how do you feel about this? (Hit & Run Asylum Seeker to stay in UK)

Von Smallhausen · 17 Dec 2010 at 10:40

British law prevented him being deported Fox.

[TW]Fox · 17 Dec 2010 at 10:44

It is a law which we had to introduce as signatories of The European Convention on Human Rights.

^TANK^ · 17 Dec 2010 at 10:48

jake108 said:
But who do we send this RMA to? China?

I quite like Singapore's laws.

Von Smallhausen · 17 Dec 2010 at 10:57

As I understand it, the UK has been a signatory on the European Convention on Human Rights since the 1950s where the European Court was accessible to UK citizens for cases and tribunals to be heard although such cases could take years to be heard.

Labour introduced the Act into UK law in 1998 to enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights into the UK statute book and this was some 40 odd years after we signed up for the convention itself.

As far as I am aware, there was no specific demand that the Act had to be introduced into UK law although human rights law isn't my chosen specialised subject and I will be stood corrected if that isn't the case.

4T5 · 17 Dec 2010 at 12:22

Just heard the father talking about this on Radio 2, Tragic.

Twice banned, driving whilst Disqual & nicked in a car a year After killing the girl. On top of all that he made his woman preganant After he was refused asylum.
What the **** is going on.

Abraham · 17 Dec 2010 at 12:25

I'm not sure I understand the human rights ruling, why is it ok to imprison him but not to deport him, is visitation the only difference?

Von Smallhausen · 17 Dec 2010 at 13:49

FortyFive said:
Just heard the father talking about this on Radio 2, Tragic.
Twice banned, driving whilst Disqual & nicked in a car a year After killing the girl. On top of all that he made his woman preganant After he was refused asylum.
What the **** is going on.

It may be right legally but I can't see how it is right morally.

dave_beast · 17 Dec 2010 at 14:20

Von Smallhausen said:
It may be right legally but I can't see how it is right morally.

I think this is the main point, morality should overwrite everything imho.

86JR · 17 Dec 2010 at 14:55

I would like to see him dead somewhere, like in a gutter.

Wicksta · 17 Dec 2010 at 15:13

cm1179 said:
and thus i would exercise my rights to get even or forever live my life in a shell

How would you get even? Would you move to his country and become an illegal immigrant and drive around without insurance?

Abraham · 17 Dec 2010 at 15:16

dave_beast said:
I think this is the main point, morality should overwrite everything imho.

whose morality though? yours? Everybody has a different measure of morality, those which are universally agreed on generally make their way to being laws

BlackCoat2k10 · 17 Dec 2010 at 15:27

Utterly disgusting tbh, another story that shows just how shambolic the Uk Law system and the people who enforce it are. So many things are wrong in this article it makes my blood boil that the offender is still walking / driving while banned within the Uk...

Dugganator · 17 Dec 2010 at 15:36

BlackCoat2k10 said:
Utterly disgusting tbh, another story that shows just how shambolic the Uk Law system and the people who enforce it are. So many things are wrong in this article it makes my blood boil that the offender is still walking / driving while banned within the Uk...

I have no idea what to say but completely agree with you. I'm shocked that anyone that has broken the law once let alone twice should have a massive impact on a decision for him to stay in the country. I mean if he cant live by the rules why should the rules also protect him. :mad:

My judgement would be if you break the rules your instantly out unless you can prove it was a once off minor mistake and that would be pushing the limit.

Patient Keeper · 17 Dec 2010 at 16:09

Abraham said:
whose morality though? yours? Everybody has a different measure of morality, those which are universally agreed on generally make their way to being laws

We need to remove this philosophical liberal views from society. So where are you exactly going to draw the line, if someone thinks it's moral to drive off after hitting someone in a car then that's OK is it? What about if they think it's OK to murder people who look at them the wrong way?

One thing with liberal views is that they never seem to come up with any sort of answer, it's always this wishy washy 'everybody is right' treading on egg shells not to offend anyone. That is of course until someone actually offers any decisive views, then you will fit the liberal classification of a facist, nazi, or a racist.

Glaucus · 17 Dec 2010 at 16:11

How on earth is that quote a liberal view?

Nitefly · 17 Dec 2010 at 16:17

dave_beast said:
I think this is the main point, morality should overwrite everything imho.

Lord Devlin wrote a very good essay on that...

... advocating that homosexuality should be banned because it's immoral.

Morality changes with time, it cannot be used as a sole indicator of what deserved criminalisation or the punishment of a crime.

However, I feel it should be used to overule or rather aid the harm principle (that is, harmful wrongdoings should be criminal offences) in cirumcumstances where the harm principle fails to take into account any causal links (such as with banning child porn).

Abraham · 17 Dec 2010 at 16:20

Patient Keeper said:
We need to remove this philosophical liberal views from society. So where are you exactly going to draw the line, if someone thinks it's moral to drive off after hitting someone in a car then that's OK is it? What about if they think it's OK to murder people who look at them the wrong way?

One thing with liberal views is that they never seem to come up with any sort of answer, it's always this wishy washy 'everybody is right' treading on egg shells not to offend anyone. That is of course until someone actually offers any decisive views, then you will fit the liberal classification of a facist, nazi, or a racist.

Eh? Both of your examples have risen from being morality based societal rules (ok maybe a cart instead of a car) to being law, because everyone agrees on them. That was my point, what is yours other than you hate liberals?

Nitefly · 17 Dec 2010 at 16:22

Here is that essay from Lord Devlin by the way:

http://academic2.american.edu/~dfagel/Class Readings/Devlin/Devlin_Morals and the Criminal Law.pdf

He's actually quite convincing... although his point has to ultimately fail.

Joel Feinberg for the win \o/

Patient Keeper · 17 Dec 2010 at 16:29

Abraham said:
Eh? Both of your examples have risen from being morality based societal rules (ok maybe a cart instead of a car) to being law, because everyone agrees on them. That was my point, what is yours other than you hate liberals?

I'm just asking how far is it going to go before you draw the line on someone's morals being completely ridiculous.

The general view is akin to the debate on population control, where someone will undoubtedly bring up the classic rhetoric of refusing to discuss it and labelling the policy as 'nazi' as defining how you control it will inevitably infringe someone's morals or rights. But the cold hard truth is that it one day has to be done. Unless it is more moral to allow World War 3 to happen of course.

ubersonic · 17 Dec 2010 at 16:51

If this was any other developed country he would either be deported already or still in jail, his kids are British, we'll keep em, he's not, cya, simple as.