Are we supposed to feel sorry for him?
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
Hope it goes smoothly.
I guess there a very high chance of it being this
Most the non locals I know or see over here have non local boyfriends or Girlfriends
I do feel sorry for him to an extent. He was here for most of his life, thought of it as his home, spoke the language - that would be enough for me to call him British and let the paperwork slide for the crime of being a sacrificial goat for rampant financial misdealings that were (and probably still are) common in the financial industry.
Having now read the details of the fraud I am inclined to be a little softer on him. There are far more controls in place nowadays than in 2011. He is not the only one to have done what he did. So I do now have a little sympathy for his deportation.
Thing is, the decider probably isn't in a position to say "ah, his crimes weren't that bad, I'll let him stay". And frankly it would probably be wrong for the decider to start applying their personal judgements to how much someone's sentence was deserved anyway. ("Ah, financial crimes aren't real crimes / drugs should be legalised anyway / you know, I'm a paedophile myself").
You may be right and I suspect the above is not your point. But I'm just saying there's not really anything that can be done from a process point of view on the part of who decides stay or go that would be ethical. The court decides, the bureaucracy executes. If it were to happen anywhere, it should happen at the point of sentencing with the court deciding the additional likelihood of deportation is part of the punishment. But then you get foreigners being treated more lightly than native citizens. Really, unless you reject the principle of deportation of criminals, I don't think this is solvable. And given there are exceptions allowable for parents, partners, etc., I'm not sure it should be. If his crime doesn't merit the sentence he received, then any criticism should be directed at the court.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2016
- Posts
- 4,933
- Location
- Third Earth
Good riddance.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Good; she is a former practising solicitor and shouldn't be trusted in any position of authority or influence.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
35-year-old Fiona Onasanya, ex-Labour MP for Peterborough was found guilty of perverting the course of justice in an Old Bailey retrial and jailed for three months.
She will therefore not be kicked out of Parliament; will probably spend between four and six weeks in jail but hopefully will be deselected.
She will therefore not be kicked out of Parliament; will probably spend between four and six weeks in jail but hopefully will be deselected.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,299
- Location
- Woking
Is this a new proper noun?
Do you have a long or a short list of similar individuals who have crystallised £1 billion and more losses through wilful fraud and deceit? Let's take the 25 year old story of Nick Lesson as a given - he wrote the rulebook on this!
Seems to be a case in a fair few of these cases where someone claims to have been living here for a decade or so. In some cases they've perhaps already known for a while that they're here illegally in others they've been rather silly. I don't really understand the mentality, if I were to move to say the US or Canada or Australia etc..etc... as more than just an expat then I'd start down the process of getting permanent residency then citizenship.
Granted this guy isn't as much of a risk to the public/society as say a violent offender or a drug dealer etc... but he was convicted of a serious offence and it would seem a bit off for the authorities to not deport him just because he's a middle class professional criminal rather than some working class street criminal.
No he wasn't, he was charged for his own crimes.
The wiki page gives a bit more detail than that - he covered up his trades and traded at a greater size than he was permitted to. He lost the bank he worked for approx 2 billion USD. I suspect some of his former colleagues would like to beat the **** out of him, the bank's shareholders are also obviously victims here.
I don't have a list of names but I have worked for a couple of Investment Banks (in IT, not as an investment banker) and I know how much the control and detection across the banks has changed.
IIRC this was partly an IT issue - he previously worked in a back office role and (AFAIK - has been some years since I read about the case) seemingly still had access to some functionality that a front office user shouldn't have, ergo was able to muck about creating fake counterparties for his fake trades etc...
It still sounds pretty shocking though - I do wonder whose software was being used, even a back office user creating a counterparty ought to have four eyes controls around it.
I know that where I currently work there are systems in place to cross check that the access one person has cannot conflict with other access, or is not permitted for their role, to prevent unauthorised trading. It probably isn't perfect but it would stop most issues now.
It is a new proper misnomer.
Interesting. But I don't feel it changes the ethics of his behaviour. The suggestion was that there are more controls now to prevent what he did and I think we took that to mean something vaguer and more in the nature of rules and guidelines. I.e. a suggestion that he's less to blame because it was a complex situation and the rights, wrongs and common practices were blurred. That's a world apart from better security on login credentials and closing access privileges properly which is what now appears to have been meant.
good riddance too him zero sympathy from me kick all them out who can't behave themselves after they have done there time, as the op said we have enough criminals of our own. and don't give me this ******** of right to a family life as some of them are doing should have thought about that before they broke the law.