Forum menu
yeah right............ 😆
We're not in Zimbabwe. If people are going to act like they are, perhaps they should be there?
I find it inconceivable that anyone could leave the scene.
Yeah me too, although it appears to be a fairly common reaction.
I can't imagine what goes through someone's mind if they knock down and kill a child - even if it's not their fault. I've always assumed that people who leg it possible do so, because they crack up and lose their marbles at the thought of what they've done, ie, they are in denial, pretend it hasn't happened, can't face it, etc. Maybe I'm being too considerate about their motives, don't know. I just hope that it is not a situation which I will ever experience, and therefore hopefully, never fully understand what goes through people's mind when it occurs. Although obviously I can't imagine for a moment that I would leg it.
You help me with plywood finishing; I'll help you with Kurdish history.
Faux cork contact paper will look a treat on your DIY plywood coffee table. Or if you prefer, faux leather or faux suede contact paper. Just cut it to size and stick it using the self-adhesive backing.
Now tell me why Iraqi Kurds have special rights in the UK.
I'm not sure my position on this sort of thing is truly rational since I became a father.
I don't really mind what country he is in or what country he is from, but the idious little shit has clearly got off too lightly. Punishing him until the end of his days still won't undo what's been done though.
I'm not sure I could live with it if that happened to my kid.
Ernie no that's rubbish and totally unhelpful anyway I've had enough of this thread.
Don't you know the story of the Kurds Ernie? Its not good. Multiple sellouts by imperialist powers over generations. A people without a country.
Iraq is not safe for anyone to return to anyway.
Oops. Odious, even.
Little. Shit. At least I managed to spell that bit properly.
We're not in Zimbabwe.
If you can miss the point by so far, then I guess.
"Oh yes, you're right", is about the only answer which will work for you so...
Oh yes, you're right.
"I mean, if you happened to hit a kid in Zimbabwe, would you wait for the police to turn up and explain it to them? Tough decision to make"
Tough? Seriously? There's a dying child crying under your car and trying to help them might be a tough decision for you, depending on the geography and the speed of any police response?
I'm with Elfinsafety; I've probably had enough of this thread too.
I've had enough of this thread
Nice cop out there. The truth is you can't back up your stance. Like many Sun and Daily Mail readers some 'left-wingers' have a knee-jerk reaction over certain issues. Here it's over an Iraqi Kurd facing deportation, and the knee-jerk reaction in this instance, is that he can't be deported because to do so would be "racist". I doubt very much if you would have been so quick to rush to his defence against deportation if he had been a white American.
The reality is that he had no right to be here, and the least that I would have expected from him was for him to behave himself and not break the law. He failed to do that, and by all accounts he had a string of convictions, including I believe, drug related ones.
He should have been thrown out of the country as soon as he started his anti-social behaviour, it was hardly just a single one-off minor misdemeanour, but still he remained. He then whilst serving a driving ban freely chose to ignore it, showing complete contempt for the law of the land - despite not even having a right to be here. The result was that he killed a young girl, to which he then reacted by legging it and leaving her to die.
Having completed his sentence for that crime he should have been immediately deported, but for reasons which I don't understand he wasn't. He then managed to get a British national up the spout, and has now successfully managed to avoid deportation on those grounds. Well that stinks in my books, although I am prepared to reluctantly accept that perhaps two children shouldn't be deprived of a loving father.
However ...... there is some evidence to suggest that he has little contact with his children, if this is the case then I think that he should have been deported. Obviously like most people I don't know the full details of the case, but on the information which is available, it doesn't look good. So I do hope the judge(s) did in fact make the right decision.
Don't you know the story of the Kurds Ernie? Its not good. Multiple sellouts by imperialist powers over generations. A people without a country.
Cobblers. Iraqi Kurds have a country. It's called Iraq.
😀
And has been caught driving while still banned since the killing of the little child.
I understand your point Charlie, I just don't see it as an excuse in this case. Just my opinion.
I think it's very difficult for people without children to appreciate the strength of feeling from people with.
I have full sympathy with the plight of the Kurds, however I would happily seem this piece of scum dead.
Long thread that I don't have the time to read
But .........
He's an habitual criminal & we're going to now be left picking up the bill & misery for his criminal activities, until he's either too infirm or he dies [hopefully in great pain]
He'll probably end up killing or maiming someone else whilst all the hand-wringers constantly give him the benefit of doubt.
He should have been denied the right to stay & deported, there's nothing to stop him having a family life elsewhere.
Ernie - Like the Palestinians have a country - Israel
Iraq is hardly a safe place to return people to as well
FWIW I actually have no issue with deporting crims that are not UK residents. I think it should be done more and more quickly.
This was not something that occurred to the law makers when the legislation was written. Jack Straw who was responsible for it was on yesterday talking about tabling an amendment in parliament to close an unintended loop hole that has allowed this to happen.
In that context its neither human rights or soft leftyism. Its the law, and that law needs changing. Simple as that.
Ernie - Like the Palestinians have a country - Israel
So you're comparing Iraqi Kurds with the Palestinians are you ?
Well let's not stop there, let's get really silly and say that the United States has an obligation to grant asylum to any Scotsman who arrives, on the grounds that the Scottish people don't have their own country.
And it's probably worth pointing out that if this geezer was looking for Kurdistan, then I'm guessing he took a wrong turning somewhere to have ended up in the UK. I suggest he turns back and has a look in a rather large area around the southern Turkey northern Iraq/Syria.
BTW, whilst having huge sympathy for the Palestinians if one came over to the UK hell-bent on committing crime, I wouldn't hesitate to call for his deportation back to the West Bank, Gaza, or wherever. If we are going to grant asylum to people, let's treat the ones who are law-abiding as a priority. When all of those have come over [i]then[/i] we can start inviting the law-breaking scum. Makes sense surely ?
[i]Ernie - Like the Palestinians have a country - Israel
Iraq is hardly a safe place to return people to as well
[/i]
As I understand Kurdistan is pretty much an independent state rather than just a bit of Iraq and doesn't suffer from the violence and problems of Iraq as a whole.
Amazingly I completely agree with Ernie's long post ^^
Regardless of this particular case, it is obvious the guy is a POS who has shown complete disdain for the laws of this country and the citizens. His criminal record and actions since this particular incident prove this. I cannot believe that people are actually defending the decision to allow him to stay here.
Personally, and I really mean this, I would rather someone put a bullet in his head and rid society of a scumbag. Then the father might get some closure.
In that context its neither human rights or soft leftyism. Its the law, and that law needs changing.
I'm not completely convinced that it is. Because if the issue here is that he has a "human right" to family life, then presumable it means that he can't be jailed either. After all if he was giving a 2 year prison sentence for example, then his children would be deprived of their father.
I think perhaps his deportation should be seen more in the context of a punishment for crimes/anti-social behaviour. Besides can't financial help be given so that he can take his children back to Iraq with him ? There [i]are[/i] families living in Iraq are there not ? No one seems much bothered about them.
The state is not completely responsible for the consequences of someone being a bad father you know. Unless of course you think no father should ever be jailed, should always be offered a job, house, etc.
I don't think anyone is defending him but a few people recognise that the law is the law and yet the way this is being reported is deliberately designed to cause as much racial tension as possible. I think had the judges been able to get rid of him within the law they would have.
Gotta keep in mind that he may well come from a country where the authorities are not known for their leniency. It may well be that he feared for what might happen to him if he stayed to report it.
I cant believe you are trying to excuse what he did. Maybe we should simply blame his parents or go the whole hog and explain that the imperialist history of his country led him to act that way, job done he is totally blameless!
If he's a member of the human race he should not have left a small child frightened, dying and in pain. Any attempts to rationalsie that are a disgrace.
Surfer - its not trying to excuse what he did. Its looking for an explanation of why he did what he did.
A subtle but important difference.
It's not aimed at you TJ
....the way this is being reported is deliberately designed to cause as much racial tension as possible.
Well the only people who appear to be using his "ethnicity" ie, the fact that he is an Iraqi Kurd, on this thread, are the ones who are arguing that he shouldn't be deported.
They are clearly using the race card. No one else as far as I can see, is bothered by the fact that he is an Iraqi Kurd.
You can't lash out at someone just because your life is miserable. Would it make anyone's life better if this guy was deported?
What if your kid was killed by someone who wasn't an immigrant?
Its looking for an explanation of why he did what he did.
That's simple, he's a piece of low life scum, dog shit is more welcome than he is
I know sufer - but that is the explanation of that post.
I'm not completely convinced that it is. Because if the issue here is that he has a "human right" to family life,
Utter tosh Ernie and you know it. The man who wrote the legislation has actually admitting publically that the guy has exploited a loophole in the law that he wrote and that its wrong and outside the intent of the law not good enough then?
Bermbandit - the European convention on human rights was written a whilew ago by committee 🙂
Straw was very week on this and looking to keep everyone happy - result no one was
The issue is that UK judges have been interpreting the law very strictly - maybe because they are afraid of being overturned.
There was s period of time a few years ago when the courts in the UK ruled that no one could be deported to Iraq as it was not safe enough - even if asylum claims had failed. I wonder if this is why this chap was not deported earlier?
I'm a little late but I'd like to ask this of elfinsafety.
You stated:
"and makes a big thing of quoting the dad, which is basically nothing more than the dad's opinions, but quoted in such a way to add emotional weight to the story. The Guardian doesn't bother with all that, [b]which is quite frankly irrelevant anyway.[/b]"
I could well believe that the poor blokes comments were pretty much what he would have said in his Victim of Crime statement that he would have been invited to give to the Police and the Court.
Are you saying his legally entitled, nay [b]invited[/b] statement is [i]irrelevant[/i]?
If I've interpreted your comments correctly, you should have a long think about what you've stated.
For the record If it was my daughter, neither the driver of the vehicle nor myself would be members of this mortal coil for very long afterwards. I wouldn't be able to carry on knowing that my daughter had suffered like that and that bastard sure as hell wouldn't be carrying on either.
The ruling allowing him to stay in the UK was reached within UK/English law, as pointed out by Berm Bandit. The law (as used in this case) is an ass and why this loophole hasn't been closed before now is very disappointing. Ibrahim came to the UK in 2001 and since then has had a string of convictions and yet our justice system has allowed him to stay here since then, again the law is an ass.
piha - according to the article it was the right to family life under the HRA which uses the wording from the ECHR.
It is not a "loophole" in the law. It about the interpretation by our courts - which may or may not be correct in this case
jeremy vine must be a singletrack reader/forum lurker. 8)
So the issue is that he ran off after the accident, right?
I know sufer - but that is the explanation of that post.
I think I can interprete the post thanks.
It is not a "loophole" in the law. It about the interpretation by our courts - which may or may not be correct in this case
I understood Straw was indignant because he interpreted his relationship with the mother of two of his children as one of convenience. Both were conceived soon after his appeals to stay in the UK were exhausted.
I think most people would agree with him (Straw) if this is the case, he has acted legally but has manipulated the system.
So the issue is that he ran off after the accident, right?
I suppose 2 issues. The first as you mention the second that as per the above regardless of the incident he allegedly manipulated the system to enable him to stay in the UK.
The crime occurred in Nov 2003. sentencing guidelines and indeed available offences have got a lot harsher since then.
It appears a little unjust to wait 7 years allow him to serve his sentence marry? raise a British family and then deport him.If he deserved deportation and could have been deported without risk of harm then he should have been deported at the end of the custodial element of his sentence.
The offence is a cowardly and disgusting one and I on the basis of the media reports would have thought a longer jail term appropriate on the other hand the true facts of the case may have been different and there may have been substantial mitigation. Quite simply unless you were in court on the day or have read the transcript how can you tell? I knew a reporter who freelanced for the Sun she would be tasked to go looking for stories to support a immigrants commit crime agenda.
Jack Straw was never a proper practicing lawyer and did not write the Human Rights Act in fact he is very anti human rights and has spoken out in favour of the use of evidence obtained by torture in our courts.
I do challenge any one to tell me which clause in the European convention on human rights they object to.
And as for the idea that they are privileges not rights any one who truly believes that sees themselves as a slave and needs to get some self esteem.
Edit: No actually I [i]really[/i] can't be bothered with it any more.
[i]I do challenge any one to tell me which clause in the European convention on human rights they object to[/i]
I think the objection is the interpretation of the protocol rather than the protocol itself.
The section in question is
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
It would seem to me that the exceptions listed at the bottom such as 'the protection of morals' can be open to some pretty strange interpretations which may be part of why we have reached this rather sorry state of affairs.
There is a tiny handful of people from nice comfortable sheltered backgrounds deciding what is right and wrong. They sit on the board of these expensive unelected quangos spouting hot air,. The quango is not representative of a cross section of society. They are out of touch with reality and may not even have any respect/loyalty to this nation.
In their ideal little worlds, every tiny little injustice right up to the really big ones needs to be resolved by a structure of rules of “fairness”. These people philosophise over ethics and morals to the point that they don't know whether they are coming or going. These quangos may well be tainted by extreme left wing ideology, or discriminate against the sections of society that they have no personal experience of etc etc.
The solution is to make sure these bodies are elected, accountable and open!
We need to regain the power to make our own laws. The EC aren't worthy of the responsibility!