this, or hire an assasin, I'll gladly sell my camera and donate the money.
Click to expand...

If you did go down this route - you'd have to do it yourself and accept the consequences - no wriggling out of it afterwards...
If you truly believed you were morally right in acting, then you should have the courage to stand up and defend your actions in court.
 
Arkady2 said:
If you did go down this route - you'd have to do it yourself and accept the consequences - no wriggling out of it afterwards...
If you truly believed you were morally right in acting, then you should have the courage to stand up and defend your actions in court.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is morality in this act, so is killing, but............
 
TinaC said:
So, should the moral of this story be that either after the deportation order there should be no right of appeal OR that after the deportation order changes of personal circumstances (fathering children in this case) should not be permitted to be included in the decision making?
Click to expand...

Why should having kids come into it, or effect the severity of what he did or the punishment in any way? :shrug:
 
Arkady2 is spot on!

The law in this country is a complete and utter joke.
You can get 10 years for fraud but 4 months for killing a child.

If you want to kill some one all you need do is run them over - seems you get off scot free.
 
TinaC said:
So, should the moral of this story be that either after the deportation order there should be no right of appeal OR that after the deportation order changes of personal circumstances (fathering children in this case) should not be permitted to be included in the decision making?
Click to expand...

He committed and was found guilty of a serious offence. That should automatically lose him any right to appeal.
 
gramps said:
The EU was formed in 1993, the HRA was incorporated in 1998 - it's not a scapegoat, it is the single most resented piece of legislation when matters of injustice like this come to light because it one-sidedly imposes rights.
This issue is about the right of the criminal to enjoy his family life ... he can do that wherever he chooses or is forced to live, whereas the father of the dead girl has no opportunity to enjoy his right to family life ... it has been taken away from him.
Click to expand...
The reality is that the HRA is routinely ignored by various courts and tribunals. Just as an example, an appeal against the grant of planning permission is highly unlikely to succeed if the decision breaches the human rights of the appellant, there's a rider in the HRA that allows a court etc to place the perceived general good of the public above the rights of the individual.

But, for some reason, this rider only ever seems to be used against honest, respectable people. It should apply to everyone equally, regardless of who they are and what they've done
 
This is what happens when human rights are deemed to be more important than law and order. There are way too many do gooders and human rights activists in this world. Seems that one needs to be a career criminal then you will have more success in being allowed to become a citizen of Brittain.
 
onomatopoeia said:
The rights enshrined in the HRA were already enjoyed by UK residents long before the HRA existed. Repealling it will make no difference to those rights, only to the way remedies are obtained when those rights are violated.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely true, whilst there has been common law (no Bill of Rights mark you) for centuries, it was not until the HRA of 1998 and our enslavement to the EU that it has become impossible to act in the best interests of the citizens of the UK.
Having given up the right to act in our best interests, (deportations having been a part of UK 'history' in dealing with foreign lawbreakers for donkey's years), the EU HRA removes some of the rights of the community in general, SO:-
As this person is a failed assylum seeker he is not a UK citizen but his rights have been judged to override the rights of UK citizens - all down to the HRA!
 
gramps said:
That is not entirely true, whilst there has been common law (no Bill of Rights mark you) for centuries, it was not until the HRA of 1998 and our enslavement to the EU that it has become impossible to act in the best interests of the citizens of the UK.
Having given up the right to act in our best interests, (deportations having been a part of UK 'history' in dealing with foreign lawbreakers for donkey's years), the EU HRA removes some of the rights of the community in general, SO:-
As this person is a failed assylum seeker he is not a UK citizen but his rights have been judged to override the rights of UK citizens - all down to the HRA!
Click to expand...

Well send him somewhere else in Europe to live - Strasbourg maybe....

I am of the opinion that once trie and found guilty you forego some of your Human Rights (especially if you have taken a life). You CANNOT treat those that have been proven to be criminals the same as those who are innocent, it has to be part of the punishment.
 
ccsnet said:
No - he was put in prison for driving with out a licence NOT killing the girl because there was not enough evidence aparently....

T
Click to expand...

Ok, but he had committed other offences too. The guy's a scumbag and should be kicked out of the country.
 
Jelster said:
Well send him somewhere else in Europe to live - Strasbourg maybe....

I am of the opinion that once trie and found guilty you forego some of your Human Rights (especially if you have taken a life). You CANNOT treat those that have been proven to be criminals the same as those who are innocent, it has to be part of the punishment.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought, of course EU law requires that the EU country that the assylum seeker first enters must offer them assylum ... which makes you wonder ... how many have actually got to the UK before having entered another EU country - or are other EU members a bit more selective in slavish observance of EU law than the UK?
 
Yet more proof that the HRA is a farce. It should be that if you are guilty of serious offences you lose any rights. God forbid, but if anything like that happened to my kids I dont think I could just sit back and let this type of guy get away with this. Accidents happen, and any of us could hit a child, but I would like to think that most of us would stop instantly and not drive off like that. He should be deported, end of argument.
 
gramps said:
That is not entirely true, whilst there has been common law (no Bill of Rights mark you) for centuries, it was not until the HRA of 1998 and our enslavement to the EU that it has become impossible to act in the best interests of the citizens of the UK.
Having given up the right to act in our best interests, (deportations having been a part of UK 'history' in dealing with foreign lawbreakers for donkey's years), the EU HRA removes some of the rights of the community in general,
Click to expand...


NO! The rights granted by the HRA are nothing to do with the EU. The HRA only changes the court in which remedies can be sought for Human Rights violations, rights which we already had.

We do have a Bill of Rights, incidentally. It is one of the most important laws in our written statute. The colonials copied chunks of it for the first 10 amendments to their constitution (also know as the Bill of Rights).

Do people really not know this stuff? :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top