Hit & run illegal immigrant

ellieb

Yeah?

Then I hope that you are the one he next leaves bleeding to death in the road

rick_chasey

ellieb wrote:

Yeah?

Then I hope that you are the one he next leaves bleeding to death in the road

Charming.

He goes to prison for the crime he committed right?

Just like someone in the UK would.

Can't see the problem with that.

If the asylum is correct, that if he goes back he'll die, then why not? He doesn't deserve to die.
He deserves to go to prison...

patombr

we should do what other countries have done, ripp the human rights paper up and tell europe to go where the sun dont shine. whilst we all pay our way and struggle, more illegals seem to be getting the option to stay in the uk and the government say thats fine cos its their human right to stay, this is what really graits on me and makes me angry and well pi---ed off. :twisted:

Chip \'oyler

Rick Chasey wrote:

ellieb wrote:

Yeah?

Then I hope that you are the one he next leaves bleeding to death in the road

Charming.

He goes to prison for the crime he committed right?

Just like someone in the UK would.

Can't see the problem with that.

If the asylum is correct, that if he goes back he'll die, then why not? He doesn't deserve to die.
He deserves to go to prison...

Yes for four fookin months! That's the joke we call 'the law' at work here

rick_chasey

Chip \'oyler wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ellieb wrote:

Yeah?

Then I hope that you are the one he next leaves bleeding to death in the road

Charming.

He goes to prison for the crime he committed right?

Just like someone in the UK would.

Can't see the problem with that.

If the asylum is correct, that if he goes back he'll die, then why not? He doesn't deserve to die.
He deserves to go to prison...

Yes for four fookin months! That's the joke we call 'the law' at work here

Take issue with the prison sentence then, not the asylum (which you have !)

Edit - i mean you have taken issue with the prison setence... if that makes sense!

ellieb

You are wrong in any case.

1: In this case he isn't being deported on account of the kids he fathered. It has nothing to do with the treatment he might receive back home
2: Acting in a criminal manner is grounds for refusing asylum.

This scumbag is still driving illegally after killing a 12 year old girl. He clearly doesn't care. We have the right to deport him, it is the kids who have saved him...& you clearly think that's a great idea

rake

give him a chance to reform. give him someones job i say.

rick_chasey

ellieb wrote:

You are wrong in any case.

1: In this case he isn't being deported on account of the kids he fathered. It has nothing to do with the treatment he might receive back home
2: Acting in a criminal manner is grounds for refusing asylum.

This scumbag is still driving illegally after killing a 12 year old girl. He clearly doesn't care. We have the right to deport him, it is the kids who have saved him...& you clearly think that's a great idea

I think you've been taking the mail at face value...

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylu ... ocanclaim/

Asylum is given under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. To be recognised as a refugee, you must have left your country and be unable to go back because you have a well-founded fear of persecution because of your:

■race;
■religion;
■nationality;
■political opinion; or
■membership of a particular social group.

Edit: also from the site

The UK adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights, which prevents us from sending anyone to a country where there is a real risk that they will be exposed to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

People hit and run with deadly consequences here unfortunately reasonably frequently - it's a tragedy, but I don't hear clamours for people who are just as criminal but were born here to be deported.

Give the guy the appropriate prison sentence and be done with it. Where he comes from should be, and in most cases is irrelevant.

ellieb

You really are spectacularly missing the point.

I'm a Guardian reader as a matter of fact. I have absolutely no problem with people coming to Britain and legitimately claiming asylum. I do have a problem with people coming to further a criminal career or who come and then make plain their contempt for the law. If he wants to come here, he should behave. He has failed to do so on a number of ocassions. He was suitable for deportation. A loophole has saved him. If he was that scared about going back, he should obey the law. simples

You are making incredibly lazy assumptions about people's rascism.

verylonglegs

Umm..as far as I understand it his asylum request had already been rejected, he was deemed not at risk so therefore he could be deported..it was appealed again on the whole wife and children argument so it has been judged from his point of view alone that he has no right to be here.

northernneil

So that will be us adhering to European law then ... nothing to do with the European Common Market, which I never mentioned once .....

what ever its called, what ever its power its a system that is being abused ....

its an old cliche but the fathers human rights, or his daughters are not even taken into considereation

rake

why should he be in uk under asylum, youre supposed to go to the nearest safe country. hes came across europe and through france.

ellieb

I think you've been taking the mail at face value...

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylu ... ocanclaim/

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/rights/thelaw/

ellieb

Perhaps i'd better leave it to the dead girl's father.

"You work hard, play by the rules, pay your taxes and this is how you get treated. What does that say about politicians, our leaders and the legal system? It's a joke."

He added: "This man is a criminal, do we have no say who we allow in this country?

"He's not a life-saving surgeon or a Nobel prize winner. He was a criminal before, a criminal now and he will continue being a criminal.

"The Human Rights Act is for everybody, not just asylum-seekers and terrorists.

"How can he say he's deprived of his right to a family life? The only person deprived of a family life is me. Amy was my only family."

finchy

rake wrote:

why should he be in uk under asylum, youre supposed to go to the nearest safe country. hes came across europe and through france.

Are you sure about this? I'm not familiar with the case, at all, so you might be right.

On the question of principle, my solution is that we get some patch of desert somewhere, irrigate it and then if somebody comes here, claims asylum and then commits violent crimes we'll have somewhere to send them away from us which will be safe. They can grow food and export it to the UK, so they'll have money to buy goods.

ellieb

my solution is that we get some patch of desert somewhere, irrigate it and then if somebody comes here, claims asylum and then commits violent crimes we'll have somewhere to send them away from us which will be safe

Aren't you thinking of Australia?

*runs*

finchy

ellieb wrote:

my solution is that we get some patch of desert somewhere, irrigate it and then if somebody comes here, claims asylum and then commits violent crimes we'll have somewhere to send them away from us which will be safe

Aren't you thinking of Australia?

*runs*

The thought had crossed my mind.

Maybe in a century Refugeeland will be a really good Olympic nation.

spen666

northernneil wrote:

just a disgusting, disgusting verdict

the sooner we can leave the EU and abolish the abuse that the human rights law has brought the better

The Human Rights Act has nothing to do with the EU

But hey don't let that stop your rant.

Now what is it in the Human Rights Act you object to? Please specify which section or clauses you object to?

Could it be you object to having the right to not be detained without a fair trial?
Perhaps you don't want the right to life?
Perhaps you want the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments for you to be abolished?

Alternatively, you could just be following ignorantly the tabloid journalism. There is nothing in the Human Rights Act that anyone could sensibly object to.

Try reading the Human Rights Act before you start to rant about it.

Weejie54

So that will be us adhering to European law then ... nothing to do with the European Common Market, which I never mentioned once .....

You mentioned the EU:

the sooner we can leave the EU and abolish the abuse that the human rights law has brought the better

EU = "Common Market"

ECHR/HRA nothing to do with EU/Common Market.

In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which made the ECHR and subsequent HRA obligatory by ratification) was, to a great part, drafted by British lawyers. How "leaving the EU" would have any bearing on the HRA is a bit of a mystery.
But then, this isn't about an "illegal immigrant" either.....

spen666

ellieb wrote:

You really are spectacularly missing the point.

I'm a Guardian reader as a matter of fact. I have absolutely no problem with people coming to Britain and legitimately claiming asylum. I do have a problem with people coming to further a criminal career or who come and then make plain their contempt for the law. If he wants to come here, he should behave. He has failed to do so on a number of ocassions. He was suitable for deportation. A loophole has saved him. If he was that scared about going back, he should obey the law. simples

You are making incredibly lazy assumptions about people's rascism.

Funny how everytime the law fails to punish someone, its because of a loophole

The simple truth is he was not a suitable candidate for deportation and did not avoid it because of a loophole. He avoided deportation because the law prevents deliberately, people being deported where to do so would put their life at risk

spen666

northernneil wrote:

So that will be us adhering to European law then ... nothing to do with the European Common Market, which I never mentioned once .....

what ever its called, what ever its power its a system that is being abused ....

its an old cliche but the fathers human rights, or his daughters are not even taken into considereation

Its an old cliche that empty vessel make the most noise

In your post on page one you refer to us getting out of the EU which is what the European Common Market evolved in to

As for adhering to European Law, this case has nothing to do with European law.

The European Convention on Human Rights is not European Law, it is a convention that we have opted to sign and also to ratify. We then voluntarily chose to incorporate it into UK law via the Human Rights Act.

None of this has anything to do with the EU, the Europrean Common Market, Eurpoean Law or anything of the sort. We could repeal the Human Rights Act at anytime whether we remain in the EU or not

ellieb

The simple truth is he was not a suitable candidate for deportation and did not avoid it because of a loophole. He avoided deportation because the law prevents deliberately, people being deported where to do so would put their life at risk

Trouble is.. He had already been recommended for deportation. This has nothing to do with his life being at risk and everything to do with his 'right to family life' by fathering kids with a Brit.

Check your facts

rake

johnfinch wrote:

rake wrote:

why should he be in uk under asylum, youre supposed to go to the nearest safe country. hes came across europe and through france.

Are you sure about this? I'm not familiar with the case, at all, so you might be right.

On the question of principle, my solution is that we get some patch of desert somewhere, irrigate it and then if somebody comes here, claims asylum and then commits violent crimes we'll have somewhere to send them away from us which will be safe. They can grow food and export it to the UK, so they'll have money to buy goods.

pretty sure that thems the rules. we shouldnt be getting any here.

finchy

rake wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

rake wrote:

why should he be in uk under asylum, youre supposed to go to the nearest safe country. hes came across europe and through france.

Are you sure about this? I'm not familiar with the case, at all, so you might be right.

pretty sure that thems the rules. we shouldnt be getting any here.

I meant are you sure that he crossed a load of safe countries? He didn't just get on an aeroplane?

spen666

ellieb wrote:

The simple truth is he was not a suitable candidate for deportation and did not avoid it because of a loophole. He avoided deportation because the law prevents deliberately, people being deported where to do so would put their life at risk

Trouble is.. He had already been recommended for deportation. This has nothing to do with his life being at risk and everything to do with his 'right to family life' by fathering kids with a Brit.

Check your facts

A recommendation for deportation is not a final ruling as logic would tell you. As for getting facts right, some of us have read more of the facts and judgement in the case than are in the newspapers - have you bothered to read the tribunal ruling or are you pronouncing on the case from the informed position of newspaper reader

ellieb

As for getting facts right, some of us have read more of the facts and judgement in the case than are in the newspapers - have you bothered to read the tribunal ruling

& have you?.. Or are you doing as you have done before & attempted to give the impression of having more knowledge about a subject than you actually have?

tebbit

Out in the Ukraine if you kill someone in a road accident it is 7 years mandatory, it is why I didn't bring a car out with me.

With regard to the ECHR it was written by British lawyers in the 50's, mainly due to the fact they were untainted by the German regime in the 30's to mid 40's and also the other countries judiciary because of occupation, hence it translated into English law very easily. The big problem is the claims management companies and not the law.

With reference to the tribunal ruling it is a document in the public domain any student with access to Athens will be able to get access to it, I used to use Westlaw and Lexis when I was writing my dissertation.

I do class myself as right wing and the man does appear absolutely morally reprehensible, so further information would be appreciated and the girl's poor father has gone through hell.

Tonymufc

WOW. There really are some of the most patronising people on here. Mentioning no names although I'm sure you all know who I mean. A father has lost his daughter, his baby. This happened because this spineless, gutless do-gooding infested country didn't deport this scumbag. Don't quote to me the ins and outs of the law because quite frankly I don't care. This sh1thead shouldn't even be here. As for the poster that said he should be imprisoned and then we should move on. Tell that to the poor girls father.

northernneil

I think we can all agree to disagree, symantics will get us no further

its clear I and others think the mans, actions and lack of remorse have not been dealt with in a morally befitting manner for his behaviour.

Other people clearly think the law is right


I really dont give a sh!t about when the law came into power or who is in charge of it, I just dont think its right and clearly I am not alone

Karl2010

Replying in response to the original post.

If he is an imigrant legal or otherwise he should be put in jail!

Simple as!