|
Post by Jonah on Dec 17, 2010 23:33:16 GMT 1
Simianus if you can't defend your ridiculous liberal views on justice without being found out then sorry it's goodbye.
You attract the banter with the tone of your argument/debate so accept the consciences.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 17, 2010 23:35:06 GMT 1
I don't think Marcus' beef is disagreement ) The thing is, (and I have to say this), that syphilis bloke, I think that's what he called himself, is madly in love with me. Anyway, he loves us all, so he'll be back. Come on, monkee, you know you want to. I hope so Jaytee, because if anything we need balanced viewpoints and people who are willing to constructively challenge views of others. Too often on this board people have resorted to insults, vailed insults, or childish ways of winding people up simply because they don't agree with what they read, or can't argue their point. Big nose.
|
|
|
Post by jaytee on Dec 17, 2010 23:45:51 GMT 1
The thing is, (and I have to say this), that syphilis bloke, I think that's what he called himself, is madly in love with me. Anyway, he loves us all, so he'll be back. Come on, monkee, you know you want to. I hope so Jaytee, because if anything we need balanced viewpoints Big nose. You shouldn't call yourself names. Anyway, talking to people today, they seem closer to Jonah than monkee on this occasion. I've already said earlier in the thread, I'm not bothered about him, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 17, 2010 23:57:53 GMT 1
TBH i struggle with anybody who finds sympathy with this regardless of what race nationality etc etc he is.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 17, 2010 23:59:26 GMT 1
I hope so Jaytee, because if anything we need balanced viewpoints Big nose. You shouldn't call me today, I've already said my bottom is redest.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 18, 2010 0:02:31 GMT 1
TBH i struggle with anybody who finds sympathy with this regardless of what race nationality etc etc he is. Exactly Jonah; I'm not sure anyone has given him any sympathy, but I'll re-read the posts. To re-iterate my view we need a better CJS. As stated before, would we think justice had been done if this chap was a UK national who served his 4 month sentence? Not for one minute.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Dec 18, 2010 0:20:43 GMT 1
So, I think we all agree that the punishment for this particular crime and similar crimes like it is far too lenient.
I think we all agree that people seeking asylum are welcome here if they are genuine, willing to contribute to society, be law abiding and be willing to return to their homeland once it is safe to do so.
I think we all agree that the fact he is a muslim is irrelevant.
The differences lie in the fact that this criminal is not willing to go back to Iraq because he has kids born in this country.
Should he be made to give up the right as a father to see his kids ? Difficult one. On one hand you will break up a family, possibly leading to permanent problems with the children in later years. On the other hand, he didn't care about his kids when possibly facing a prison sentence for his crime and also again when he committed a further offence.
My view: If he went to prison for 20 years, his kids would hardly see him. It's not fair on any kids who's fathers commit crimes. They are the ones who get hurt when a father is sent to prison. However, they as children need to understand their father did something unacceptable. They also need to understand he came from a country that this country helped to make safe. They can return with him to his country if the family unit wishes to stay together. It is now a safe country to live in.
As a family they would be lucky to have that choice. Paul Houston has no choice.
I think the Prime Minister makes a very good point:
"Britain has spent billions of pounds and lost many, many very good people - some killed, some wounded - to make Iraq a safer, more stable country," said the Prime Minister.
"We should not be in a position where, having done all these things, we are simply told it is not possible to return a person there."
It would be upsetting for the kids to leave Britain and ultimately their family would have a difficult choice to make but it should not be handed to them on a plate. It's not the nicest choice to make but in my view the father gave up the right for any niceness when he committed the crime.
Human rights should only apply to people who are willing to respect the human rights of others. If you don't do that then you should forfeit your human rights.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim did not respect the human rights of Amy Houston. He left her dying.
|
|
|
Post by jaytee on Dec 18, 2010 0:31:57 GMT 1
I think we all agree that the fact he is a muslim is irrelevant. Well it is in my case. If I didn't, I'd have strangled the young lad who we in to stay with us when his Mum unexpectedly had to go into hospital for a few days.
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Dec 18, 2010 1:26:23 GMT 1
In cases like this what I find hard to understand is, a vast majority of the public would have this man deported (myself included). The government and the courts should reflect public opinion, unfortunately in this case our judges have to abide by precedent set in a court, in a foreign country, by individuals not elected by the British or anyone else for that matter.
Accidents happen and this is very unfortunate, but already banned from driving, a number of other offences and fleeing the scene? I fail to see how having a person like this in the country is beneficial? Yes he has children here and their rights need to be protected, but what about the family who now have to live with grief for the rest of their lives because of some idiots indiscretions. I would be very upset if I was the father of that child.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 18, 2010 8:11:49 GMT 1
Well that statement really says it all Ed gays women and disabled the least fortunate in society? I am sure they will have a different view. Answer my original question to you re the introduction of the Human Rights Act Thought you'd know who to reference a post by now Jonah. The Human rights act was definitely brought in to protect people such as Kurds living under Saddam Hussein. Mohammed Ibrahim has broken the law been sentenced to 4 months by a judge presumably who heard all the facts and then saved from deportation by a judge who heard all the facts. Do I believe he should be deported I dont know because I dont have the facts but I do place my faith in judges rather than the media. Jonah do you believe that the Human rights laws should be amended every time a case occurs you dont like the outcome. Or maybe you believe that all Human right laws should be abolished. Please answer for a change.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 18, 2010 10:54:43 GMT 1
Well that statement really says it all Ed gays women and disabled the least fortunate in society? I am sure they will have a different view. Answer my original question to you re the introduction of the Human Rights Act Thought you'd know who to reference a post by now Jonah. The Human rights act was definitely brought in to protect people such as Kurds living under Saddam Hussein. Mohammed Ibrahim has broken the law been sentenced to 4 months by a judge presumably who heard all the facts and then saved from deportation by a judge who heard all the facts. Do I believe he should be deported I dont know because I dont have the facts but I do place my faith in judges rather than the media. Jonah do you believe that the Human rights laws should be amended every time a case occurs you dont like the outcome. Or maybe you believe that all Human right laws should be abolished. Please answer for a change. Struggling with this technology stuff Ed No I dont and have never suggested it should be abolished. What I want it to be is robust enough to stop criminals hiding behind it. IMO the system has failed miserably in this case and the lienient 4 month sentence and the deportation refusal just highlights the injustice. There will be an appeal and I hope the decision will be reversed.If he cannot live by the laws of our country then he has no right to live here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 10:58:53 GMT 1
There will be an appeal and I hope the decision will be reversed.If he cannot live by the laws of our country then he has no right to live here. Does that apply to anyone born in this country who breaks the law too, Jonah? After all, no one chooses where they are born. For the record I too struggle to see how 4 months was considered a due sentance in this case from the information revealed to date.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 11:07:02 GMT 1
TBH i struggle with anybody who finds sympathy with this regardless of what race nationality etc etc he is. im not sure who you and salad refer to when you speak of liberals and people having sympathy for him, but im certainly not a liberal and i certainly dont have sympathy for him. for the record, i would be in favour of corporal punishment for many offences, life means life jail terms and hard labour, chain gangs ect. as far as im concerned he has been dealt with by our legal system and on the face of it, without knowing all the facts, he seems to have got off lightly. But thats not his fault. Im sure he is happy with his sentence compared with what (im sure) the editor of the daily mail would have in store. But thats not his fault either. The british judicial system tried him and gave out the sentences. as in many many cases, to us it seems poor and not fitting the crime, or at least the rhetoric surrounding it. as with many of these kinds of cases involving non british nationals, it suits the agenda of many to focus on the supposed failings of things like the human rights act, its an easy target lets be honest, when the true problem lies with our own lame legal system. Well i,m sorry if i offend all the do gooders on here, all those who stand under the equality and fairness banner, but if you break the laws of this country then you should suffer the long term consequences. As a brit then, do you not stand under a banner of fairness and equality? its a pretty basic principle that we live by, and are pretty much defined by in this country. personally, i take great pride in standing under that particular banner. if the crime had been carried out by some white indigenous brit, once the sentence had been enforced would we also expect the person to spend the rest of his life apart from his wife and kids? i dont think so. so to say to someone not of british decent that not only are you going to carry out your (lenient in my opinion) sentence, but then split you up from your wife and kids, is in my opinion discrimination, because we only apply it to people from another country. Should we make his wife and kids suffer for his crime? No, i dont think so either. i have to say that being rather cynical about life, i cant help think that perhaps he got married and had kids to maybe help stop himself getting deported. who knows. Accidents happen and this is very unfortunate, but already banned from driving, a number of other offences and fleeing the scene? I fail to see how having a person like this in the country is beneficial? . neither do i, but from my perspective, that applies regardless of your race or country of origin, so unless we have 2 different sets of laws in this country, one for indigenous and one for immigrants, i dont see why he should be deported and punished further when the likes of this crime happen on a regular basis (i imagine) but carried out by brits.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 18, 2010 11:07:02 GMT 1
There will be an appeal and I hope the decision will be reversed.If he cannot live by the laws of our country then he has no right to live here. Does that apply to anyone born in this country who breaks the law too, Jonah? After all, no one chooses where they are born. For the record I too struggle to see how 4 months was considered a due sentance in this case from the information revealed to date. Basically Ant, its pretty much as Simianus stated, in that he was charged with what are quite simple driving offences. I in no way mean to take away the fact this is a tragic situation, as with Simianus who attracted a lot of stick for simply looking at the facts. He was disaqulified when this accident place, but the accident was not down to careless or dangerous driving. Therefore stated cases and CJS sentencing guidelines indicate a short custodial sentence is all the magistrate would be able to do. Of course, the Magistrate can refer the case to Crown Court where they are able to impose stiffer sentences. I can not reiterate this enough, but this sort of thing goes on quite regularly, but fortunately with fewer pedestrian fatalities. CJS needs to get tougher on driving offences.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 18, 2010 11:50:37 GMT 1
There will be an appeal and I hope the decision will be reversed.If he cannot live by the laws of our country then he has no right to live here. Does that apply to anyone born in this country who breaks the law too, Jonah? After all, no one chooses where they are born. For the record I too struggle to see how 4 months was considered a due sentance in this case from the information revealed to date. Having given this some thought, I think my view is very similar to Ant's. I think four months for leaving the scene of an accident and leaving a little girl to die was far too lenient (leaving aside the legal technicalities) and does not leave you with the feeling justice was done. Sentencing for offences of this nature seem, to my mind, anyway, to be generally very lenient, and often sickeningly so, whether the offender is an asylum seeker or born here. On the other hand, given the sentencing usually imposed for offences of this nature, would it be just to deport someone for this offence when we don't hand out comparable punishments to people who are British by birth? As Ant says, do we suggest expelling our own citizens from the country when they commit a crime, or separate them from their families once they have 'done their time'? No. Perhaps there wouldn't be such outrage if the initial punishment had been seen to fit the crime. All things considered, I believe the original sentence was far too lenient, but the decision not to deport him correct, although I understand the anger of the girl's father.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 18, 2010 12:52:38 GMT 1
There will be an appeal and I hope the decision will be reversed.If he cannot live by the laws of our country then he has no right to live here. Does that apply to anyone born in this country who breaks the law too, Jonah? After all, no one chooses where they are born. For the record I too struggle to see how 4 months was considered a due sentance in this case from the information revealed to date. Yes I think it should Ant. We should deport them all to a big island on the other side of the world were they can play cricket all day. That will teach them The difference is this person is seeking Asylum here. Why should we offer sanctuary to someone who shows complete disregard to our law?
|
|
|
Post by d00bie on Dec 18, 2010 12:54:46 GMT 1
If you take away the "human rights" issue, I have to wonder about the sanity of the judge that deemed it right that this piece of s**t serve only 4 months. And then I read this morning that in a local case a Bridgnorth man was sentenced to 3 years for killing a lad on a moped when he turned right in front of him. www.shropshirestar.com/news/2010/12/17/shropshire-driver-jailed-for-causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/Perhaps if he was a refused refugee without a license, insurance or a conscience he might have got away with it
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 18, 2010 13:09:29 GMT 1
If you take away the "human rights" issue, I have to wonder about the sanity of the judge that deemed it right that this piece of s**t serve only 4 months. And then I read this morning that in a local case a Bridgnorth man was sentenced to 3 years for killing a lad on a moped when he turned right in front of him. www.shropshirestar.com/news/2010/12/17/shropshire-driver-jailed-for-causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/Perhaps if he was a refused refugee without a license, insurance or a conscience he might have got away with it The difference is one was found guilty of dangerous driving the other was not. Why let the facts get in the way of a media story.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 18, 2010 13:18:21 GMT 1
Does that apply to anyone born in this country who breaks the law too, Jonah? After all, no one chooses where they are born. For the record I too struggle to see how 4 months was considered a due sentence in this case from the information revealed to date. Basically Ant, its pretty much as Simianus stated, in that he was charged with what are quite simple driving offences. I in no way mean to take away the fact this is a tragic situation, as with Simianus who attracted a lot of stick for simply looking at the facts. He was disaqulified when this accident place, but the accident was not down to careless or dangerous driving. Therefore stated cases and CJS sentencing guidelines indicate a short custodial sentence is all the magistrate would be able to do. Of course, the Magistrate can refer the case to Crown Court where they are able to impose stiffer sentences. I can not reiterate this enough, but this sort of thing goes on quite regularly, but fortunately with fewer pedestrian fatalities. CJS needs to get tougher on driving offences. This. The issue isn't about why he wasn't deported, but how a repeat offender can get such a lenient sentence. Shame that certain media can't concentrate on that.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Dec 18, 2010 13:27:45 GMT 1
I agree with the point that has been made, several times, that it's the fact that the original punishment doesn't appear to fit the crime (at least on the face of it) which is - or should be - the concern of the majority.
The Human Rights Act, like all legislation, should always be under scrutiny and, where necessary and after full consultation and appropriate Parliamentary debate (unlike, unfortunately, the Coalition’s all too hasty recent legislation) amended.
My concern is where we have 'media driven' outrage which results in the Act being portrayed as some sort of protective blanket for every kind of horrid ‘foreign’ criminal. Such an outpouring of emotion could easily play into the hands of those who's greatest wish would be to see the Act revoked or watered down to the extent where it is worthless.
Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 17:05:41 GMT 1
Obviously two issues here, one being the original sentancing which the general consensus was ridicuously light
The second issue is whether the man should be deported now. Reading a few stories its clear he has previously applied for asylum which was rejected and his subsequent appeal failed however he was never deported (actually thats a third issue). My question is whether its a rule that if people claiming asylum have children in this country, they cannot be deported?
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Dec 18, 2010 17:54:42 GMT 1
As Ant says, do we suggest expelling our own citizens from the country when they commit a crime, or separate them from their families once they have 'done their time'? No. Seeing as we havent done that sort of thing since we sent convicts to Australia in the 19th century or whenever it was, then no! The sentence was just pure ridiculous, and the British justice system is a complete joke anyways, after watching a episode of 'Accused' (which seems to reflect the British justice system quite accurately) I can even understand why some people may want to take the law into their own hands after losing a loved one in these kind of circumstances, I hope the A******* who committed this heinous crime checks his conscience when he's in the company of his kids.......
|
|
|
Post by SY3 on Dec 18, 2010 18:27:28 GMT 1
Only on B&A would this scumbag get such support, being liberal is all well and good but there are a lot of people on here who take it to an art form. What would you do with his kids then salad? Ship them out to what would no doubt be a totally alien land for them? Keep them here but have the State pay reparation to them to support them to adult hood? Ignore legislation to which we are bound? Or seek to overhaul the sentencing and prison system to allow such offenders to serve sentences consecutively instead of concurrently...? I'd appreciate a constructive discussion rather than just an off the cuff 'slag and run' ... El Presidente - What would you do if this was your duaghter who was run over and killed by a disqualified driver with no insurance who also failed asylum? Also for such a tragic accident i hear this guy fled the scene. How you feel if this was you?
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 18, 2010 18:52:13 GMT 1
What would you do with his kids then salad? Ship them out to what would no doubt be a totally alien land for them? Keep them here but have the State pay reparation to them to support them to adult hood? Ignore legislation to which we are bound? Or seek to overhaul the sentencing and prison system to allow such offenders to serve sentences consecutively instead of concurrently...? I'd appreciate a constructive discussion rather than just an off the cuff 'slag and run' ... El Presidente - What would you do if this was your duaghter who was run over and killed by a disqualified driver with no insurance who also failed asylum? Also for such a tragic accident i hear this guy fled the scene. How you feel if this was you? I think the answer to that is fairly obvious mate. The debate, however, is not about feelings and emotions (but which are taken into account in court), but about the lack of sufficient sentencing powers in this country. It matters not who runs who over, what matters is how they are punished. Once again, if this chap was not an asylum seeker, would anyone feel justice had been done on the initial sentencing? Nope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 19:05:58 GMT 1
It now transpires that Ibrahim, apart from serving just two months of a very lenient four month sentence for killing a young girl, somehow managed to find himself a partner and father two children with her. Clever, because the relevant Asylum Chamber stated that the outcome may have been different if the process to remove him had begun BEFORE he fathered children. So what are we saying here, if you have broken the law of this country OR your application to remain seems to have no future and you face deportation, grab yourself a PARTNER and father children, quickly. You get to stay as you have a right to a family life. Pity that that right has been removed from Paul Houston by virtue of the fact that his "family life"is in pieces following the selfish actions of this serial law breaker. Funny that our acceptance of equality and fairness for all does not, in this case, extend to Paul Houston. And before you come back to me defending the rights of others such as the piece of s**te mentioned above, put yourself in Mr. Houstons shoes, try and feel his pain, his loss and then say that his rights to remain in this country should be maintained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2010 11:40:11 GMT 1
And before you come back to me defending the rights of others such as the piece of s**te mentioned above, put yourself in Mr. Houstons shoes, try and feel his pain, his loss and then say that his rights to remain in this country should be maintained. I cant put myself in his shoes, i dont want to, and you cant either. His right to stay in this country should be maintaned because that was the findings of the laws and tribunals that this country and its citizens, including you, are signed up to. We do not subscribe to lynch mobs, we do not support vigilantee law. Mr Houston has my every sympathy, he has been let down (on the face of it) by our judicial system, if it was me, i cant imagine what i would do. But thats the law. It applies equally to everyone and thats the way it should be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2010 11:45:48 GMT 1
Its interesting that some of the people who arent so quick to say " dEPORT THE B@STARD" say that its an emotive case but feelings and emotion shouldnt come into it.
Yet in the next breath, they will say "we shouldnt deport him, the bloke has kids, what about them". Surely thats a bit hypocritical? It may sound callous but why should the feelings of his kids come into play if the emotions and feelings of Paul Houston cannot?
Ignoring the original crime (plus many numerous ones since), the fact is he applyed for asylum in this country but it was rejected, he appealed and that failed. Therefore the man should not be in the country regardless of whether he committed a crime or not. The deportation is not some sort of punishment because he committed a crime as some people are making it out to be, it was because he was not allowed to stay in this country in the first place.
However because he has had children since, he can now stay.
As I asked above, is it a ruling that if anyone has children in this country they are entitled to stay? Or did the the relevant judges use their 'judgement' to decide to say he can stay here because he has a family and its down to their interpretation of the Human Rights Act? If its the former then its law so theres little can be done. If its the latter then its those judges peoples anger should be aimed at
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Dec 19, 2010 13:21:48 GMT 1
i'm no racist and just to prove it i think this chap should get the right to bring his kids up
we could send them on the same flight!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2010 14:38:54 GMT 1
And before you come back to me defending the rights of others such as the piece of s**te mentioned above, put yourself in Mr. Houstons shoes, try and feel his pain, his loss and then say that his rights to remain in this country should be maintained. I cant put myself in his shoes, i don't want to, and you cant either. His right to stay in this country should be maintaned because that was the findings of the laws and tribunals that this country and its citizens, including you, are signed up to. We do not subscribe to lynch mobs, we do not support vigilantee law. Mr Houston has my every sympathy, he has been let down (on the face of it) by our judicial system, if it was me, i cant imagine what i would do. But thats the law. It applies equally to everyone and thats the way it should be. Of course i cannot put myself in his shoes, as such, but i can certainly empathise with him on the basis that i am a parent. I can't see where i "signed up" to accept, without question, the laws and tribunals of this country, and any that i don't agree with i reserve the right to register my objection to. Now this can be through a number of methods, the ballot box being the main method. Other methods can include peaceful protest or just discussing my thoughts with others who may or may not agree with me. Thats why i post on here and join in discussions with others who may or may not hold the same views as myself. I certainly do not inscribe to the lynch mob or vigilante mind set. You may have heard of the expression, "the laws an ass." It certainly is, and has been proved as such on many occasions. It is us, the populace, that can change it, peacefully. To blindly accept because the law is the law and thats the way it is doesn't fit in with my idea of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Hatfieldshrew on Dec 20, 2010 9:49:58 GMT 1
The main problem with this thread is that it's 2 different cases not 1 as it being treated.
1st is the driving offence, which he has done his time for, be it lenient.
2nd is the deportation issue. As an Asylum Seeker he is supposed to uphold the laws of the country, which he is constantly disregarding, so should not be allowed to stay in the country. This is the case that Human rights is being used in not the 1st. although personally I think he should go.
|
|