"They are obsessed with the rights of others..."

[Skybird]

One of these stories were you can just shake your head and think: F.U., Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12007100

Sometimes I wonder what kind of brain cancer some jurists are suffering from - or is it a parasite breeding inside their head and having started to eat grey matter?

Comparable cases in Germany over the past years. One could become sick from it.

[Alex]

Now THAT's a matter for debate. I'd not be able to comply with that court judgement personally.

God only knows what the father is planning to do now...

[Tribesman]

I could have sworn someone earlier today was singing the praises of human rights legislation and how important it is to be followed by the judiciary, now it seems human rights legislation is a joke because...errrr...its being followed by the judiciary.

As for the case, tricky one. He is already punished under the law for the offences commited, an asylum hearing is another matter entirely.
The problem here appears to be almost entirely the result of the delays in processing applications especially regarding deportations to Iraq

[TLAM Strike]

This guy should have been put in jail for negligent homicide and hit and run seven years ago, then deported. :down:

[Betonov]

It's all Hitlers fault, every liberal is going to whine about deporting anyone or even (rightfully) punishing someone being neo-nazism, just because some stupid austrian that had too much time in prison took nationalism to an extreme. So lets not anger the hippies and let everyone in and nurse them and spoil them. I'm all for immigration but it's the free immigration that bothers me

P.S. I'm a liberal

[Oberon]

Betonov has hit a rather large nail on the head there, anything that is discriminatory is easy to label as fascism.

[Growler]

Betonov has hit a rather large nail on the head there, anything that is discriminatory is easy to label as fascism.

Only because that has been allowed to be so. When a white person says something derogatory about a person of a different race, it's racism. When someone of a different race says it about a white person, it's tolerated as a "cultural difference." Political correctness has gone WAY too far, into the realm of the absurd. I know that when I was at (then) Towson State in the 90's, they had a Black Student Union. What would have happened if I had proposed a White Student Union to go alongside it?

[Sammi79]

Why was he not charged with either manslaughter or death by dangerous driving? that would indicate that the police had decided that it was not his fault, truly an 'accident' - although driving whilst disqualified? had he not been breaking that particular law it is very unlikely that his car would have been involved in that 'accident' surely there is liabilty right there.

4 months in nick for taking a life? I say put him back in and tell all the other inmates what he did. He wouldn't last a week. Seems justice is on the wrong side of the political correctness fence these days.

Deportation is neither here nor there, if the rules say he can stay, then he can. I dare say he'd be smart not to given what a large number of people must think about him now anyway.

[Skybird]

It's another fine example of how our values, laws and good intentions - are being turned against us.

If the child'S wellbeing is the aergument, then I wonder why it is considered to be in its wellbeing to let it stay with a highly criminal father.

Family arguments are nowadays too often the argument not to send foreigners back to qwehre they cam from after they abuse massively the laws of hospitality, and bring crime or hostility to our homes.

My solutoion to the case in question?

First, I know how it is when a loved one gets killed and the offender gets a hilariously low penalty - my loved one was killed by a drunken ghostdriver longer time ago, he got a financial fee, a prison sentence on suspension of several months, and he got the driver'S licence back after 6 months, because, so it was argued, he needed it. In 1972, the prgenant sioster of my mother and her freeshly married huzsband also were wiped out by a drunken ghostdriver. He was considered to be limited criminally liable because he was drunk (yeah, people are not responsible for how much they drink), he payed a bit money, and got his licence back even before his also suspended prison sen tence was over. He then caused another accident some time later - again, drunk, with other seriously injured and paying the bill.

So, I have some idea of how the father here feels.

My solution. Get the kid and take it away from a criminal who is a known repetive criminal. Send him to prison for having tried to evade the responsi bility for the killing he caused, and after he served his term, send him back to the damn place were he came from, lifetime ban to ever return to Europe. Give the kid to a caring family who knows better what responsibility is, is not criminal, and due tpo being native casn oiffer it a realistric chance to fully integrate. THAT is what would be in the interest of the child.

Why are Europeans so eager to bring in and keep all the azzholes of the world even when the latter spit into their faces - are they still doing penance for the times of collonialism or inquisition, or what? Thiongs likie this is not what International Laws and Human Rights are for. Things like this story illustrate how willingly we accept to see them being abused and exploited.

A recent Swiss vote got it right, I think. Foreigners who become criminal - must leave, says the vote, even can lose previously gained citizenship. Wonderful healthy reason. :yeah:

Of course, the EU calls it "populistic" and "rightwinged radicalism" - what else was to expect...? :haha:

[Tribesman]

My solution. Get the kid and take it away from a criminal who is a known repetive criminal. Send him to prison for having tried to evade the responsi bility for the killing he caused, and after he served his term, send him back to the damn place were he came from, lifetime ban to ever return to Europe. Give the kid to a caring family who knows better what responsibility is, is not criminal, and due tpo being native casn oiffer it a realistric chance to fully integrate. THAT is what would be in the interest of the child.


What a certifiably crazy person you really are.
So if the father of a child commits a crime the mother must have her children taken away.
To make it even better and more illustrative of how crazy it is you want to take peoples children away and give them to "natives".
The master race really produced a doozy there.:doh:

[jumpy]

Tough call. Had he no children of his own in the UK, I'd have no issue with a deportation given his previous failed attempts and subsequent criminal convictions.
This raises the question: is he acting as a father to those children now, or is he just a name on a birth certificate?

I'd argue, however, that if our asylum/deportation/immigration system had done its job with proper diligence the first time, there would neither be the question of his rights (as he has children in the UK now), nor the tragedy of the death he is guilty of causing.

[Tribesman]

I'd argue, however, that if our asylum/deportation/immigration system had done its job with proper diligence the first time, there would neither be the question of his rights (as he has children in the UK now), nor the tragedy of the death he is guilty of causing.
Indeed, though the problem with that was that when Saddam was everyones friend you couldn't really deport a Kurd, thenwhen Saddam was no longer everyones friend you still couldn't really deport a Kurd, after Saddam was gone the situation was so screwed that you couldn't really deport anyone to Iraq.
So even if the asylum system had been doing its job with proper diligence it couldn't really have done anything much.

[jumpy]

What about now iraq is the very paragon of democratic reform? :D

In all seriousness, we have to stop thinking people like this are our problem* - were it not for the circumstances of his life here, there should be no reason to not send them all back :doh:
Cases like this highlight the ineptitude of the uk boarder agency.

I doubt for one minute that any of the middle eastern nations would have any qualms about repatriating illegal immigrants. In fact I'm certain of it.

hey ho, I was going to say something rude about this case, but I'll refrain.



* I don't refer to those who have their asylum applications accepted.

[Tribesman]

I doubt for one minute that any of the middle eastern nations would have any qualms about repatriating illegal immigrants. In fact I'm certain of it.


You shouldn't be so certain, after all repatriation of anyone anywhere requires an agreement between two states.
Look at Libya and its detention and deportation problems for a european linked newsstory or look at the Egypt/Israel problems with Sudan

[jumpy]

True enough, but to get around the small matter of these agreements, they tend to put such displaced peoples in camps in the middle of nowhere instead. Such camps have 'non-peoples' in them, where in effect they belong to no-one. Not much different to deporting someone back to a place they claim asylum from in terms of safety and law, agreements or no.
perhaps I'm nit-picking here, but the arabs (for example) are great at holding their hands up and saying 'ooh, you know what? we don't want you to be our problem, tata'.
The result is that we have many incidents like the one in the article - some other countries trash, having little care for our rules (we already have enough of our own citizens who behave this way) cluttering up the place and taking up time and money in the courts to no pleasant outcome.
But I get where your at with it not always being so simple. Were it so he'd never have been allowed to remain within our boarders to start with and I'd fully concur with that.

[Hitman]

My solutoion to the case in question?

First, I know how it is when a loved one gets killed and the offender gets a hilariously low penalty - my loved one was killed by a drunken ghostdriver longer time ago, he got a financial fee, a prison sentence on suspension of several months, and he got the driver'S licence back after 6 months, because, so it was argued, he needed it. In 1972, the prgenant sioster of my mother and her freeshly married huzsband also were wiped out by a drunken ghostdriver. He was considered to be limited criminally liable because he was drunk (yeah, people are not responsible for how much they drink), he payed a bit money, and got his licence back even before his also suspended prison sen tence was over. He then caused another accident some time later - again, drunk, with other seriously injured and paying the bill.

So, I have some idea of how the father here feels.You would obviously not be qualified to judge such a case because of that. Your perception of the case is distorted by your preconceived ideas and feelings.

My solution. Get the kid and take it away from a criminal who is a known repetive criminal. Send him to prison for having tried to evade the responsi bility for the killing he caused, and after he served his term, send him back to the damn place were he came from, lifetime ban to ever return to Europe. Give the kid to a caring family who knows better what responsibility is, is not criminal, and due tpo being native casn oiffer it a realistric chance to fully integrate. THAT is what would be in the interest of the child.Giving the child to a caring familiy would imply punishing the mother, who, as far as I know, is not responsable of anything. Also, you could do a permanent damage for the father in the event he is reinserted in society later and could actually face his responsabilities with the child. You are also ignoring that the offence commited was not intentional (Assasination) but negligent, something that is to be considered when establishing the consequences.

Finally, the inmigration and the criminal court are different ones and consider the case from different perspectives. The criminal court has to punish a crime, while the inmigration court has to decide according to the inmigration laws wether sending the guy back to his origin country is applyable or not. And that decission is not to be taken on the base of punishing the criminal offence the guy commited, because in that case he would be punished two times for the same offence (Note however that a criminal court should have been theoretically able to eliminate his right to stay in the UK and send the guy back to Irak after prison).

To sum up: The situation was screwed from the origin by the criminal court who did not add to the prison penalty the elimination of the visa to stay at the UK.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, I agree with you partially about what to do, as I also believe that people who have commited certain criminal offences are not qualified as fathers and should be separated from their childs, in benefit of the same childs. In this case here, I would have prefered to give the mother the custody of the child and then throw the bastard of the country. That would have anyway not been possible with the current laws here (Spain) and probably also not in the UK, so it remains as wishful thinking and hence I agree with you in that the laws are screwed in benefit of such S.O.B., but for different reasons.

On a final note, I'd like to add that may be the court also would have done the same thing but could not because of the laws they have to obey. Believe it or not, it's a frequent situation, so don't necessarily blame them.

[Skybird]

I obviously did not care for what the law "forces" the court to decide, or not. I was a bout the principally right thing to do in a messed up situation. Our immigration laws, espeically in Germany, give inmcredibly many options to criminal foreigners and criminal family clans to abuse our legal system to their advantage and prevent us,m their hosts who took them in in good willingness, to get rid of them when they abuse our good will. And this pisses me big time.

On the case here, you ignore some things. First, I am not kicking hi mout for having caused an accident, but for two other facts. First, he fled from the scene, trying to avoid responsibility. In Germany, that alone is under penalty. Second, he is a known criminal who has come into conflict repeatedly before. He has illustrated whatr social prognosis he wants to make true for him self, so your call to cnsider his future chances is already invalid right now. You give people a second chance when they failed in something, unintentionally , and then stand by what they did. But how many seocnd chnaces are you willing to give people before you say: "This 14th second chance now is too much, 13 times I did not mean it serious but this time I do when telling you my patience is over?"

I also must remind oyu of the fact that many foreigners coming to Europe absue women to make them a baaby and then have a legal argument to stay, family-law concerns. This imo also is a crimoinal act, and I know two such cases perosnally from my university times. It is not rare that foreigners try this, especially economic asylum seekers try this tatcic time and again. Needless to say that you do not get a happy family life from this.

The article does not say what the case is in this story. If there is a mother, and she is not criminal, leave her the kid. But be aware of the fact that once again spociety, the tax payer, must pay the bill for her engaging with an obvious azzhole and letting him make her a baby. Thank you very much for sucking other people's money, you stupid woman.

I was a psychologist, and my best girlfriend today still is and works as a family and systemic therapist. From that perspective I also may come to occasional different opinions than you, considering what is in the bests interest of children - to let them stay with failing parents, or not. When I said to take it away from the father, I did not say that carelessly.

Once again, the article says the man is a known criminal who frequently collided with the law, and is well-known with the police. And he tried to flee from the stage of the accident, and did not try to help.

And at least there is the chance that he has that child only in order to be able to blackmail the state and getting immunity from the immigration court when he commits his frequent crimes. There were cases in the media in Germanys where foreigners rejected to work and/or were criminal, living on sopcial wellfare - and just make babies as many as they can to sack in more social wellfare. They live in relative wealth that way! Spank them and then give them the boot, I say.

Never forget also that parents tend to raise and educate their kids in the same mindset and attiotude of themselves. Consider this when wanting to carelessly claim that the children must be kept here at all cost. It may be in their inteerest, yes. But is it in our interest, alsways? In the social system's interest, the taxpayers interest? You read the news as I do, you know how finances and integration issues are scoring throughout europe: lousy. Every mouth you want to keep here, no matter whether it speaks friendly or bites and spits at you, you muts come up with something to eat. And food costs money. Money just don't grow on trees. Money must be economically generated. And that is something that many Gutmenschen have forgotten when wanting to shoulder the burdens of all the world.



This case has parallels to several others I remember from the recent past in Germany, may it be that foreigners raced down the street in Berlöin, killed people, fled and tried to evade the law, may it be that criminals hide behind their asylum seeker-status, may it be that whole family clans establish structures of organised crime and use immigrations laws to eavde justice and being kicked out.

We must no tolerate or accept such scum. That is not what the intention of and the motivation behind Basic Human Rights have been.

We also must not always find a thoisuand excuses not to hold an offender respnisble for his deeds, and we also should stop with our barbaric, inhumane habit of holding the offenders interests in as high esteem as that of his past or future victims.

Some things run terribly wrong in our legal systems, pushed by exaggeration, lack of adequate scalin g standards, and political correctness. Having had repeated contacts with the legal procedures (and currently once again over a family dispute), and having seen the system gpoing amiss in all but one case only, you cannot expect me to put trust or great expectations into it anymore. I don't trust justice anymore, not even as far (or near) as I could spit.

Not to mention the bending of loyalty to treaties and rules on a political level.

[Hitman]

I obviously did not care for what the law "forces" the court to decide, or not. I was a bout the principally right thing to do in a ****ed up situation. Our immigration laws, espeically in Germany, give inmcredibly many options to criminal foreigners and criminal family clans to abuse our legal system to their advantage and prevent us,m their hosts who took them in in good willingness, to get rid of them when they abuse our good will. And this pisses me big time.

Hum, yes, but you blamed the court partially for that. The court is not responsable for what the laws say, it has to apply them like them or not. On your critics about the laws, I absolutely second you.

First, I am not kicking hi mout for having caused an accident, but for two other facts. First, he fled from the scene, trying to avoid responsibility. In Germany, that alone is under penalty. Second, he is a known criminal who has come into conflict repeatedly before. He has illustrated whatr social prognosis he wants to make true for him self, so your call to cnsider his future chances is already invalid right now. You give people a second chance when they failed in something, unintentionally , and then stand by what they did. But how many seocnd chnaces are you willing to give people before you say: "This 14th second chance now is too much, 13 times I did not mean it serious but this time I do when telling you my patience is over?"

I personally would not give them more than one (And terminate them on the second infraction), but as I already said, unfortunately current laws seem to give them limitless ones, since life imprisonment is not applyable in most states. Which is sad and counterproductive.

I salso must remind oyu of the fact that many foreigners coming to Europe absue women to make them a baaby and then have a legal argument to stay, family-law concerns. This imo also is a crimoinal act, and I know two such cases perosnally from my university times. It is not rare that foreigners try this, especially economic asylum seekers try this tatcic time and again. Needless to say that you do not get a happy family life from this.

They also marry prostitutes for a sum with exactly the same purpose. That is a fraud that has fortunately a legal remedy, since it can be declared by a court and all the effects erased (Proving that in the zillions of cases around is something sadly very different, of course).

But the thing is that we do not know the facts of this case, so your proposed solution would not be logical unless the mother is also guilty of the fraud. That's why I said that, unless other evidences point at that, giving the baby to a caring familiy should not be applyable automatically.

The article does not say what the case is in this story. If there is a mother, and she is not criminal, leave her the kid. But be aware of the fact that once again spociety, the tax payer, must pay the bill for her engaging with an obvious azzhole and letting him make her a baby. Thank you very much for sucking other people's money, you stupid woman.

Agree

We must no tolerate or accept such scum. That is not what the intention of and the motivation behind Basic Human Rights have been.

We also must not always find a thoisuand excuses not to hold an offender respnisble for his deeds, and we also should stop with our barbaric, inhumane habit of holding the offenders interests in as high esteem as that of his past or future victims.

Agree

Some things run terribly wrong in our legal systems, pushed by exaggeration, lack of adequate scalin g standards, and political correctness. Having had repeated contacts with the legal procedures (and currently once again over a family dispute), and having seen the system gpoing amiss in all but one case only, you cannot expect me to put trust or great expectations into it anymore. I don't trust justice anymore, not even as far (or near) as I could spit.

Agree on the first part, but profoundly disagree on the latter ("I don't trust justice anymore"). You are mixing up here laws, and courts called to apply them. You are suggesting that courts should bend laws to extract consequences the former don't contemplate? OK, may be sometimes courts do that, but that's something in my opinion unacceptable and turns the judges into lawmakers, which they ain't (Except under the anglosaxon common law system, and even so with certain limitations).

Justice is a virtue (Not a goal) consisting in giving evryone what he has a right to. And what defines what someone has a right to, are constitutions and laws. Any court following them is making correct justice, and wether those constitutions or laws are an injustice when confronted with certain principles or moral values, that is a different matter. No judge can claim his own principles or moral values are above the law he has to apply.

But OK, I understand you were actually focusing on something different and only accidentally and probably inadvertedly mixed up the two things, only as accesory. I just wanted to highlight that there are lots of legal implications in the case, and that the judges might have done (Even if profoundly disgusted) what they considered was according to the (flawed) laws we have.

[Dan D]

EU and ECHR:
“The idea of the European Union acceding to the ECHR has often been raised. However, in an opinion given on 28 March 1996, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the European Communities could not accede to the Convention because the EC Treaty did not provide any powers to lay down rules or to conclude international agreements on human rights”

UK national law:
Immigration court ruled that “death driver” had a right to a family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects him against deportation.

“The Human Rights Act 1998 c.42 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom.”

“The Act makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.


UK Immigration law: Deportation After a Criminal Conviction:
“In cases where no recommendation for deportation was made by the sentencing judge a foreign national should be considered for deportation if he received a prison sentence of longer than one year, or two years in the case of a European citizen.

In deciding whether a foreign national should be deported after he has served his sentence the immigration authorities will take into account the offender’s age, his links to the UK and the seriousness of his offence.”

---->Deportation should be considered, if received a prison sentence of longer than one year.
Here: Guy was jailed for four months for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident, that is < 1 year.

-Links to the UK: father of 2 kids of English nationality who in case of deportation will grow up without the father if not the whole family moves to Iraq..

-Seriousness of offence: “driving while disqualified” and “failing to stop after an accident” , 4 months jail

Are there any special circumstances to deviate from the 1year jail thumb rule?
At least in the BBC news link no such circumstances are mentioned.

IMO the opinion of the judges is legally defensible (no perversion of the law).

[Skybird]

For the military we say that it has no duty to obey "illegal" orders.

For the German Wehrmacht it is often critically (and correctly) remarked that the German officers corps allowed it'S Prussian code of honour and discipline to mislead it on a path of blind obedience and loayalty to Hitler even when many already knew that he was seeking the highway to doom, and was acting against the interest of the German people. I too think that it would have been the most noble duty of the German military to revolt against the Nazi regime, and kill it.

In Germany, in my home town, we currently have a judge who refuses to enforces sentences against cardriovers racing in the streets and getting caught in radar traps. He argues that to him it seems the radar traps are installed not where the sensible and dangerous traffic hotspots are, but where the likelihood is the grfeatest to produce the greatest income for the city. He says that this is not cleared, and smells anti-constitutional.

In Germany we have had repeatedly courts where the judges had to judge over Muhammeddan men/husbands who whipped, mistreated, beat women, but the judges did not use German laws to sentence them, but either limited the range of these laws by pointing out the cultural background of these cavemen and that this has to be appreciated, and in some cases even abandoned German law completely and tried to use Sharia regulations on the case, in the most famous such case the man had seriuously beaten up his wife repeatedly, and got away without being held responsibly - due to Sharia law. That was last year, I think. The court and the female judge being so submissive later was disciplined by the Federal Court, though.

So, both practically and from a moral standpoint, must/do judges always follow the law even when they must realise that by following the law they would support or commit injustice by themselves? You must not answer the question, it is just some food for thought. If so, whatever has remained of morals and ethics in the lgal system (not much, if you ask me), would be nullified, and then you have a law lacking and being completely desinterested in ethics and morals.

What worth is such a law?

Are representatives of the lgal system not respnsible for the ammount of justice or injustice they help to form? Are they just executing bureaucrats, then? That would remind dangerously to the classical excuse of many Nazis and KZ-guards: "I was just obeying orders. I was just following the regulations."

At least I woulkd expoect judges not to support misled wanted policies by sticking with the laws, but to show rebellion against it in order to raise attention for the flawed circumstances.

Because, after all, before all and anything else, everybody is primarily subordinate to his own conscience. Not laws. Not commands. Not hierarchies. Not any party loyalties. If you do wrong becasue a command or a law demanded you to do, then you did wrong. The law or the command - is just a foul excuse, then.

But I admit, money and career chances are proven relaxants to sedate moral scruples and ethical concerns.

[STEED]

The UK is soft on crime, soft on the courses of crime. :nope:

I would have locked him up and after he completed his sentence kicked him out the country.

[Alex]

You would obviously not be qualified to judge such a case because of that. Your perception of the case is distorted by your preconceived ideas and feelings.
I know what you mean, Hitman. But in all honesty, you got me wondering why should that sort of experience in life be considered a distortion of perception. On the contrary, I see this as a way of thinking subjective yet aware of all the situation's ins and outs.
Of course, of course : anyone would say "you're right, anyone should be neutral to judge properly the legitimacy of the decision taken by any justice court". But I don't. Not that you're wrong in my opinion !

But as we live in a world that is lacking humanism desperately, I'd like to say I would do my best to allow some importance to the point of view of those who had to go through that sort of thing, instead of only caring about the legitimacy of decisions taken by that bloody collective thinking epitomizing people who will never be familiar with that pain some have to live with for the rest of their lives, in brief.

Basically, I can't see why I should rely on what others think I should do, letting them dictate and force me to act and think the way they like. But that's just me.

[Madox58]

If you follow most of the logic ascribed to so far?
Then you also agree that the Inquisition was legal and just.
And could be, with all rights, repeated again with full support of
the Govs involved.
From my point of view? This is already happening in some areas.
And the areas grow larger everyday.
I can recall when a phrase such as 'Home Land Security'
would have resulted in riots in the streets of the U.S.!
Now?
I see the scared rolling over to allow a fake secureity to comfort them.
"The Great Uncle Sam will take care of us!" They cry.
As simple freedoms are stripped away and they get 'felt-up' at airport terminals around the U.S.
The average person now days wants everything without working for it.
They are willing to give up everything to get it.
I only regret I'll probably be long gone before the TRUE War starts.
I'd Love to fight in that War!

[Skybird]

If you follow most of the logic ascribed to so far?
Then you also agree that the Inquisition was legal and just.

That "logic" needs explanation.