|
Post by Jonah on Dec 17, 2010 15:41:24 GMT 1
Hit-And-Run Asylum Seeker To Stay In UK A failed asylum-seeker who ran a 12-year-old girl over and left her to die has won the right to remain in the UK. Aso Mohammed Ibrahim will be allowed to remain after an appeal by the UK Border Agency was rejected by an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The 33-year-old Iraqi Kurd was already banned from driving when he ran Amy Houston down in November 2003. He fled the scene, leaving her dying beneath the wheels of his car. Hours later her father, Paul Houston, had to make the decision to turn off her life support machine. Ibrahim was jailed for four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident. Mr Houston has campaigned to get him deported in a tortuous legal battle spanning seven years. The 41-year-old, from Darwen, Lancashire, begged judges at a recent hearing to bring "my seven years of hell to an end" by sending Ibrahim back to Iraq. Last month he handed in a letter to judges, containing an impassioned plea for Ibrahim to be deported. Paul Houston reacted furiously to the decision However, Ibrahim's lawyers argued that his human rights would be contravened if he was sent back to Iraq. Now, two senior immigration judges have rejected a final appeal by the UK Border Agency to have him deported. Ibrahim will now be allowed to live in the UK permanently. Speaking to Sky News, Mr Houston said he was " devastated and disappointed" at the decision. "I'm not saying Mr Ibrahim doesn't have a family life - he has a family life and he can take that family life anywhere in the world that he wants to," he said. "I don't really see his argument saying he has been deprived of a family life as being one. "The only person that's being deprived of a family life is myself because my daughter's dead. Amy was my only child and I can't take her anywhere. The only person that's being deprived as a family life is myself because my daughter's dead. Amy was my only child and I can't take her anywhere. Amy Houston's father, Paul "Mr Ibrahim is from northern Iraq, which has been safe for quite some time now. So there is no reason whatsoever why Mr Ibrahim can't be returned to Iraq. "I want to know when are the judges and the politicians going to make the tough decisions on immigration? "All I'm asking is for the dangerous criminal to be returned back to his own country. " doesn't the Government have a duty of care to protect us not only from terrorists but to protect us from dangerous criminals as well? "I would like this to go to the High Court and to be sorted out once and for all because they are not taking my viewpoint into consideration. I don't seem to have any rights whatsoever." This lost his right to be human when he walked away from that poor girl. Deportation? No were near a suitable punishment for anyone who can do this. When will our p[oliticians grow some?
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 17, 2010 16:46:22 GMT 1
I always thought that Jonah and Heavenly were the same poster now it's just been proved.
Do you really want the politicians to abandon this countries responsibilities under Human Rights.
Regardless about how horrific the case was, it is Judges that have made this decision not politicians.
Jonah as with your right wing views about students where you classed all students as rioters, you now make a judgement based upon one side of the argument. Nothing like letting bias take over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 16:52:45 GMT 1
Nothing like letting bias take over. Pot calling kettle black however, agree with Ed on this one. It's not as easy as saying "send him back to Iraq, he's been naughty".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 17:07:41 GMT 1
Horrible case, not a nice man, and if in his position I would possibly feel the same as the Father.
But as anyone who heard the issue covered in detail on Radio 4 yesterday will know, there is plenty to this case.
It includes the fact that although it was his car that killed her, the man was not responsible for the girl's death. Also, he has two children born in this country.
Jonah, in terms of your final statement you're off the mark. It was the Government who were seeking to deport this man, but it was the law courts who allowed him to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 17, 2010 17:41:36 GMT 1
Ed your talking through your a"Se yet again Answer me one thing. Was the Human Rights act brought in to defend scum like him? In my view obviously not and my comment about politicians is they should stand up and say so. Gareth to say he wasn't responsible for her death is ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by barrynic on Dec 17, 2010 17:47:32 GMT 1
Totally agree with Jonah on this one.
Human Rights act is a joke, as is its implementation by agenda driven Liberal agents of Law.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 17, 2010 18:20:06 GMT 1
Ed your talking through your a"Se yet again Gareth to say he wasn't responsible for her death is ridiculous I think reports have stated that the girl stepped into the vehicle's path and Ibrahim panicked and left the scene - the initial accident wasn't caused by reckless or dangerous driving, although he was disqualified at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 18:49:06 GMT 1
And he has, since this case, again been charged with driving whilst disqualified.
The human rights act is the one piece of eu law I want to get withdrawn from at the earliest chance!!
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsburySTFC on Dec 17, 2010 18:51:33 GMT 1
Although the Human Rights Act was brought in to help our government with cases, all cases still have to abide by the European Court of Human Rights.
And our government can't pass a decision that is against the ECHR as that is final.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 17, 2010 19:00:44 GMT 1
cant people see the wood for the trees here? the media has again successfully whipped up a storm about what is essentially a driving offense, aggravated by being an arabic asylum seeker. Dave and his pals want rid of the human rights act so they can continue to hit students, mess with your rights to a fair trial and discriminate freely. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1have a look at the act and ask yourself if you really want to throw all of this away because of an emotive case whipped up all too easily by a government led media.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 19:54:01 GMT 1
i have no opinion if this guy should be deported or not and im sure the human rights act will enrage many as long as its not their human rights being defended. my issue with this case, and one that seems to be overlooked in favour of the hysterical calls for deportation, is how come a british court hands out pathetic 4 month sentences to people who hit and run.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 17, 2010 20:16:58 GMT 1
i have no opinion if this guy should be deported or not and im sure the human rights act will enrage many as long as its not their human rights being defended. my issue with this case, and one that seems to be overlooked in favour of the hysterical calls for deportation, is how come a british court hands out pathetic 4 month sentences to people who hit and run. shrewsace posted one of the reasons why, no reckless or dangerous driving. welshshrew mentioned that he wasnt actually responsible. did a quick google search on it but havent had time for a good look
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 20:31:35 GMT 1
i have no opinion if this guy should be deported or not and im sure the human rights act will enrage many as long as its not their human rights being defended. my issue with this case, and one that seems to be overlooked in favour of the hysterical calls for deportation, is how come a british court hands out pathetic 4 month sentences to people who hit and run. shrewsace posted one of the reasons why, no reckless or dangerous driving. welshshrew mentioned that he wasnt actually responsible. did a quick google search on it but havent had time for a good look fair enough, but if he wasnt responcible, why did he get 4 months?
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 17, 2010 20:40:46 GMT 1
shrewsace posted one of the reasons why, no reckless or dangerous driving. welshshrew mentioned that he wasnt actually responsible. did a quick google search on it but havent had time for a good look fair enough, but if he wasnt responcible, why did he get 4 months? dont know yet, but in most cases like this, pertinent info is usually not reported and when you check there are reasons for light sentencing.
|
|
|
Post by jaytee on Dec 17, 2010 20:45:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Dec 17, 2010 20:51:16 GMT 1
As the gentleman has re-offended by carrying out the same offence. I don't feel he has learn't a lesson, thus I feel he has no respect for anyone elses rights. Yet people should understand this is entirely irrelevant. Its not just one case though is it, time and again we witness Human Rights of wrongdoers seemingly overcoming justice, justice of course can and is often seen as deportation by some. I think without doubt the Human Rights Bill was introduced to protect people, yet it has evolved into a tool used all too often for the wrong reasons. And that is the crux of the matter it matters not if this guy raped someones goldfish or stole a car, the law will consider his human rights without consideration for the crime committed thus it ensure all get a level playing field. The playing field of course to some is not fair as the individuals rights take precedent to that of the masses - thus it can be argued there is an imbalance. Cameron promised to sought out this tangled web, when he's finished raping me of taxes ..... perhaps he will get round to it. Finally Ed accusing someone of bias truly made me fall of me chair that did......
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 17, 2010 20:57:57 GMT 1
i have no opinion if this guy should be deported or not and im sure the human rights act will enrage many as long as its not their human rights being defended. my issue with this case, and one that seems to be overlooked in favour of the hysterical calls for deportation, is how come a british court hands out pathetic 4 month sentences to people who hit and run. Matron speakum much sense. This is a tragic accident, and yes at the time an accident. I assume the sentence would be for driving while disqualified, leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident to the police. Whilst I understand the calls for his deportation, on the grounds of this one incident alone, I would find it hard to justify. Whatever you may think of him, he has children...whatever role model he may be, if any, is it right to intentionally deprive his children of their father? I know he deprived a father of his child due to his actions, but I doubt he ever intended this terrible tragedy to happen. As Matron says, of concern is the fact the chap has managed to accrue a number of convictions for various crimes, but seems not to have learnt his lesson with the meagre punishment handed down. The criminal justice system is long overdue an overhaul, and chiefly is at fault here. A loose loose situation for all parties, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by saladsaladsalad on Dec 17, 2010 21:09:52 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.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 17, 2010 21:30:44 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' ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 21:44:29 GMT 1
After reading report on the death, no, murder, of Amy Houston by a serial illegal criminal, i feel lost for words. Cameron writes to Paul Houston, consoling him by telling him that he has asked his Justice Minister to" investigate how we can improve public confidence in the Criminal Justice system" and how we can "restore honesty to sentencing."
Fine words indeed, until you learn that Clegg is siding with the Conservative radical and reformer, Ken Clarke, whose own party accuse him of being soft on crime. Clarke is all for cutting the number of criminals we hold in our prisons, under the broad premise that Prison does not work! NO. 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. And if it also ends in ultimate deportation, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by saladsaladsalad on Dec 17, 2010 21:53:14 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 apritiate a constructive discussion rather than just an off the cuff 'slag and run' ... Since when does having children immunise people from consequences? If I mow someone down tomorrow, get sent to jail but my solicitor claims I shouldnt lose my job 'because of the children' - how will that go down? Like a lead balloon? His family should be given the choice to either remain in this country or join their father in Iraq, or whichever other country he is allowed into. What he did is tantamount to murder, although the accident may well not have been his fault, he chose to try and preserve his freedom by making off rather than immediately contacting the emergency services. The fact he was disqualified at the time and has since been caught driving again(!) shows a complete lack of remorse - do you really believe in your heart that our country should support scum like this? Supporting his children if we have to is a completely different kettle of fish, they have done nothing wrong and are as innocent as that poor 12 year old girl was. Lastly, blathering that 'well that is the legislation' is a pretty poor cop-out, so we should go along with all ridiculous unjust pieces of law? Or should we oppose them, seek for them to be changed or even directly contravene them, if that's what is correct and just rather then acting like indoctrinated sheep. Sorry for the rant, things like this really get my p**s boiling, doesnt help that everyone is so quick to leap to his defence. Edited to add: What I find particularly vile is the people that are happy to actually blame the poor girl by saying she caused the accident. 2nd edit: Marcus Braddock (41) saying this is 'essentially a driving offence' - you are the lowest of the low.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 17, 2010 22:11:24 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 apritiate a constructive discussion rather than just an off the cuff 'slag and run' ... Since when does having children immunise people from consequences? If I mow someone down tomorrow, get sent to jail but my solicitor claims I shouldnt lose my job 'because of the children' - how will that go down? Like a lead balloon? His family should be given the choice to either remain in this country or join their father in Iraq, or whichever other country he is allowed into. What he did is tantamount to murder, although the accident may well not have been his fault, he chose to try and preserve his freedom by making off rather than immediately contacting the emergency services. The fact he was disqualified at the time and has since been caught driving again(!) shows a complete lack of remorse - do you really believe in your heart that our country should support scum like this? Supporting his children if we have to is a completely different kettle of fish, they have done nothing wrong and are as innocent as that poor 12 year old girl was. Lastly, blathering that 'well that is the legislation' is a pretty poor cop-out, so we should go along with all ridiculous unjust pieces of law? Or should we oppose them, seek for them to be changed or even directly contravene them, if that's what is correct and just rather then acting like indoctrinated sheep. Sorry for the rant, things like this really get my p**s boiling, doesnt help that everyone is so quick to leap to his defence. Thanks for the reply Salad... You will note from my post that my beef on this matter is the criminal justice system and its sentencing standards. Remove the fact that this fella is an asylum seeker for the sake of debate. Say he was a white british male, similar age and background, and committed the same offence. Say he was punished in the same manner. Would you say justice has been done? In my opinion, no. So the simple fact that he is an asylum seeker means we are calling for additional punishment for an offence which is already sentenced too lightly. Lets get the sentencing right and then, only then, victims may actually feel justice has been done. If you read my post about Lee Hughes' return to football you will understand I in no way have any sympathy with people such as these. And I fully agree with you that if the public want to do away with the HR legislation, then we need to voice our opinions. I have criticised the legislation in the past, and think it is already being interpreted incorrectly especially when you look at cases such as the stabbing of headteacher Philip Lawrence by Learco Chindamo. What needs to change is the way we understand and apply legislation such as the HR Act. Windy hits on similar sentiments to Matron and I. I don't see many people leaping to his defence, as you say, more people seeking to ensure justice is applied in the right way; that should be by means of the CJS working properly, first time.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 17, 2010 22:18:43 GMT 1
Not sure that anyone has actually supported the guy, what I am supporting is the rule of law. It is judges that decide who should go to prison, should be deported not politicians or the media. Justice should be based up on the evidence produced in court. We have human rights laws to protect the least fortunate in society such as Gays, women, disabled and people facing torture and death in their own countries. If Jonah, Barry and others wish Human Rights laws rescinded because of a minority of case where they do not like the outcome I understand why they were supporters of "there is no such thing as society" Thatcher. Windsor Bias like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 17, 2010 23:02:09 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 apritiate a constructive discussion rather than just an off the cuff 'slag and run' ... Since when does having children immunise people from consequences? If I mow someone down tomorrow, get sent to jail but my solicitor claims I shouldnt lose my job 'because of the children' - how will that go down? Like a lead balloon? His family should be given the choice to either remain in this country or join their father in Iraq, or whichever other country he is allowed into. What he did is tantamount to murder, although the accident may well not have been his fault, he chose to try and preserve his freedom by making off rather than immediately contacting the emergency services. The fact he was disqualified at the time and has since been caught driving again(!) shows a complete lack of remorse - do you really believe in your heart that our country should support scum like this? Supporting his children if we have to is a completely different kettle of fish, they have done nothing wrong and are as innocent as that poor 12 year old girl was. Lastly, blathering that 'well that is the legislation' is a pretty poor cop-out, so we should go along with all ridiculous unjust pieces of law? Or should we oppose them, seek for them to be changed or even directly contravene them, if that's what is correct and just rather then acting like indoctrinated sheep. Sorry for the rant, things like this really get my p**s boiling, doesnt help that everyone is so quick to leap to his defence. Edited to add: What I find particularly vile is the people that are happy to actually blame the poor girl by saying she caused the accident. 2nd edit: Marcus Braddock (41) saying this is 'essentially a driving offence' - you are the lowest of the low. lowest of the low? well i would love to trade insults but it wouldnt be a fair fight, what with your abusive personal messages (and a real classic "f*&k off", must have taken a while)and hiding behind an alias(bit cowardly, not on the running away from the scene of the crime type of thing, but pretty cowardly all the same). so am i worse than the guy who actually comitted the offense? a peado? hitler? or is your comment your usual guff , reactionary uninformed and probably dictated from the daily mail. you are all feeling and no brain, whoever you are. agreeing with the judge, or at least saying that there may be reasons for the sentencing is hiding behind a judgement? it seems that anyone who disagrees with you is a coward, which is funny as it is you hiding behind an alias. all i wanted on here was the same luxury that you have, but it seems that this board hasnt really improved. you ask for people to use the name you prefer, but some are too ill mannered to observe that request. Mattsnapper had the right idea. goodbye again
|
|
|
Post by jaytee on Dec 17, 2010 23:05:02 GMT 1
Oh, come on, monkee, shirley we can disagree now and again.
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on Dec 17, 2010 23:09:49 GMT 1
If this idiot is still willing to drive illegally after accidentally killing a child perhaps he should go home with his family - or stay here after his hands have been cut off so that he cannot drive again?
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 17, 2010 23:15:17 GMT 1
Oh, come on, monkee, shirley we can disagree now and again. I don't think Marcus' beef is disagreement or debate, more the fact some use unnecessary insults or over the top rhetoric. Simply having a different point of view to someone is no excuse and by resulting to insults you loose the moral argument pretty much immediately. I also don’t see the need to use Marcus’ name here, given most of us know who he is anyway; and when generally we refer to usernames people post under. Something I’ve noticed in the last 4 years posting here is people have become more aggressive in their views and if these debates were in person I’m sure someone would have been bottled by now. Banter is banter, but let’s keep it at that eh?
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 17, 2010 23:23:02 GMT 1
Not sure that anyone has actually supported the guy, what I am supporting is the rule of law. It is judges that decide who should go to prison, should be deported not politicians or the media. Justice should be based up on the evidence produced in court. We have human rights laws to protect the least fortunate in society such as Gays, women, disabled and people facing torture and death in their own countries. If Jonah, Barry and others wish Human Rights laws rescinded because of a minority of case where they do not like the outcome I understand why they were supporters of "there is no such thing as society" Thatcher. 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 Windsor Bias like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by saladsaladsalad on Dec 17, 2010 23:26:24 GMT 1
Since when does having children immunise people from consequences? If I mow someone down tomorrow, get sent to jail but my solicitor claims I shouldnt lose my job 'because of the children' - how will that go down? Like a lead balloon? His family should be given the choice to either remain in this country or join their father in Iraq, or whichever other country he is allowed into. What he did is tantamount to murder, although the accident may well not have been his fault, he chose to try and preserve his freedom by making off rather than immediately contacting the emergency services. The fact he was disqualified at the time and has since been caught driving again(!) shows a complete lack of remorse - do you really believe in your heart that our country should support scum like this? Supporting his children if we have to is a completely different kettle of fish, they have done nothing wrong and are as innocent as that poor 12 year old girl was. Lastly, blathering that 'well that is the legislation' is a pretty poor cop-out, so we should go along with all ridiculous unjust pieces of law? Or should we oppose them, seek for them to be changed or even directly contravene them, if that's what is correct and just rather then acting like indoctrinated sheep. Sorry for the rant, things like this really get my p**s boiling, doesnt help that everyone is so quick to leap to his defence. Edited to add: What I find particularly vile is the people that are happy to actually blame the poor girl by saying she caused the accident. 2nd edit: Marcus Braddock (41) saying this is 'essentially a driving offence' - you are the lowest of the low. lowest of the low? well i would love to trade insults but it wouldnt be a fair fight, what with your abusive personal messages (and a real classic "f*&k off", must have taken a while)and hiding behind an alias(bit cowardly, not on the running away from the scene of the crime type of thing, but pretty cowardly all the same). so am i worse than the guy who actually comitted the offense? a peado? hitler? or is your comment your usual guff , reactionary uninformed and probably dictated from the daily mail. you are all feeling and no brain, whoever you are. agreeing with the judge, or at least saying that there may be reasons for the sentencing is hiding behind a judgement? it seems that anyone who disagrees with you is a coward, which is funny as it is you hiding behind an alias. all i wanted on here was the same luxury that you have, but it seems that this board hasnt really improved. you ask for people to use the name you prefer, but some are too ill mannered to observe that request. Mattsnapper had the right idea. goodbye again and good riddance. anyone that can say leaving a 12 yr old girl to die underneath a car and running off is 'essentially a driving offence' makes me think there's something not quite right, maybe I act/post more on emotion than cold calculated theory but I'm happy my side of the line rather than yours as it goes. Yes I remember telling you to **** off once in your previous incarnation, I'm sure it wasn't the first time it happened to you and won't be the last.
|
|
|
Post by jaytee on Dec 17, 2010 23:30:29 GMT 1
Oh, come on, monkee, shirley we can disagree now and again. 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.
|
|