Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good .All those catholic priest should be castrated and deported also back to the vatican." The priests were never citizens of the Vatican And forced castration is not legal; that is why we should not castrate these Pakistanis | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good .All those catholic priest should be castrated and deported also back to the vatican. The priests were never citizens of the Vatican And forced castration is not legal; that is why we should not castrate these Pakistanis" I would cut the balls off the lot.The priest always get moved on by the vatican.They work for the vatican which is state within a state.Send their balls to the pope then.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should be kicked out! In fact they should be kicked out as soon as possible so we don't have to pay to support them in prison. " ..then start a thread about Catholic priests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should be kicked out! In fact they should be kicked out as soon as possible so we don't have to pay to support them in prison. ..then start a thread about Catholic priests." Im guessing that was meant for me.Sorry but i dispise all paedophiles regardless of origin.But i will stop as i didnt realise this was only about Pakistani paedophiles. Apologies.For going off topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 about their human rights now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I bet they argue like buggery about their human rights now"It will be practiced on them soon enough  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I bet they argue like buggery about their human rights now"Hopefully the rights of the 13 year old girls they raped is considered too. Let them spend their sentences back in Pakistan, so we don't have to house them for the duration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I bet they argue like buggery about their human rights now
It will be practiced on them soon enough "They know that if sent back to packistan they will be well and truly fucked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Any non-UK sex convicted sex offender should be deported immediately. Hopefully leaving the EU will make this easier." to serve the sentence in their home country. Fingerprinted and barred from re-entry permanently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 they should send them back and the forth one who is still inside should go as well.
Costing the UK a fortune to keep ththem scum in bed and board and he is probably in protective custody costing even more  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I bet they argue like buggery about their human rights now"Yes off to the bloody EU court to plead there case,kick them out this week pity we do not castrate them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting someone brought this up today bearing in mind mark frost was sentenced yesterday........" You could start a thread on that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting someone brought this up today bearing in mind mark frost was sentenced yesterday........" Yes, there are vile home grown ones too. In his instance I wish he could have been sentenced in Thailand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting someone brought this up today bearing in mind mark frost was sentenced yesterday........" "interesting"!? Yes, it was interesting that he belonged to the Labour party supporting-Paedophile Information Exchange. How many girls did he rape, gang rape, traffic and pass round family members then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Any non-UK sex convicted sex offender should be deported immediately. Hopefully leaving the EU will make this easier. to serve the sentence in their home country. Fingerprinted and barred from re-entry permanently."I don't think we will need to worry about barring them, although I think that is a good idea. I don't think they will be going anywhere once they are back in Pakistan | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't think we will need to worry about barring them, although I think that is a good idea. I don't think they will be going anywhere once they are back in Pakistan" Who knows...they might be on the first plane back...seeking asylum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Rochdale grooming gang are facing deportation to Pakistan after immigration judges rejected their plea not to strip them of British citizenship" "
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sooner they go the better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Rochdale grooming gang are facing deportation to Pakistan after immigration judges rejected their plea not to strip them of British citizenship"
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sooner they go the better. "Unfortunately, it won't be sooner. They will use our legal aid to fight their deportation from our countries after having molested and raped our children | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Rochdale grooming gang are facing deportation to Pakistan after immigration judges rejected their plea not to strip them of British citizenship"
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sooner they go the better.
Unfortunately, it won't be sooner. They will use our legal aid to fight their deportation from our countries after having molested and raped our children"I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unfortunately, it won't be sooner. They will use our legal aid to fight their deportation from our countries after having molested and raped our children I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry." Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I totaly agree with the last post we AV ad the piss took out of us from overseas sex pests for yrs about time we chucked the scum Out " Yet I bet you wouldn't be so keen on taking UK paedophiles back that are currently living in other countries right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I totaly agree with the last post we AV ad the piss took out of us from overseas sex pests for yrs about time we chucked the scum Out Yet I bet you wouldn't be so keen on taking UK paedophiles back that are currently living in other countries right? " ...i would take them back and jail the scum so kids in the country they reside in are protected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I totaly agree with the last post we AV ad the piss took out of us from overseas sex pests for yrs about time we chucked the scum Out Yet I bet you wouldn't be so keen on taking UK paedophiles back that are currently living in other countries right? " I wouldn't be keen. But if they are deported, then we have no choice but to let them return. They will complete their sentence here Didn't we just convict someone for committing crimes abroad? He got a life sentence and will be serving it here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I totaly agree with the last post we AV ad the piss took out of us from overseas sex pests for yrs about time we chucked the scum Out Yet I bet you wouldn't be so keen on taking UK paedophiles back that are currently living in other countries right? ...i would take them back and jail the scum so kids in the country they reside in are protected." I was referring to the ones who had completed their sentences and who would be living in the community. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Rochdale grooming gang are facing deportation to Pakistan after immigration judges rejected their plea not to strip them of British citizenship"
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sooner they go the better.
Unfortunately, it won't be sooner. They will use our legal aid to fight their deportation from our countries after having molested and raped our children"That is probably (and sadly) true. However the judge did give their lawyers a severe reprimand over their conduct and threatened them with disciplinary action. So they may think twice next time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued." My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes?" It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should be kicked out! In fact they should be kicked out as soon as possible so we don't have to pay to support them in prison. " Sadly we already have paid that. They were sentenced in 2012 and three of them are already out on licence! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes?" Surely digression is better than strict rules? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. " The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? Surely digression is better than strict rules? " That was meant to be discretion! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here" Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason "They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin"So that only applies to dual citizens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. " As a practicality, just as you want to control the borders of the UK, it is just possible that other countries may wish to do the same. They don't have to accept our paedophiles even if they were born there. How would we compel them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens. "It's a disgrace to target one nationality. But since we're talking about Rochdale. What about the two British Women | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens. "All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries"No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example. "I don't know how many people do give up their citizenship. These Pakistanis haven't and they are being deported to Pakistan | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example. "But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far? "Are you asking yourself or me? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?"Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective? "It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective? But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic"It seems to have worked in this case. No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary? "It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary?
It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law"It's the law now, but there is discretion as when to apply that law. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems that you want it automatically applies, in all cases, without room for discretion? Well that must be what you are suggesting, otherwise you would be suggesting the status quo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary?
It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law
It's the law now, but there is discretion as when to apply that law. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems that you want it automatically applies, in all cases, without room for discretion? Well that must be what you are suggesting, otherwise you would be suggesting the status quo. "I am suggesting Roman law. There is no discretion nor any jurors. Only a judge or judges who apply the law. That is what I am used to where I come from; it gets rid of the emotion and the drama I take it that you favour different | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary?
It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law
It's the law now, but there is discretion as when to apply that law. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems that you want it automatically applies, in all cases, without room for discretion? Well that must be what you are suggesting, otherwise you would be suggesting the status quo.
I am suggesting Roman law. There is no discretion nor any jurors. Only a judge or judges who apply the law. That is what I am used to where I come from; it gets rid of the emotion and the drama
I take it that you favour different"I'm happy with the way the law is now. No I wouldn't want to take away discretion. You just have to look at the US three strikes laws, or IPP sentences in the UK to see the disastrous consequences when you remove discretion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary?
It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law
It's the law now, but there is discretion as when to apply that law. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems that you want it automatically applies, in all cases, without room for discretion? Well that must be what you are suggesting, otherwise you would be suggesting the status quo.
I am suggesting Roman law. There is no discretion nor any jurors. Only a judge or judges who apply the law. That is what I am used to where I come from; it gets rid of the emotion and the drama
I take it that you favour different
I'm happy with the way the law is now. No I wouldn't want to take away discretion. You just have to look at the US three strikes laws, or IPP sentences in the UK to see the disastrous consequences when you remove discretion."We have different views on this subject I have seen Roman law work and work very well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss" What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? " That is extremely unlikely for serious crimes. And even if a serious crime is not a crime in their country, it is a serious crime here and they should be deported | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? " Can you clarify, in your personal opinion , if you want these men deported on release from prison? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good .All those catholic priest should be castrated and deported also back to the vatican." That's not a bad idea | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I totaly agree with the last post we AV ad the piss took out of us from overseas sex pests for yrs about time we chucked the scum Out Yet I bet you wouldn't be so keen on taking UK paedophiles back that are currently living in other countries right? " We actually do, do that though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? That is extremely unlikely for serious crimes. And even if a serious crime is not a crime in their country, it is a serious crime here and they should be deported" So lets say a British woman was on holiday in Dubai and was raped, the judge in Dubai convicts the woman of engaging in extramarital sex, and sends her back to the UK to serve her sentence of X number of years. Would you be happy with that situation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? Surely digression is better than strict rules? " How about for paedophiles, rapists and murderers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? Can you clarify, in your personal opinion , if you want these men deported on release from prison?" I've already said I'm happy with the law as it stands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? That is extremely unlikely for serious crimes. And even if a serious crime is not a crime in their country, it is a serious crime here and they should be deported So lets say a British woman was on holiday in Dubai and was raped, the judge in Dubai convicts the woman of engaging in extramarital sex, and sends her back to the UK to serve her sentence of X number of years. Would you be happy with that situation? " No , its a ridiculous law and a good reason to not visit such a backward country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Can you clarify, in your personal opinion , if you want these men deported on release from prison? I've already said I'm happy with the law as it stands." Does that mean you want these particular men deported? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? Surely digression is better than strict rules? How about for paedophiles, rapists and murderers?" Yeah, if there are compelling reasons to stay, which is highly unlikely, I would prefer there was discretion as there is at the moment. That discretion may never be used to allow them to say, but surely its better to have that discretion and never need it, rather than need it and not have it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? That is extremely unlikely for serious crimes. And even if a serious crime is not a crime in their country, it is a serious crime here and they should be deported So lets say a British woman was on holiday in Dubai and was raped, the judge in Dubai convicts the woman of engaging in extramarital sex, and sends her back to the UK to serve her sentence of X number of years. Would you be happy with that situation? " We would not have to abide by their sentence but we will have to accept her back in the UK as she has been deported to her country of origin Same with these Pakistanis. We have no jurisdiction in Pakistan to force the sentence be served. But we can deport them and make certain that they can never return to the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? That is extremely unlikely for serious crimes. And even if a serious crime is not a crime in their country, it is a serious crime here and they should be deported So lets say a British woman was on holiday in Dubai and was raped, the judge in Dubai convicts the woman of engaging in extramarital sex, and sends her back to the UK to serve her sentence of X number of years. Would you be happy with that situation? No , its a ridiculous law and a good reason to not visit such a backward country." So maybe it's best we don't allow foreign judges to judge people according to their local laws and then have the sentences carried out here then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Can you clarify, in your personal opinion , if you want these men deported on release from prison? I've already said I'm happy with the law as it stands. Does that mean you want these particular men deported?" They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? That is extremely unlikely for serious crimes. And even if a serious crime is not a crime in their country, it is a serious crime here and they should be deported So lets say a British woman was on holiday in Dubai and was raped, the judge in Dubai convicts the woman of engaging in extramarital sex, and sends her back to the UK to serve her sentence of X number of years. Would you be happy with that situation? We would not have to abide by their sentence but we will have to accept her back in the UK as she has been deported to her country of origin Same with these Pakistanis. We have no jurisdiction in Pakistan to force the sentence be served. But we can deport them and make certain that they can never return to the UK" But that's not what it says in the post that I quoted. It said ..."they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin ." so that would be foreign judges and foreign laws applied to UK citizens in UK prisons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"by the time all the paer work and human rights stuff and appeals they will have served ther time and be free to go were ever they like" Once they are deported back to Pakistan, they may be free to go wherever they like. It would be great if we had systems in place to ensure that they could never return here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For certain types/levels of crime i do think deportation should be automatic and they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin . On a seperate note , considering the awful crimes they commited .......how on earth are they out of prison already! really boils my piss What if its not a crime in their country of origin? Or their sentences are different, maybe even more lenient? Would you like all foreign judges to sentence people to serve sentences in UK prisons? That is extremely unlikely for serious crimes. And even if a serious crime is not a crime in their country, it is a serious crime here and they should be deported So lets say a British woman was on holiday in Dubai and was raped, the judge in Dubai convicts the woman of engaging in extramarital sex, and sends her back to the UK to serve her sentence of X number of years. Would you be happy with that situation? We would not have to abide by their sentence but we will have to accept her back in the UK as she has been deported to her country of origin Same with these Pakistanis. We have no jurisdiction in Pakistan to force the sentence be served. But we can deport them and make certain that they can never return to the UK But that's not what it says in the post that I quoted. It said ..."they should go straight to a prison in there country of origin ." so that would be foreign judges and foreign laws applied to UK citizens in UK prisons." But that is not what I wrote | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. " I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported?" I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. " You just seemed to want to blur the subject and introduce obstacles. I don't have anything against these men any more than any other child abuser. We have no way of further dealing with home grown ones. At least the foreign born ones can be deported asap without a long winded debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. " There is a world of difference between someone being deported because they have overstayed their visa and these men who committed very serious crimes. Don't you see that difference? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"by the time all the paer work and human rights stuff and appeals they will have served ther time and be free to go were ever they like Once they are deported back to Pakistan, they may be free to go wherever they like. It would be great if we had systems in place to ensure that they could never return here"
Finger printed and a scanner at imigration in the airport. Its routine entering other countries. Should be a lifelong ban from re-entry.Simple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. There is a world of difference between someone being deported because they have overstayed their visa and these men who committed very serious crimes. Don't you see that difference?" How can you overstay your visa if you are a dual citizen? You're not subject to visa control. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. There is a world of difference between someone being deported because they have overstayed their visa and these men who committed very serious crimes. Don't you see that difference? How can you overstay your visa if you are a dual citizen? You're not subject to visa control. " I wasn't taking about dual citizens. I was taking about someone overstaying their visa and getting deported compared to someone being deported because they had committed a very serious crime, irrespective of whether they hold dual citizenship or not. Do you see the difference between the two deportations? I ask you this because of your earlier comment: "I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How can you overstay your visa if you are a dual citizen? You're not subject to visa control. " I'm struggling to get a grasp of what you really want. This thread is about the deportation of dangerous criminals. You have given lots of examples of why it is difficult/illegal etc. When pushed you have said yes deport them , the same as anyone else . Surely it is clear cut that our objective should be to deport anyone commiting crimes such as these? Why all the roadblocking? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Rochdale grooming gang are facing deportation to Pakistan after immigration judges rejected their plea not to strip them of British citizenship"
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sooner they go the better.
Unfortunately, it won't be sooner. They will use our legal aid to fight their deportation from our countries after having molested and raped our children"Legal aid should be denied to any person convicted of sex or violence charges facing deportation to country of origin. There should be an automatic forfeit...commit the crime and your 'human rights' go out of the window. The trouble is there are too many bleeding-heart liberals around who oppose this common sense approach. Why should people be allowed to get away with such crimes and then play the system...? It's the system that is just as fucked-up as the people commuting the crimes. Time things were changed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. There is a world of difference between someone being deported because they have overstayed their visa and these men who committed very serious crimes. Don't you see that difference? How can you overstay your visa if you are a dual citizen? You're not subject to visa control. I wasn't taking about dual citizens. I was taking about someone overstaying their visa and getting deported compared to someone being deported because they had committed a very serious crime, irrespective of whether they hold dual citizenship or not. Do you see the difference between the two deportations? I ask you this because of your earlier comment: "I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported?"" The deportation itself isn't really the punishment though is it? The punishment was the sentence handed down by the judge, I believe in this case several years in prison, and then additionally also being stripped of your citizenship. That doesn't happen to people who overstay their visas, certainly not in this country at least. So the deportations are the same, but the punishment is not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. There is a world of difference between someone being deported because they have overstayed their visa and these men who committed very serious crimes. Don't you see that difference? How can you overstay your visa if you are a dual citizen? You're not subject to visa control. I wasn't taking about dual citizens. I was taking about someone overstaying their visa and getting deported compared to someone being deported because they had committed a very serious crime, irrespective of whether they hold dual citizenship or not. Do you see the difference between the two deportations? I ask you this because of your earlier comment: "I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported?" The deportation itself isn't really the punishment though is it? The punishment was the sentence handed down by the judge, I believe in this case several years in prison, and then additionally also being stripped of your citizenship. That doesn't happen to people who overstay their visas, certainly not in this country at least. So the deportations are the same, but the punishment is not." You haven't answered the question They may or may not serve the complete sentence here and may or may not serve their complete sentence in Pakistan either But why all the resistance to deporting serious convicted criminals automatically? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does that mean you want these particular men deported? They are getting deported as per.our current laws. I don't really understand what you are trying to get me to say. I just wanted you to say yes or no. Do you want these particular men deported? I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported? We have laws written by parliament, sentencing guidelines given to the judiciary, I haven't heard of any alleged miscarriage of justice in this case so it seems as though its just one more case passing through our judicial system. There is a world of difference between someone being deported because they have overstayed their visa and these men who committed very serious crimes. Don't you see that difference? How can you overstay your visa if you are a dual citizen? You're not subject to visa control. I wasn't taking about dual citizens. I was taking about someone overstaying their visa and getting deported compared to someone being deported because they had committed a very serious crime, irrespective of whether they hold dual citizenship or not. Do you see the difference between the two deportations? I ask you this because of your earlier comment: "I don't see why not, but I don't want it any more or less than anyone else who is deported. Do you have something against these particular people more than other people who have been deported?" The deportation itself isn't really the punishment though is it? The punishment was the sentence handed down by the judge, I believe in this case several years in prison, and then additionally also being stripped of your citizenship. That doesn't happen to people who overstay their visas, certainly not in this country at least. So the deportations are the same, but the punishment is not. You haven't answered the question They may or may not serve the complete sentence here and may or may not serve their complete sentence in Pakistan either But why all the resistance to deporting serious convicted criminals automatically?" British judges can't sentence people to Pakistani prisons. The way I understand it is that they serve the entirety of their sentence here, then have their UK citizenship revoked, and are then deported. If you have any evidence to show that the system works in a different way I would be interested to see it. You can call it resistance if you want, I'm just saying I dont see the need to change the 1981 law. As I have said, I always think it's better to have discretion built-in, rather than arbitrary rules and that have to be followed, even if it doesn't make sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? Surely digression is better than strict rules? How about for paedophiles, rapists and murderers? Yeah, if there are compelling reasons to stay, which is highly unlikely, I would prefer there was discretion as there is at the moment. That discretion may never be used to allow them to say, but surely its better to have that discretion and never need it, rather than need it and not have it? " My understanding is that there is no automatic deportation. We have to apply for deportation. Would you advocate automatic deportation upon release from jail of paedophiles, rapists and murderers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine you have a girlfriend and boyfriend. BF is 18 years 2 months old, GF is 17 years and 10 months old. They have been together for 1 year doing what couples do, however one night she sends him a naughty sexy pic. He then gets arrested for having sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18 and is sent to prison. This guy is a dual UK-Australian citizen, and when he's just about to be released he finds out that his little sister needs a kidney transplant, and is going to die as she is not going to get one in time. This guy is a match and is willing to give her one of his kidneys, however there is an arbitrary rule in place that says he must be stripped of his UK citizenship and sent back to Australia the day of his release. Would you want to have to explain to his little sister that she has to die because it is so much better to have a system without any discretion? " In this highly improbable scenario he will not be convicted However, if convicted, then the deportation will be automatic. No further submissions will be necessary, The date for the deportation will vary according to the availability of personnel and resources He can still donate his kidney, should he wish to, irrespective of whether he is a dual national or not Frankly, I did not understand what the difficulty would be in deporting him automatically. It is not as if there will be a helicopter with its' motor running outside of the prision gates to whiz him off to Australia | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine you have a girlfriend and boyfriend. BF is 18 years 2 months old, GF is 17 years and 10 months old. They have been together for 1 year doing what couples do, however one night she sends him a naughty sexy pic. He then gets arrested for having sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18 and is sent to prison. This guy is a dual UK-Australian citizen, and when he's just about to be released he finds out that his little sister needs a kidney transplant, and is going to die as she is not going to get one in time. This guy is a match and is willing to give her one of his kidneys, however there is an arbitrary rule in place that says he must be stripped of his UK citizenship and sent back to Australia the day of his release. Would you want to have to explain to his little sister that she has to die because it is so much better to have a system without any discretion? " Interesting story , when it comes to convicting someone there has to be some discretion .......there was a case recently of a young couple that had been dating for about 2 years , they had sex when she was about 2 months away from her 16th birthday and was a couple of months past his 16th ......... the female judge said she really didnt want to convict him and ruin his life but she had no choice because of the lack of discretionary powers available to her . She handed the minimum sentence which include him being on the register and will never pass a dbs check. common sense doesn't exist in court . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know many will find what I say offensive but so what. If a person is a visitor to this country or a naturalised citizen and is found guilty of committing a serious crime regardless of any danger they may or may not be placed in they should immediately be returned to their country of origin. I for one don't care if they are going to be tortured to death or not, if we give a person sanctuary and they repay us by breaking our laws send them back to wherever they came from and let them rot! We have to protect our own first." I can't go with that. The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine you have a girlfriend and boyfriend. BF is 18 years 2 months old, GF is 17 years and 10 months old. They have been together for 1 year doing what couples do, however one night she sends him a naughty sexy pic. He then gets arrested for having sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18 and is sent to prison. This guy is a dual UK-Australian citizen, and when he's just about to be released he finds out that his little sister needs a kidney transplant, and is going to die as she is not going to get one in time. This guy is a match and is willing to give her one of his kidneys, however there is an arbitrary rule in place that says he must be stripped of his UK citizenship and sent back to Australia the day of his release. Would you want to have to explain to his little sister that she has to die because it is so much better to have a system without any discretion? " Well thought out ridiculous scenario. This is why it does need to be automatic, as vested interests i.e lawyers lining their pockets, will bog it down with endless appeals for years. It isn't currently automatic. At least one of these dangerous men has already been released back into the community. Stop the roadblocking. The law SHOULD be straight out of a cell and onto a plane out of country. End of. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know many will find what I say offensive but so what. If a person is a visitor to this country or a naturalised citizen and is found guilty of committing a serious crime regardless of any danger they may or may not be placed in they should immediately be returned to their country of origin. I for one don't care if they are going to be tortured to death or not, if we give a person sanctuary and they repay us by breaking our laws send them back to wherever they came from and let them rot! We have to protect our own first. I can't go with that. The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. " In that case it is not the automatic deportation which you are against. It appears that you are implying that convictions are unsafe. These people should not even be in prison That being the case, nobody should be deported back to their homeland if there is any chance that they could be persecuted. This is irrespective of the seriousness of the crime they have committed I could not agree to such a system. Immigrants should be careful about their actions. They are guests in your country. I am a guest in your country (one who has been here for decades, but a guest, nevertheless). If I committed a serious offence I would expect deportation back to my country of origin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine you have a girlfriend and boyfriend. BF is 18 years 2 months old, GF is 17 years and 10 months old. They have been together for 1 year doing what couples do, however one night she sends him a naughty sexy pic. He then gets arrested for having sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18 and is sent to prison. This guy is a dual UK-Australian citizen, and when he's just about to be released he finds out that his little sister needs a kidney transplant, and is going to die as she is not going to get one in time. This guy is a match and is willing to give her one of his kidneys, however there is an arbitrary rule in place that says he must be stripped of his UK citizenship and sent back to Australia the day of his release. Would you want to have to explain to his little sister that she has to die because it is so much better to have a system without any discretion? Well thought out ridiculous scenario. This is why it does need to be automatic, as vested interests i.e lawyers lining their pockets, will bog it down with endless appeals for years. It isn't currently automatic. At least one of these dangerous men has already been released back into the community. Stop the roadblocking. The law SHOULD be straight out of a cell and onto a plane out of country. End of." So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine you have a girlfriend and boyfriend. BF is 18 years 2 months old, GF is 17 years and 10 months old. They have been together for 1 year doing what couples do, however one night she sends him a naughty sexy pic. He then gets arrested for having sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18 and is sent to prison. This guy is a dual UK-Australian citizen, and when he's just about to be released he finds out that his little sister needs a kidney transplant, and is going to die as she is not going to get one in time. This guy is a match and is willing to give her one of his kidneys, however there is an arbitrary rule in place that says he must be stripped of his UK citizenship and sent back to Australia the day of his release. Would you want to have to explain to his little sister that she has to die because it is so much better to have a system without any discretion? Well thought out ridiculous scenario. This is why it does need to be automatic, as vested interests i.e lawyers lining their pockets, will bog it down with endless appeals for years. It isn't currently automatic. At least one of these dangerous men has already been released back into the community. Stop the roadblocking. The law SHOULD be straight out of a cell and onto a plane out of country. End of. So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic? "Whether the deportation is automatic or not, if the person was innocent then they would not be convicted in the first place Or are you now suggesting that some of those convicted of serious crimes may be innocent and we should now secure their release from prisons? What automatic deportations will accomplish is a shorter delay between release and deportation. Unless you are suggesting that there is a re-trial at release to establish the validity of each conviction prior to deportation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic? "Your non-existant hypothetical scenario, will result in the death and abuse of many more. That is a non-hypothetical fact. Currently there are over 10,000 foreign nationals in uk jails (1 in 8 of the prison population) . We curently suffer around 60% re-offending rate after release. Get them out of our country and keep our people safe. No more pandring and hypothetical scenarios. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine you have a girlfriend and boyfriend. BF is 18 years 2 months old, GF is 17 years and 10 months old. They have been together for 1 year doing what couples do, however one night she sends him a naughty sexy pic. He then gets arrested for having sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18 and is sent to prison. This guy is a dual UK-Australian citizen, and when he's just about to be released he finds out that his little sister needs a kidney transplant, and is going to die as she is not going to get one in time. This guy is a match and is willing to give her one of his kidneys, however there is an arbitrary rule in place that says he must be stripped of his UK citizenship and sent back to Australia the day of his release. Would you want to have to explain to his little sister that she has to die because it is so much better to have a system without any discretion? Well thought out ridiculous scenario. This is why it does need to be automatic, as vested interests i.e lawyers lining their pockets, will bog it down with endless appeals for years. It isn't currently automatic. At least one of these dangerous men has already been released back into the community. Stop the roadblocking. The law SHOULD be straight out of a cell and onto a plane out of country. End of. So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic?
Whether the deportation is automatic or not, if the person was innocent then they would not be convicted in the first place
Or are you now suggesting that some of those convicted of serious crimes may be innocent and we should now secure their release from prisons?
What automatic deportations will accomplish is a shorter delay between release and deportation. Unless you are suggesting that there is a re-trial at release to establish the validity of each conviction prior to deportation"Nothing I have written says anything at all about the person being innocent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic?
Your non-existant hypothetical scenario, will result in the death and abuse of many more. That is a non-hypothetical fact.
Currently there are over 10,000 foreign nationals in uk jails (1 in 8 of the prison population) . We curently suffer around 60% re-offending rate after release. Get them out of our country and keep our people safe.
No more pandring and hypothetical scenarios."How would the guy in that scenario being allowed let's say an extra two months in the UK lead to more "death and abuse"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic?
Your non-existant hypothetical scenario, will result in the death and abuse of many more. That is a non-hypothetical fact.
Currently there are over 10,000 foreign nationals in uk jails (1 in 8 of the prison population) . We curently suffer around 60% re-offending rate after release. Get them out of our country and keep our people safe.
No more pandring and hypothetical scenarios.
How would the guy in that scenario being allowed let's say an extra two months in the UK lead to more "death and abuse"?"What will the extra two months accomplish having a convicted foreign criminal on our streets. Another rape or murder? And in any case, it will be years of appeals at our expense, not just two months You keep on going back to the "innocence" of these criminals convicted of very serious crimes "So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic" I am afraid you are not making sense anymore | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic?
Your non-existant hypothetical scenario, will result in the death and abuse of many more. That is a non-hypothetical fact.
Currently there are over 10,000 foreign nationals in uk jails (1 in 8 of the prison population) . We curently suffer around 60% re-offending rate after release. Get them out of our country and keep our people safe.
No more pandring and hypothetical scenarios.
How would the guy in that scenario being allowed let's say an extra two months in the UK lead to more "death and abuse"?
What will the extra two months accomplish having a convicted foreign criminal on our streets. Another rape or murder? And in any case, it will be years of appeals at our expense, not just two months
You keep on going back to the "innocence" of these criminals convicted of very serious crimes
"So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic"
I am afraid you are not making sense anymore"The person convicted isn't the innocent person, he's got two health kidneys, he's not going to die. His sister who needs the tranplant and would die without it however is innocent. In the scenario mentioned the dual citizen hasn't murdered or raped anyone before going to prison, so why do you think he would after being released? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic?
Your non-existant hypothetical scenario, will result in the death and abuse of many more. That is a non-hypothetical fact.
Currently there are over 10,000 foreign nationals in uk jails (1 in 8 of the prison population) . We curently suffer around 60% re-offending rate after release. Get them out of our country and keep our people safe.
No more pandring and hypothetical scenarios.
How would the guy in that scenario being allowed let's say an extra two months in the UK lead to more "death and abuse"?
What will the extra two months accomplish having a convicted foreign criminal on our streets. Another rape or murder? And in any case, it will be years of appeals at our expense, not just two months
You keep on going back to the "innocence" of these criminals convicted of very serious crimes
"So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic"
I am afraid you are not making sense anymore
The person convicted isn't the innocent person, he's got two health kidneys, he's not going to die. His sister who needs the tranplant and would die without it however is innocent. In the scenario mentioned the dual citizen hasn't murdered or raped anyone before going to prison, so why do you think he would after being released? "I already answered to your highly improbable scenario The deportation order will be automatic. He can donate the kidney 12 hours before he is escorted out of the country | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant. What you are essentially saying is that you have already considered every single possible reason as to why there could be discretion needed, and dismissed everything single one of them. That there is not the slightest possibility that in any case you have made a mistake, and discretion will never ever be required. Arrogant arrogant arrogant." You are simply just clouding the issue. The issue discussed was automatic deportations upon release from prison; you have changed the issue to automatic convictions! Automatic deportations prevent convicted foreign criminals from wasting our resources. A deportation hearing does not retry the original conviction These Pakistanis will be deported. However, they will manage to waste a lot of our resources whilst they challenge the deportation order and spend another few years in our country free to rape again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant. What you are essentially saying is that you have already considered every single possible reason as to why there could be discretion needed, and dismissed everything single one of them. That there is not the slightest possibility that in any case you have made a mistake, and discretion will never ever be required. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. You are simply just clouding the issue. The issue discussed was automatic deportations upon release from prison; you have changed the issue to automatic convictions! Automatic deportations prevent convicted foreign criminals from wasting our resources. A deportation hearing does not retry the original conviction These Pakistanis will be deported. However, they will manage to waste a lot of our resources whilst they challenge the deportation order and spend another few years in our country free to rape again" Perhaps you can quote me where I have said automatic convictions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant. What you are essentially saying is that you have already considered every single possible reason as to why there could be discretion needed, and dismissed everything single one of them. That there is not the slightest possibility that in any case you have made a mistake, and discretion will never ever be required. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. You are simply just clouding the issue. The issue discussed was automatic deportations upon release from prison; you have changed the issue to automatic convictions! Automatic deportations prevent convicted foreign criminals from wasting our resources. A deportation hearing does not retry the original conviction These Pakistanis will be deported. However, they will manage to waste a lot of our resources whilst they challenge the deportation order and spend another few years in our country free to rape again Perhaps you can quote me where I have said automatic convictions?" Right at the top of this comment "To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant..." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those in favour of removing discretion from the system, I wonder what you would have done in the below case, its only about 90 seconds long, and obviously for a less serious offence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxPgia7-QRg" Great you've proved our point. She wasn't convicted or given a custodial sentence, and wouldn't be deported. Nice joky clip. What discretion do you suggest for the men who raped these children? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those in favour of removing discretion from the system, I wonder what you would have done in the below case, its only about 90 seconds long, and obviously for a less serious offence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxPgia7-QRg Great you've proved our point. She wasn't convicted or given a custodial sentence, and wouldn't be deported. Nice joky clip. What discretion do you suggest for the men who raped these children?" I've proved your point? The judge had discretion and dismissed the case, you don't want the judges or anyone else in the CJS to have discretion on deportation. In that clip you would have forced the judge to find her guilty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant. What you are essentially saying is that you have already considered every single possible reason as to why there could be discretion needed, and dismissed everything single one of them. That there is not the slightest possibility that in any case you have made a mistake, and discretion will never ever be required. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. You are simply just clouding the issue. The issue discussed was automatic deportations upon release from prison; you have changed the issue to automatic convictions! Automatic deportations prevent convicted foreign criminals from wasting our resources. A deportation hearing does not retry the original conviction These Pakistanis will be deported. However, they will manage to waste a lot of our resources whilst they challenge the deportation order and spend another few years in our country free to rape again Perhaps you can quote me where I have said automatic convictions? Right at the top of this comment "To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant..."" Yes, that says sentences, why are you reading conviction? You want it to be an automatic part of the sentence that at the end of their custodial sentence dual citizens are stipped of their British citizenship and deported. Or have I misunderstood you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant. What you are essentially saying is that you have already considered every single possible reason as to why there could be discretion needed, and dismissed everything single one of them. That there is not the slightest possibility that in any case you have made a mistake, and discretion will never ever be required. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. You are simply just clouding the issue. The issue discussed was automatic deportations upon release from prison; you have changed the issue to automatic convictions! Automatic deportations prevent convicted foreign criminals from wasting our resources. A deportation hearing does not retry the original conviction These Pakistanis will be deported. However, they will manage to waste a lot of our resources whilst they challenge the deportation order and spend another few years in our country free to rape again Perhaps you can quote me where I have said automatic convictions? Right at the top of this comment "To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant..." Yes, that says sentences, why are you reading conviction? You want it to be an automatic part of the sentence that at the end of their custodial sentence dual citizens are stipped of their British citizenship and deported. Or have I misunderstood you? " What is a sentence leading to imprisonment, fine or any other sanction? A CONVICTION! Yes, these foreign criminals convicted of serious offences should be (just like in the case of these Pakistanis) stripped of the British citizen afforded to them by this country in good faith and automatically deported to their country of origin It will not be part of their sentence. It will be part of the nationality act which will allow for automatic deportations in cases of pre-defined serious offences like, rape, murder, paedophilia, terrorism, etc This is exactly what is happening to these Pakistanis now. The difference at present is that they will continue to make useless challenges against the deportation order. This will waste our resources and will create a potential situation where they may rape again I think you are being deliberately obtuse simply to make some non-existent point about non-existent highly improbable scenarios. I too now give up on you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I've proved your point? The judge had discretion and dismissed the case, you don't want the judges or anyone else in the CJS to have discretion on deportation. In that clip you would have forced the judge to find her guilty." You're deliberately missing the point. After the CPS, a trial, and a custodial sentence have been issued (all of which involved a fine analysis of all the details and discretion), after all that, the time for further discretion is over. The person should be removed. I cannot for the life of me think why anyone wants to give the vilest of offenders the oportunity to stay. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the scenario put to you is that an innocent person would die if it was automatic, and you still think it should be automatic?
Your non-existant hypothetical scenario, will result in the death and abuse of many more. That is a non-hypothetical fact.
Currently there are over 10,000 foreign nationals in uk jails (1 in 8 of the prison population) . We curently suffer around 60% re-offending rate after release. Get them out of our country and keep our people safe.
No more pandring and hypothetical scenarios.
How would the guy in that scenario being allowed let's say an extra two months in the UK lead to more "death and abuse"?"Released foreign criminals on the streets is actually: 5,800 people. 1,792 still free to roam after 5 YEARS. So, the system you are describing as currently ok, clearly is not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I've proved your point? The judge had discretion and dismissed the case, you don't want the judges or anyone else in the CJS to have discretion on deportation. In that clip you would have forced the judge to find her guilty. You're deliberately missing the point. After the CPS, a trial, and a custodial sentence have been issued (all of which involved a fine analysis of all the details and discretion), after all that, the time for further discretion is over. The person should be removed. I cannot for the life of me think why anyone wants to give the vilest of offenders the oportunity to stay." I'm afraid I disagree with you. The process exists because it has evolved, not because someone just dreamed it up. The appeal process exists to redress miscarriages of justice and the deportation system prevents people from being placed knowingly in harm's way. However horrible these people may be I can't accept that automatic deportation is OK because the outcome is arbitrary. If they were born in a nice, liberal country their ultimate fate will be different to if they come from a war zone or intolerant one. The law has to be flexible but consistent otherwise it serves no purpose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm afraid I disagree with you. The process exists because it has evolved, not because someone just dreamed it up. The appeal process exists to redress miscarriages of justice and the deportation system prevents people from being placed knowingly in harm's way. However horrible these people may be I can't accept that automatic deportation is OK because the outcome is arbitrary. If they were born in a nice, liberal country their ultimate fate will be different to if they come from a war zone or intolerant one. The law has to be flexible but consistent otherwise it serves no purpose." We'll have to agree to disgree. If they have raped children, they have to leave. I don't care where they came from. The safety of our children comes before the safety of a violent sex offender. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I've proved your point? The judge had discretion and dismissed the case, you don't want the judges or anyone else in the CJS to have discretion on deportation. In that clip you would have forced the judge to find her guilty. You're deliberately missing the point. After the CPS, a trial, and a custodial sentence have been issued (all of which involved a fine analysis of all the details and discretion), after all that, the time for further discretion is over. The person should be removed. I cannot for the life of me think why anyone wants to give the vilest of offenders the oportunity to stay." I cannot either We are afterall talking about murderers, rapists, paedophiles, terrorists We are not talking about motorists exceeding the speed limit on an Autobahn! Once they have been tried, re-tried, convicted, placed in prison, appeals have been heard and rejected, they should be automatically deported to their country of origin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. " What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there." I don't agree with you on much, but in this case you are spot on. Good post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't agree with you on much, but in this case you are spot on. Good post. "I'm sorry my friend, I've had to report your post to the Forum Mods 
Politics Forum rules clearly state that once you have disagreed with someone in the past, they have to be put on your Nemesis List.
If they post in future you must be either critical of what they have said, or simply ignore it completely. Even a bit of nit-picking will do, just mention a typo or anything.
Please try to keep the place on track.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary?
It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law
It's the law now, but there is discretion as when to apply that law. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems that you want it automatically applies, in all cases, without room for discretion? Well that must be what you are suggesting, otherwise you would be suggesting the status quo.
I am suggesting Roman law. There is no discretion nor any jurors. Only a judge or judges who apply the law. That is what I am used to where I come from; it gets rid of the emotion and the drama
I take it that you favour different
I'm happy with the way the law is now. No I wouldn't want to take away discretion. You just have to look at the US three strikes laws, or IPP sentences in the UK to see the disastrous consequences when you remove discretion.
We have different views on this subject
I have seen Roman law work and work very well"It is a fundamental tenet of law in this country that you are tried by a jury of your peers. The law in the Uk is owned by the citizens and judges simply apply the will of the citizenry. To remove juries means you are relying on a select elite over whom you have no control or ability to affect their views or practices. Let's not go down that route if we can possibly avoid it. We already do for some complex financial stuff and there is great concern about scope creep. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there." Why is the murder rate higher in countries with capital punishment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant. What you are essentially saying is that you have already considered every single possible reason as to why there could be discretion needed, and dismissed everything single one of them. That there is not the slightest possibility that in any case you have made a mistake, and discretion will never ever be required. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. You are simply just clouding the issue. The issue discussed was automatic deportations upon release from prison; you have changed the issue to automatic convictions! Automatic deportations prevent convicted foreign criminals from wasting our resources. A deportation hearing does not retry the original conviction These Pakistanis will be deported. However, they will manage to waste a lot of our resources whilst they challenge the deportation order and spend another few years in our country free to rape again Perhaps you can quote me where I have said automatic convictions? Right at the top of this comment "To have automatic sentences without any chance of discretion to be applied is, in my opinion, highly arrogant..." Yes, that says sentences, why are you reading conviction? You want it to be an automatic part of the sentence that at the end of their custodial sentence dual citizens are stipped of their British citizenship and deported. Or have I misunderstood you? What is a sentence leading to imprisonment, fine or any other sanction? A CONVICTION! Yes, these foreign criminals convicted of serious offences should be (just like in the case of these Pakistanis) stripped of the British citizen afforded to them by this country in good faith and automatically deported to their country of origin It will not be part of their sentence. It will be part of the nationality act which will allow for automatic deportations in cases of pre-defined serious offences like, rape, murder, paedophilia, terrorism, etc This is exactly what is happening to these Pakistanis now. The difference at present is that they will continue to make useless challenges against the deportation order. This will waste our resources and will create a potential situation where they may rape again I think you are being deliberately obtuse simply to make some non-existent point about non-existent highly improbable scenarios. I too now give up on you" Sorry, but conviction is being found guilty of a crime, and sentencing is the punishment for the crime, they are not the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary?
It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law
It's the law now, but there is discretion as when to apply that law. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems that you want it automatically applies, in all cases, without room for discretion? Well that must be what you are suggesting, otherwise you would be suggesting the status quo.
I am suggesting Roman law. There is no discretion nor any jurors. Only a judge or judges who apply the law. That is what I am used to where I come from; it gets rid of the emotion and the drama
I take it that you favour different
I'm happy with the way the law is now. No I wouldn't want to take away discretion. You just have to look at the US three strikes laws, or IPP sentences in the UK to see the disastrous consequences when you remove discretion.
We have different views on this subject
I have seen Roman law work and work very wellIt is a fundamental tenet of law in this country that you are tried by a jury of your peers.
The law in the Uk is owned by the citizens and judges simply apply the will of the citizenry.
To remove juries means you are relying on a select elite over whom you have no control or ability to affect their views or practices.
Let's not go down that route if we can possibly avoid it. We already do for some complex financial stuff and there is great concern about scope creep. "Unfortunately there is no fundamental tenant of law in this country as the entire legal concept is based upon precedence. That is what makes even the simplest cases too tedious and costly Where Roman law is applied, representations are made from both sides and depending on the complexity of the case one, three or in some cases, five judges make the decision. The lay jury, who invariably introduce emotion into the proceedings (and who do not understand the philosophy of law) are not required This already happens in this country in cases of financial irregularity. I cannot see any reason why this cannot be extended to cases which are simply procedural in nature Deportation orders would fall under procedural cases and if the deportation order was not automatic, will atleast ensure that the cases do not stretch for months and in some cases, years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think you are being deliberately obtuse simply to make some non-existent point about non-existent highly improbable scenarios. I too now give up on you Sorry, but conviction is being found guilty of a crime, and sentencing is the punishment for the crime, they are not the same." OK, it can turn in to a terminolgy nit pick if you prefer to deflect away from what people are saying and want. The process should be arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, completion of sentence, deportation. After sentencing the others follow automatically. You don't want that. I would say that is why there are the 1,500+ foreign ex-convicts here 5 years after release. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure that's correct. It should be automatic that if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence deportation is automatic. That should also prevent initial entry or re-entry. Except we have an independent legal process to protect all of us. Mainly from the state. Once that's done we can bin them. That's what differentiates civilization from mob rule. The UKBA makes no criminal record checks at entry although a criminal record does prevent a visa from being issued. My understanding is that the state (home office) had to apply for a deportation order under the current rules. Why not make deportation automatic for a set list of crimes? It's something we could look at once we are out of the EU and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The US has rules to strip immigrants of their citizenship under some circumstances. There is no reason why similar laws could not be enacted here Because its against international law to make someone stateless? That could be the reason
They are not made stateless; they are deported to their country of origin
So that only applies to dual citizens.
All immigrants are dual citizens except those from countries which do not permit dual citizenship. There are very few such countries
No they're not, many people give up their citizenship, Boris Johnson gave up his US citizenship just last year for example.
But that point isnt too important anyway, the more important point about your new idea, is that it's been on the statute books in this country since 1981. How effective have you found it so far?
Are you asking yourself or me?
Well you sounded as though you were suggested it as a new idea, but as I say, its been on the books since 1981. I would assume that you would be happy to hear your idea got onto the statute books so quickly. So are you finding it effective?
It has been effective on this occasion. Do you think it was effective?
But I think that you have missed the point. Here, a deportation order was sought. In the US, once convicted for certain serious offences, the deportation is automatic
It seems to have worked in this case.
No I don't believe and inflexible and arbitrary rule is better than discretion on a case by case basis. Why do you think it's better to be arbitrary?
It won't be arbitrary. It would be the law
It's the law now, but there is discretion as when to apply that law. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems that you want it automatically applies, in all cases, without room for discretion? Well that must be what you are suggesting, otherwise you would be suggesting the status quo.
I am suggesting Roman law. There is no discretion nor any jurors. Only a judge or judges who apply the law. That is what I am used to where I come from; it gets rid of the emotion and the drama
I take it that you favour different
I'm happy with the way the law is now. No I wouldn't want to take away discretion. You just have to look at the US three strikes laws, or IPP sentences in the UK to see the disastrous consequences when you remove discretion.
We have different views on this subject
I have seen Roman law work and work very wellIt is a fundamental tenet of law in this country that you are tried by a jury of your peers.
The law in the Uk is owned by the citizens and judges simply apply the will of the citizenry.
To remove juries means you are relying on a select elite over whom you have no control or ability to affect their views or practices.
Let's not go down that route if we can possibly avoid it. We already do for some complex financial stuff and there is great concern about scope creep.
Unfortunately there is no fundamental tenant of law in this country as the entire legal concept is based upon precedence. That is what makes even the simplest cases too tedious and costly
Where Roman law is applied, representations are made from both sides and depending on the complexity of the case one, three or in some cases, five judges make the decision. The lay jury, who invariably introduce emotion into the proceedings (and who do not understand the philosophy of law) are not required
This already happens in this country in cases of financial irregularity. I cannot see any reason why this cannot be extended to cases which are simply procedural in nature
Deportation orders would fall under procedural cases and if the deportation order was not automatic, will atleast ensure that the cases do not stretch for months and in some cases, years"I think we'll stick to principles laid down by Magna Carta since 1215 thanks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there." I too generally do not agree with you on most issues, but on this one, I think I too will be reported to the forum mods There is a tendency to look at the human rights of a violent criminal to the extent that this simply overrides the rights of the victim or potentional victims True, that similar crimes have been committed by British born citizens. They are convicted and once they have completed their sentence, are released back into the community. They may be monitored but apart from this, there is little else we can do to remove the threat With foreign criminals there is a further step we can take to remove the threat to our population. We can remove them and return them to their country of origin. The aim s not that they should get persecuted there; the aim is to protect our population from them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there. I too generally do not agree with you on most issues, but on this one, I think I too will be reported to the forum mods There is a tendency to look at the human rights of a violent criminal to the extent that this simply overrides the rights of the victim or potentional victims True, that similar crimes have been committed by British born citizens. They are convicted and once they have completed their sentence, are released back into the community. They may be monitored but apart from this, there is little else we can do to remove the threat With foreign criminals there is a further step we can take to remove the threat to our population. We can remove them and return them to their country of origin. The aim s not that they should get persecuted there; the aim is to protect our population from them" No one is disagreeing with that, it's just that it shouldn't be automatic. There maybe reasons for 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 not to be deported, and there should be discretion in those cases, as there currently is under the law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think we'll stick to principles laid down by Magna Carta since 1215 thanks "I don't think there would have been many foreign child abusers wandering round at liberty in 1215. But it's good to know you are happy with things as they are. Other people aren't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think we'll stick to principles laid down by Magna Carta since 1215 thanks
I don't think there would have been many foreign child abusers wandering round at liberty in 1215.
But it's good to know you are happy with things as they are. Other people aren't."Really? You think the majority of people want to get rid of trial by jury? Have you got any evidence to support this assumption? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No one is disagreeing with that, it's just that it shouldn't be automatic. There maybe reasons for 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 not to be deported, and there should be discretion in those cases, as there currently is under the law. " Every single one will appeal and re-appeal. Which is why it takes years if ever to get rid of them. At the same time new cases are coming through. We are talking about people convicted of very serious violent and sexual crimes. In most peoples eyes there is absolutely no question whatsoever. Deportation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think we'll stick to principles laid down by Magna Carta since 1215 thanks
I don't think there would have been many foreign child abusers wandering round at liberty in 1215.
But it's good to know you are happy with things as they are. Other people aren't.
Really? You think the majority of people want to get rid of trial by jury? Have you got any evidence to support this assumption?"When did I ever say that???? I have said a few times in this thread after CPS review, trail, sentencing etc. Why do you want to twist what people say to support your oddball views of allowing fairly convicted paedophiles to stay in the country?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there. I too generally do not agree with you on most issues, but on this one, I think I too will be reported to the forum mods There is a tendency to look at the human rights of a violent criminal to the extent that this simply overrides the rights of the victim or potentional victims True, that similar crimes have been committed by British born citizens. They are convicted and once they have completed their sentence, are released back into the community. They may be monitored but apart from this, there is little else we can do to remove the threat With foreign criminals there is a further step we can take to remove the threat to our population. We can remove them and return them to their country of origin. The aim s not that they should get persecuted there; the aim is to protect our population from them No one is disagreeing with that, it's just that it shouldn't be automatic. There maybe reasons for 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 not to be deported, and there should be discretion in those cases, as there currently is under the law. " No, there is not even a 1 in a milion reason of where a convicted foreign violent criminal should not be deported irrespective of what horrors may lie for them back in their country of origin Abu Hamza was a prime example where he continued to fight deportation orders for years. This he did whilst using our resources and living of benefits in our country whilst continuing to preach hate and radicalise hundreds of others. His defence against deportation was that he will be precescuted in Jordan. Well, frankly, I couldn't care less about whether he would or would not be persecuted in Jordan | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think we'll stick to principles laid down by Magna Carta since 1215 thanks
I don't think there would have been many foreign child abusers wandering round at liberty in 1215.
But it's good to know you are happy with things as they are. Other people aren't.
Really? You think the majority of people want to get rid of trial by jury? Have you got any evidence to support this assumption?
When did I ever say that????
I have said a few times in this thread after CPS review, trail, sentencing etc.
Why do you want to twist what people say to support your oddball views of allowing fairly convicted paedophiles to stay in the country??"Josie was proposing trial without jury, I said keep trail by jury that we have had since 1215 and you said that people arent happy with that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there. I too generally do not agree with you on most issues, but on this one, I think I too will be reported to the forum mods There is a tendency to look at the human rights of a violent criminal to the extent that this simply overrides the rights of the victim or potentional victims True, that similar crimes have been committed by British born citizens. They are convicted and once they have completed their sentence, are released back into the community. They may be monitored but apart from this, there is little else we can do to remove the threat With foreign criminals there is a further step we can take to remove the threat to our population. We can remove them and return them to their country of origin. The aim s not that they should get persecuted there; the aim is to protect our population from them No one is disagreeing with that, it's just that it shouldn't be automatic. There maybe reasons for 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 not to be deported, and there should be discretion in those cases, as there currently is under the law. No, there is not even a 1 in a milion reason of where a convicted foreign violent criminal should not be deported irrespective of what horrors may lie for them back in their country of origin Abu Hamza was a prime example where he continued to fight deportation orders for years. This he did whilst using our resources and living of benefits in our country whilst continuing to preach hate and radicalise hundreds of others. His defence against deportation was that he will be precescuted in Jordan. Well, frankly, I couldn't care less about whether he would or would not be persecuted in Jordan" Like I said about 100 posts back, we will have to agree to disagree, we have had this law since 1981, introduced by that radical libtard snowflake Margaret Thatcher, and I haven't seen any widespread calls to change it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of losing their right to stay is sound, but sending someone to torture doesn't sit right, especially when you look at the historic balls ups that the police have created. It's one of the reasons we don't have capital punishment. We continue to look for simple answers to difficult questions. The messy system that we have now is not arbitrary. It exists because it has been tested over many years and solutions have had to be found. What twaddle! The death penalty was not removed because of miscarriages of justice. That was nothing but an excuse. The death penalty was removed for the same reason corporal punishment was removed and we send billions in charity to feed baby factories in parts of the world that cant support their population. Because it is easier to cave in to sentimentalism than make a hard choice that is for the better in the long run. I will admit that for most of my life I was a supporter of the position that 'I would rather see 100 guilty me go free than 1 innocent man hang'. However I was challenged to justify that position and over months of reading I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the whole premise is based on fallacy. Firstly, one has to compare like with like to get an accurate picture of how changes in punishment effect behaviour otherwise any conclusions drawn are meaningless. With this in mind the first thing you have to do is use the 60's murder definition and standard of proof required for conviction. If you do this you will quickly notice that since the 60's the murder rate has been climbing and every 15 years or so the clock is reset with extra charges added and the conviction bar raised in order to hide the truth. Fact is on crime and punishment we are like the USA are with firearms ownership. Unsolved crime could be virtually eliminated over a short period with the introduction of a national DNA data base, but we refuse. It is the right of every British criminal to victimise the British public and get away with it. In the same way it is the right of every killer to say "I didn't mean it" and be out in less than 10 years (average sentence for murder 11 years, average for manslaughter 6 years), and now it is the right of any foreign criminal to come here and do whatever they like and then refuse to leave! Give me a break! Grow some balls! Kick e'm out and hang a few killers. And watch the murder rate drop as it sinks in that if you deliberately kill you will be killed in turn and if you come here and commit serious crime you are going back to wherever you came from regardless of what is facing you there. I too generally do not agree with you on most issues, but on this one, I think I too will be reported to the forum mods There is a tendency to look at the human rights of a violent criminal to the extent that this simply overrides the rights of the victim or potentional victims True, that similar crimes have been committed by British born citizens. They are convicted and once they have completed their sentence, are released back into the community. They may be monitored but apart from this, there is little else we can do to remove the threat With foreign criminals there is a further step we can take to remove the threat to our population. We can remove them and return them to their country of origin. The aim s not that they should get persecuted there; the aim is to protect our population from them" I've always believed that if by your actions you affect the human rights of another to lead a peaceful existence on this planet then your own human rights should equally be thrown in the trash. This goes for the D.Driver who kills or maimes another just as much as it does to a terrorist. You should not be able to use the act while blatently ignoring it in the pursuit of your crime. S | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Josie was proposing trial without jury, I said keep trail by jury that we have had since 1215 and you said that people arent happy with that." You read what people say and choose your words carefully, and 'misunderstand' when convenient to your argument. I mean people aren't happy with the fact we have around 5,000 convicted criminals awaiting deportation. 1,500 of those have been here 5 years+. Some of the men in this particular case are back at liberty in the community. There is no need for it. They have had a trial under a system you know well. After a trial and conviction and prison, they should leave immediately. Your preferred method allows them to go free to offend again. In most peoples eyes that is completely unacceptable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Josie was proposing trial without jury, I said keep trail by jury that we have had since 1215 and you said that people arent happy with that. You read what people say and choose your words carefully, and 'misunderstand' when convenient to your argument. I mean people aren't happy with the fact we have around 5,000 convicted criminals awaiting deportation. 1,500 of those have been here 5 years+. Some of the men in this particular case are back at liberty in the community. There is no need for it. They have had a trial under a system you know well. After a trial and conviction and prison, they should leave immediately. Your preferred method allows them to go free to offend again. In most peoples eyes that is completely unacceptable." So you DO believe that people in the UK want to keep trial by jury that we have had since 1215 then, and disagree with Josie? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think we'll stick to principles laid down by Magna Carta since 1215 thanks
I don't think there would have been many foreign child abusers wandering round at liberty in 1215.
But it's good to know you are happy with things as they are. Other people aren't.
Really? You think the majority of people want to get rid of trial by jury? Have you got any evidence to support this assumption?
When did I ever say that????
I have said a few times in this thread after CPS review, trail, sentencing etc.
Why do you want to twist what people say to support your oddball views of allowing fairly convicted paedophiles to stay in the country??
Josie was proposing trial without jury, I said keep trail by jury that we have had since 1215 and you said that people arent happy with that."I wasn't proposing a trial without jury in all cases. I was proposing that cases of a procedural nature, such as financial irregularities, motoring offences, deportation orders and other such matters be dealt with swiftly and inexpensively without the need for involving lay people This is not a radical idea as it is already applied in cases surrounding financial irregularities However, there is also an argument to move with the times and not remain entrenched in the romantic past of centuries ago when the law makers could not even dream of the horrors we will face in the 21st century Automatic deportation orders in cases of convicted foreign violent criminals is a sensible move forward. It has already been stated that in the absence of this, 1,500+ foreign criminals are roaming our streets 5 years after release. Lord only knows how many further crimes they have commited against our population in those 5 years. We could have avoided that were they automatically deported upon completion of their sentences | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you DO believe that people in the UK want to keep trial by jury that we have had since 1215 then, and disagree with Josie? " I'm not interested in diverting off topic. I want fairly convicted criminals deported asap. You clearly do not and will twist and turn and find any snippet to distract from the goal that most people want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you DO believe that people in the UK want to keep trial by jury that we have had since 1215 then, and disagree with Josie? I'm not interested in diverting off topic. I want fairly convicted criminals deported asap. You clearly do not and will twist and turn and find any snippet to distract from the goal that most people want."
And that was the topic of the thread
I want to see foreign criminals deported immediately upon completion of their sentence here. I do not want them to be released in our communities for even one day so that they might potentially harm us again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
S | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you DO believe that people in the UK want to keep trial by jury that we have had since 1215 then, and disagree with Josie? I'm not interested in diverting off topic. I want fairly convicted criminals deported asap. You clearly do not and will twist and turn and find any snippet to distract from the goal that most people want.
And that was the topic of the thread
I want to see foreign criminals deported immediately upon completion of their sentence here. I do not want them to be released in our communities for even one day so that they might potentially harm us again" Exactly. Anything else is unnecessary pandering. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you DO believe that people in the UK want to keep trial by jury that we have had since 1215 then, and disagree with Josie? I'm not interested in diverting off topic. I want fairly convicted criminals deported asap. You clearly do not and will twist and turn and find any snippet to distract from the goal that most people want.
And that was the topic of the thread
I want to see foreign criminals deported immediately upon completion of their sentence here. I do not want them to be released in our communities for even one day so that they might potentially harm us again
Exactly. Anything else is unnecessary pandering. "It was Josie who raise the topic of trial without jury, I was just responding to her. If you think that's going off topic then you can blame her. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly. Anything else is unnecessary pandering.
It was Josie who raise the topic of trial without jury, I was just responding to her. If you think that's going off topic then you can blame her."OK, we are back on topic now. Basically most people want violent and sex offenders removed asap. You want them to stay pending further hearings etc etc. Understood and dis-agreed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good .All those catholic priest should be castrated and deported also back to the vatican." . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly. Anything else is unnecessary pandering.
It was Josie who raise the topic of trial without jury, I was just responding to her. If you think that's going off topic then you can blame her.
OK, we are back on topic now. Basically most people want violent and sex offenders removed asap. You want them to stay pending further hearings etc etc. Understood and dis-agreed."Nope. Thats not what happens. When the Home Secretary deprives someone of their UK citizenship, that person is allowed to appeal, however the appeal is whats known as ‘non-suspensive’ that means that the deportation goes ahead, they are out of the UK, however their legal case continues. Only if they are successful in their appeal are they allowed back into the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly. Anything else is unnecessary pandering.
It was Josie who raise the topic of trial without jury, I was just responding to her. If you think that's going off topic then you can blame her.
OK, we are back on topic now. Basically most people want violent and sex offenders removed asap. You want them to stay pending further hearings etc etc. Understood and dis-agreed.
Nope. Thats not what happens. When the Home Secretary deprives someone of their UK citizenship, that person is allowed to appeal, however the appeal is whats known as ‘non-suspensive’ that means that the deportation goes ahead, they are out of the UK, however their legal case continues. Only if they are successful in their appeal are they allowed back into the UK."Well 3 of the 4 men have been released. They haven't been deported. Also according to the home office there are about 5,000 convicted criminals at liberty, 1,500 being here 5 years+. How does that work from your explanation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly. Anything else is unnecessary pandering.
It was Josie who raise the topic of trial without jury, I was just responding to her. If you think that's going off topic then you can blame her.
OK, we are back on topic now. Basically most people want violent and sex offenders removed asap. You want them to stay pending further hearings etc etc. Understood and dis-agreed.
Nope. Thats not what happens. When the Home Secretary deprives someone of their UK citizenship, that person is allowed to appeal, however the appeal is whats known as ‘non-suspensive’ that means that the deportation goes ahead, they are out of the UK, however their legal case continues. Only if they are successful in their appeal are they allowed back into the UK.
Well 3 of the 4 men have been released. They haven't been deported.
Also according to the home office there are about 5,000 convicted criminals at liberty, 1,500 being here 5 years+.
How does that work from your explanation?"Have they had their citizenship revoked? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly. Anything else is unnecessary pandering.
It was Josie who raise the topic of trial without jury, I was just responding to her. If you think that's going off topic then you can blame her.
OK, we are back on topic now. Basically most people want violent and sex offenders removed asap. You want them to stay pending further hearings etc etc. Understood and dis-agreed.
Nope. Thats not what happens. When the Home Secretary deprives someone of their UK citizenship, that person is allowed to appeal, however the appeal is whats known as ‘non-suspensive’ that means that the deportation goes ahead, they are out of the UK, however their legal case continues. Only if they are successful in their appeal are they allowed back into the UK.
Well 3 of the 4 men have been released. They haven't been deported.
Also according to the home office there are about 5,000 convicted criminals at liberty, 1,500 being here 5 years+.
How does that work from your explanation?
Have they had their citizenship revoked?"I don't know, and I don't know if they even had uk citizenship or not. The whole point is that the existing system is not working. Those 3 men shouldn't be back in the community. Neither should the other 5,000 released criminals. At the end of the sentence they shouldn't exit the jail, they should be straight to a deportation airport. You know the law quite well and this obviously isn't the existing process. People are saying it should be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suppose the question here is should everyone be treated equally under the law? Should someone who's committed a violent crime and faces deportation band someone who is being deported for not being deemed sufficiently needy to qualify for a visa be given the same consideration if they would be returned to a war zone? By the same token if someone commits a murder and is on trial for a second, unrelated, murder be tried in exactly the same way as someone on trial for murder for the first time?" Yes, everyone should be treated equally. We can strip the citizenship off foreign born citizens and deport them. I wish we could do the same of the British born criminals too; unfortunately, that is not possible The topic under discussion here is these convicted rapists and whether they should be deported immediately upon completing their sentences. Let us be very clear about one thing; they committed horrific acts against several young girls who will NEVER be able to have anything resembling a normal life Which crimes should or should not result in automatic deportation will be a matter for the Home Office to decide. But I would guess that these will include rape, pedophilia, murder and terrorism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suppose the question here is should everyone be treated equally under the law? Should someone who's committed a violent crime and faces deportation band someone who is being deported for not being deemed sufficiently needy to qualify for a visa be given the same consideration if they would be returned to a war zone? By the same token if someone commits a murder and is on trial for a second, unrelated, murder be tried in exactly the same way as someone on trial for murder for the first time? Yes, everyone should be treated equally. We can strip the citizenship off foreign born citizens and deport them. I wish we could do the same of the British born criminals too; unfortunately, that is not possible The topic under discussion here is these convicted rapists and whether they should be deported immediately upon completing their sentences. Let us be very clear about one thing; they committed horrific acts against several young girls who will NEVER be able to have anything resembling a normal life Which crimes should or should not result in automatic deportation will be a matter for the Home Office to decide. But I would guess that these will include rape, pedophilia, murder and terrorism" They can be deported immediately after their sentence as the law currently stands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They can be deported immediately after their sentence as the law currently stands. "So why are the 3 men back in the community? And why are there 5,000 others wandering about? If it can happen it isn't??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They can be deported immediately after their sentence as the law currently stands.
So why are the 3 men back in the community? And why are there 5,000 others wandering about? If it can happen it isn't???"Look, his is the most recent iteration of the relevant law, which states "The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/13/section/56 and if you google "SN/HA/6820” you will find explanatory notes regarding the deprivation of citizenship, including, as I stated earlier, the following: "Appealing against the decision to make a deprivation order is ‘non-suspensive’ – i.e. the deprivation order can be made (and the person deported from the UK, if they are not already outside the UK) whilst the right of appeal is being exercised. In the event of a successful appeal, the Tribunal (or SIAC) may make a direction that a deprivation order be treated as having had no effect." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They can be deported immediately after their sentence as the law currently stands.
So why are the 3 men back in the community? And why are there 5,000 others wandering about? If it can happen it isn't???
Look, his is the most recent iteration of the relevant law, which states "The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/13/section/56
and if you google "SN/HA/6820” you will find explanatory notes regarding the deprivation of citizenship, including, as I stated earlier, the following:
"Appealing against the decision to make a deprivation order is ‘non-suspensive’ – i.e. the deprivation order can be made (and the person deported from the UK, if they are not already outside the UK) whilst the right of appeal is being exercised. In the event of a successful appeal, the Tribunal (or SIAC) may make a direction that a deprivation order be treated as having had no effect.""Well that should be happening every single time. But I don't agree with the apeal of deportation it should just be automatic on conclusion of the conviction at the end of the jail term. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is disagreeing with that, it's just that it shouldn't be automatic. There maybe reasons for 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 not to be deported, and there should be discretion in those cases, as there currently is under the law. " Seems I may be being reported too... We normally agree to a greater or lesser extent on things, but I have to say you are wrong on this, and as I have just made such a bold statement it is only right that I justify it. I understand and sympathise with your view but it fails to take into account how strong an emotion empathy is. Judges are whole life appointments, judges can only be removed for criminal wrongdoing therefore like it or not judges are open to the psychological pressures of empathy. It is my belief that this is part of the reason that the burden of proof to show guilt for any crime rises over time. When considering punitive sentencing this has to be taken into account and if possible removed if we do not want to be continually splitting hairs as to what crime deserves what sentence. The only way to do this is to have strict definitions of crimes that are not open to interpretation and automatic sentences for the most serious of crimes. As for the 1 in a 1000 or 1000000 crime that deserves special treatment, remember that senior Ministers of The Crown always have the option of recommending a Royal Pardon. Of course those senior ministers are all senior politicians, usually MP's who need to be reelected every 5 years. If they keep laving the sort of people we are talking about here off they would soon loose public support and power, so it is not unsurprising that they and those who look to take their place are not enthusiastic in enacting laws that would remove the burden of responsibility for unpopular sentencing from the judiciary (who they give sentencing guidelines to) and take it on themselves. We need at least one principled government that will place the public good above politicians personal ambitions and do what is right for all of us. I for one will not be holding my breath. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They can be deported immediately after their sentence as the law currently stands. "The important word there is 'can', it implies that the decision is not automatic, it should be, with a proviso that in exceptional circumstances that senior ministers can apply to the Crown to grant leave to stay. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is disagreeing with that, it's just that it shouldn't be automatic. There maybe reasons for 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 not to be deported, and there should be discretion in those cases, as there currently is under the law. Seems I may be being reported too... We normally agree to a greater or lesser extent on things, but I have to say you are wrong on this, and as I have just made such a bold statement it is only right that I justify it. I understand and sympathise with your view but it fails to take into account how strong an emotion empathy is. Judges are whole life appointments, judges can only be removed for criminal wrongdoing therefore like it or not judges are open to the psychological pressures of empathy. It is my belief that this is part of the reason that the burden of proof to show guilt for any crime rises over time. When considering punitive sentencing this has to be taken into account and if possible removed if we do not want to be continually splitting hairs as to what crime deserves what sentence. The only way to do this is to have strict definitions of crimes that are not open to interpretation and automatic sentences for the most serious of crimes. As for the 1 in a 1000 or 1000000 crime that deserves special treatment, remember that senior Ministers of The Crown always have the option of recommending a Royal Pardon. Of course those senior ministers are all senior politicians, usually MP's who need to be reelected every 5 years. If they keep laving the sort of people we are talking about here off they would soon loose public support and power, so it is not unsurprising that they and those who look to take their place are not enthusiastic in enacting laws that would remove the burden of responsibility for unpopular sentencing from the judiciary (who they give sentencing guidelines to) and take it on themselves. We need at least one principled government that will place the public good above politicians personal ambitions and do what is right for all of us. I for one will not be holding my breath. " So you do want some discretion in the system, sounds a bit like what we already have then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So you do want some discretion in the system, sounds a bit like what we already have then. " No, I want no discretion in the legal system. I want any discretion to be an extralegal political decision because I have observed that politicians are unlikely to be moved by empathy for criminals and I want the most hard nosed bastards there are making decisions that release murderers, rapists and child molesters into society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So you do want some discretion in the system, sounds a bit like what we already have then. No, I want no discretion in the legal system. I want any discretion to be an extralegal political decision because I have observed that politicians are unlikely to be moved by empathy for criminals and I want the most hard nosed bastards there are making decisions that release murderers, rapists and child molesters into society." Currently the Home Secretary is the one who has the power to deprive someone of citizenship. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Currently the Home Secretary is the one who has the power to deprive someone of citizenship." That is the problem, the rule is back to front. For serious crime naturalised citizens should automatically loose citizenship on conviction and be immediately deported on completion of sentence. The Home Secretary should be the only one with the power to allow the criminal to remain (but without citizenship). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"as a bit of a leftie, centre leftie with a smidgen of liberal thinking i fully agree with the decision taken to deport them.. bye.. " As a fully paid up leftie liberal I would say to them: don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
