UK can't deport foreign criminal who assaulted Royal Marine

Mr Jack said:
I don't see any way in which these are comparable.
Click to expand...

I do, although wouldn't say beating up your wife but let's say they're convicted for being a drug dealer...

A) It's your son (person born here), you let them come back.

B) It's a lodger (foreign immigrant), you tell them to find someone else to live.
 
scorza said:
The fact that one of the crims can't be deported has just been on BBC South Today.

Pretty sickening really. I'd like to ask all those who support the Human Rights Act if this is an example of it working as intended?
Click to expand...

Can you find a written source for this? Because so far it just seems like some anti human rights drivel.
 
Mr Jack said:
I don't see any way in which these are comparable.
Click to expand...

They are Lodger in the country they have attacked on of our own it would be negligent to further expose other citizens to harm when they can be removed.

But you avoided the question
 
estebanrey said:
If the EU (and ECHR) want "freedom of movement" they need to accept that works both ways. They have the freedom to come here and work, and we should have the freedom to send them back if they commit a serious offence.
Click to expand...

yup... and 'right to a family life' ought to be put aside when you've committed serious offences

I mean the courts won't likely accept 'right to a family life' as a reasonable excuse to avoid prison time... they'll happily deprive someone of that right in that instance, yet they'll uphold it to prevent deportations

frankly both deportation and prison are useful for dealing with violent individuals who present a threat to our society, we shouldn't consider their 'right to a family life' to be above one of these options.
 
Daily Mail said:
I found him in a bedsit in Weymouth. Speaking in broken English, he told me: ‘They tried to deport me but I appealed and won. The immigration tribunal said I could stay because the fight in the street was my first ever conviction and that I have a right to a family life here because I have a son living in Weymouth.’
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. The other three were successfully deported as far as I can tell from the Daily Mail story.
 
scorza said:
Only Daily Fail I'm afraid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rifying-insight-inability-police-borders.html

Like I said I saw this on BBC South today - the national BBC website doesn't seem to have picked it up. Probably a London liberal elite conspiracy not to report any story that portrays human rights in a bad light :mad:
Click to expand...

Incredibly, this is because the violent thug won the right to remain in Britain after an immigration tribunal ruled that deportation would breach his human rights (for he has a child here).
Click to expand...
Pretty bad, and he doesn't seem to learnt anything from his incarceration.

But I still don't understand the ruling. He would be "deprived" of his child in prison, same if he went back to his original country, so if he can't be deported then surely you can't send people to jail either. It doesn't seem to be an issue with ECHR, but rather a poor interpretation of it.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
I mean the courts won't likely accept 'right to a family life' as a reasonable excuse to avoid prison time... they'll happily deprive someone of that right in that instance, yet they'll uphold it to prevent deportations
Click to expand...

That's a very good point but I'm guessing the argument is the family can still visit him in prison whereas they can't see him at all if deported.

If that's the case, how about we agree to deport serious criminals on the proviso the State will pay for a budget laptop and Skype account to give them before they leave :D

The problem seems to be that your "bleedin' heart" types who support this kind of human right do so because they are scared of extremes. They simply don't like the principle of a state being able to deport people it doesn't like and assume powers will always be abused. They can't see the difference between us deporting violent immigrants and China locking up people who write anti-government blogs.
 
Similar happened to one of the drivers at work (thought it was the same case at first) - went to the aid of a neighbour and had 3-4 foreign guys turn on him - ran into his house and tried to defend himself with a baseball bat and was beaten with his own bat in his own hallway til his dog got loose and ran them off.
 
Longbow said:
But I still don't understand the ruling. He would be "deprived" of his child in prison, same if he went back to his original country, so if he can't be deported then surely you can't send people to jail either. It doesn't seem to be an issue with ECHR, but rather a poor interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

He was deprived of his child while in prison but he's now served his time. There's a difference between restricting what someone can do whilst serving time and restricting their human rights permanently.
 
Tunney said:
He was deprived of his child while in prison but he's now served his time. There's a difference between restricting what someone can do whilst serving time and restricting their human rights permanently.
Click to expand...

Why don't all these criminals think of their children before they embark on a path that leads to prison?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom