What is wrong with this country?

Third Opinion · 7 Dec 2006 at 22:49

"Rapist asylum seeker due damages"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6219608.stm

Does this country just exist to be taken the Mick out of by the rest of the world?

True madness.

jcb33 · 7 Dec 2006 at 22:51

Sigh... more like what is the world coming to....

ninja economist · 7 Dec 2006 at 22:53

Nothings wrong with this country.

Just because a few judges have an incredibly Liberal tendency when it comes to sentencing doesn't mean that it's going to hell in a handbasket. The UK is actually quite strict when it comes to immigration.

TheCrow · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:00

ninja economist said:
Nothings wrong with this country.

Just because a few judges have an incredibly Liberal tendency when it comes to sentencing doesn't mean that it's going to hell in a handbasket. The UK is actually quite strict when it comes to immigration.

LMFAO!!!! I trust you are taking the ****?

And it dose mean that "it's going to hell in a handbasket" as these few judges are the people who uphold out law and order!

James07 · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:05

ninja economist said:
Nothings wrong with this country.

Just because a few judges have an incredibly Liberal tendency when it comes to sentencing doesn't mean that it's going to hell in a handbasket. The UK is actually quite strict when it comes to immigration.

obviously you didnt watch panorama this week, a women bought 20 foreign passports and entered all the countries on these passports, she entered britain twice on two different passports... we are not strict, were a joke when it comes to it... we care more about arguing in the commons then doing anything practicle.

ninja economist · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:06

TheCrow said:
LMFAO!!!! I trust you are taking the ****?

And it dose mean that "it's going to hell in a handbasket" as these few judges are the people who uphold out law and order!

Have a look at the trend for Asylum applications concerning the past 5 years. It will be available on the Home Office website.

Just because the numbers are large, especially in the newspapers that you more than likely read does not mean it is an entirely simple process to be granted Asylum in the UK. That is what my original post pointed out.

That doesn't stop them coming into the country illegally, however.

ninja economist · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:07

James07 said:
obviously you didnt watch panorama this week, a women bought 20 foreign passports and entered all the countries on these passports, she entered britain twice on two different passports... we are not strict, were a joke when it comes to it... we care more about arguing in the commons then doing anything practicle.

Where did I say anything about passports?

This thread is about legal Asylum of immigrants. Passports do not come into it.

Redrum · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:10

I don’t see the problem with his case. Yes, what a horrid man for doing what he did, but he served his time as sentenced by the justice system, and 20 months seems a ridiculously long time to detain someone after that. The figure of £50,000 mentioned however, does seem like a lot of money, and I hope he gets nowhere near that amount, and that they do manage to deport him.

The bigger issue in my eyes, is why did they not plan his deportation when his sentence was coming to an end, so we could get shot of him the day he was released.

afraser2k · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:14

Note the story says "could get up to £50,000" but no doubt this will be in the tabloids tomorrow.

locutus12 · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:26

nice... get arrested for some minor offence and they will happily splatter your name in the local paper, rape a 13 year old girl and oooo no, "A" must be protected. THROW HIM THE HELL OUT! I COULDNT GIVE A FLYING *@%^ IF HE GETS MURDERED IN HIS OWN COUNTRY.

Jesus Christ, if these dip *&^%$ want to come here thats fine, but if they break the law, sling them out. no hearings, no appeals, if your found guilty, your gone. Why is this so difficult ? why must we pander to militant liberalism. I mean im a liberal myself but for the love of god im not that bloody soft. get wrid of him.

Vonhelmet · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:30

He was held beyond the proscribed time.

He had paid his debt, but was still being held.

Where's the beef?

VeNT · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:33

vonhelmet said:
He was held beyond the proscribed time.

He had paid his debt, but was still being held.

Where's the beef?

some people don't see that if you do the crime and serve your time then you're supposed to go free.
tbh, its bad what he did, but you can't just hold people after their sentance is up!

locutus12 · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:34

vonhelmet said:
He was held beyond the proscribed time.

He had paid his debt, but was still being held.

Where's the beef?

my beef is that his identity though serving no purpose to the general public, should not have been protected, also he should not be allowed to remain in the country, as for holding him longer than we should have... oops, to bad, he is out now and i dare say allot sooner than he would have been in other countrys. if he hadn't of raped a 13 year old girl he wouldn't of been in prison in the first place.

Vonhelmet · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:40

locutus12 said:
my beef is that his identity though serving no purpose to the general public, should not have been protected,

Why not? I honestly can't find anything in the article to sway me one way or the other on this, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that when they want to protect his identity, they have good reason.

locutus12 said:
also he should not be allowed to remain in the country,

Perhaps not. That's what they were trying to sort out, so I'm not sure what your point is.

locutus12 said:
as for holding him longer than we should have... oops, to bad, he is out now and i dare say allot sooner than he would have been in other countrys.

We shouldn't judge ourselves by other countries, but by our own standards.

locutus12 said:
if he hadn't of raped a 13 year old girl he wouldn't of been in prison in the first place.

By that rationale anyone who spends a night in the cells for being drunk would have no cause for complaint if they were still there 15 years later.

locutus12 · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:47

vonhelmet said:
Why not? I honestly can't find anything in the article to sway me one way or the other on this, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that when they want to protect his identity, they have good reason.

why when the same courtesy is never afforded to a British Citizen who has committed a crime whether it is a serious crime or otherwise.

vonhelmet said:
Perhaps not. That's what they were trying to sort out, so I'm not sure what your point is.

my point is he shouldn't even be allowed to mount a defence / appeal.

vonhelmet said:
We shouldn't judge ourselves by other countries, but by our own standards.

on that we can agree and i can concede.

vonhelmet said:
By that rationale anyone who spends a night in the cells for being drunk would have no cause for complaint if they were still there 15 years later.

be sensible, were talking about a series of clerical errors here by the immigration service not an intentional imprisonment without charge or an imprisonment of an innocent man. It was an accident, issue a formal apology certainly, then throw him out of the country. Give him up to 50 thousand pounds??? on your bike.

starscream · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:49

Third Opinion said:
What is wrong with this country....

.....endless threads that don't see past headlines.

Perception:
OMGz we are letting in a billion immigrents a day and all they are doing is breaking the laws and getting money for it. PC/Human rights gone :mad:

Reality:
A person was illegally detained for 20 months after serving his sentence.

Try to imagine a week where your liberties have been removed. You are locked in a room for the best part of a day every day. Now try imagine 90 consecutive weeks of that where there are no legal grounds for you to be detained.

What he did was terrible, but he served his sentence and there is no excuse for the people responsible to have detained him for long after his time was up and make misleading statements to officials.

Van Hellseek · 7 Dec 2006 at 23:50

ninja economist said:
Nothings wrong with this country.

hahaha!

Third Opinion · 8 Dec 2006 at 09:05

starscream said:
Reality:
A person was illegally detained for 20 months after serving his sentence.

.

So it still takes 20 months to deport an illegal immigrant who has raped a 13 year old girl?

Yes I can see nothing wrong there. :rolleyes:

gjrc · 8 Dec 2006 at 09:23

i want to emmigrate :mad:

problem is - where to go??? am thinking about Oz but its so damn far away

wordy · 8 Dec 2006 at 09:42

I think like that, but then I think if all the good people leave then the scum like this peodphile rapist have won.

Eight years for raping a 13 year old girl :mad: