Forum menu
Utter tosh Ernie and you know it.
Yeah I think you mean that you don't agree with me. I'll decide for myself whether I agree with myself or not.
As I said, "I'm not completely convinced" concerning his right to stay in the UK. And apparently the UK Border Agency also believed that he could be legally deported.
[i]You[/i] might think it's tosh, but don't accuse me and the UK Border Agency of also thinking it's tosh.
This anti-social individual who’s caused misery, suffering and expense to the British people should have been packed off where he came from straight after his first offence!
This would be my “law”: If you are an asylum seeker who is being given food and shelter in a foreign land, you should not be entitled to as many rights as the legal residents of that country. If you step out of line and commit crime as a guest in that foreign country, you should then be deported immediately – no exceptions!
If you face certain death back in your country of persecution, then more fool you for not showing any respect for the most generous circumstances afforded to you FOC by a nation that owes you nothing and was protecting your from extermination! The basic principle is: don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Can anyone translate spongebobs rant into some sort of sense?
Are you saying that our courts are Quangos? The European convention on human rights has been binding on the UK for decades. All that recent legislation meant was that instead of having to go to the ECHR for a ruling one could now be obtained from our courts.
Tainted by extreme left wing ideology?
may not even have any respect/loyalty to this nation.?
We need to regain the power to make our own laws.
What planet are you from? Do you have the slightest idea how this stuff works?
UK was involved in drawing up the basis for all this decades ago.
I'd quite like to see this immigrant who has a damaging effect on British Society deported:
[img] 
[/img]
Spongebob.
A starting place to learn. Drawn up by the UK amongst others in 1952. Binding on us since then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Can anyone translate spongebobs rant into some sort of sense?
Well I tried to, but when I realised that he appeared to be calling the courts "quangos", I gave up.
How you lot have the energy to keep this up I do not know.
I'd quite like to see this immigrant who has a damaging effect on British Society deported
I thought you weren't going to "bother" anymore Elfinman ?
I was going to have a go at you about that, but decided, "let him go, he knows he's wrong" ......but now you're back !
Nothing constructive to say of course.
fred...........i thought you had had enough of this fred.
you love it........... 8)
I've just had enough of trying to 'discuss' things with people who are just spouting vitriolic emotional responses based on subjective opinion, rather than carefully considering [b]all[/b] aspects of this matter. If I carry on, I'll probbly get accused of supporting terrorism or something daft. 🙄
Surprised that Ernie's got caught up in all the knee-jerkism actually.
It's amusing watching people rant on about stuff they have very little knowledge or understanding of though. Carry on.
yeah right................ 🙄 🙄 😆
Surprised that Ernie's got caught up in all the knee-jerkism actually.
The only knee-jerk reaction I have is in treating all people equally **
If a BNP member says someone should be treated in a certain way because of their race, I will oppose them.
If a leftie says someone should be treated in a certain way because of their race, I will oppose them.
Simple really..........not exactly rocket science is it ?
.
**Notwithstanding the fact that the disadvantaged should be helped of course. But that clearly is not in anyway relevant to this case.
A starting place to learn. Drawn up by the UK amongst others in 1952. Binding on us since then
The way I read it - it isn't legally binding on member states per se - unless a particular judgement is against them specifically
It's more that a principle that is followed by courts rather than binding
uplink yes it is legally binding. Our government has a duty to behave in a way compatible with the declaration and if they don't we can obtain judgement against them]
NO if buts or ands.
TJ - have a look at [url=
introduction[/url]
This case brings out the racist in me, or perhaps the Nationalist. I confess to seeing this differently because of the fact he wasn't a British National, or more to the point because of his country of origin. I'm probably what you might call a racist by degrees i.e if he had been a German or Frenchman regardless of his skin colour I'd probably not see it as any different if he had been a British National.
I probably represent quite a few people that question why a person fleeing persecution needs to go any further than over their border, and why the need to pass so many safe countries to be here.
That then leads me to my main concern? he really shouldn't have been here, and therefore in a position to do what he did.
When this blows over my racist feelings will be put back in their box until the next time.
I don't want to see him harmed, but I do want to see him gone. And surely he would have to be greatly reformed to be a valuable father figure to his children. In his current state I wouldn't wish him on any child considering his record of dealing with a child that really needed him.
Here you are Elfin, have a read of this comment :
[b][i]"But let's stick to Ibrahim, who arrived here hidden in the back of a truck in 2001 – that's before the Iraq war, by the way. I can't see that we have any undischarged obligations to him. He never obtained any right to live here, has repeatedly misbehaved and apparently doesn't speak much English – albeit enough to get women pregnant.
The Houston family have rights and feelings too. Send him home."[/i][/b]
So "send him home" then ......who do you think said that ? A right-wing/racist columnist in the Daily Mail maybe ? No, Michael White the assistant editor of The Guardian. Are you going to accuse him of "knee-jerkism" too ?
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
well yes it is in your interesting thought experiment. It seems clear he had plenty of experience of the UK police though -he was banned for example and arrested for a number of crimes here prior to fleeing. I can make any number of reasons /hypothesis for fleeing none of which make it correct in this country [ie the poilice would not have killed him] ..I suspect the main one was to save himself rather than the person he hit - obviously I cannot prove this but it is the most probable IMHO
Of course this man has human rights and the right to a family life we are not denying him this we are just saying he cannot have them here due to his own behaviour his race is irrelevant.
As an example if I invite elfin for Xmas dinner and when I go to the toilet and I return he has stolen my stereo and Abba CD can I ask him to leave or do I need to respect his right to eat and carry on feeding him? I am not denying elfin susitence I am only denying it in my house.
WHatevber happens to this man and his familyhis children are alive and someone else has no children... his lot will never be as bad as the victims father.
It saddens me to see the racist abuse from some on here who dont really care about the issue as just his skin colour is enough for them to condemn. There seems some who do the opposite due to his racial origin and defend whatever the issue as well. I dont care about his colour or race I condemn him for his actions and deny him the right to live here. He can have all his other rights elsewhere in the world.
I wouldn't nick your stereo; you're Northern and therefore too poor to buy owt decent, so I wouldn't want some crappy Alba 'music centre' when I have some better qualitage stereo gear myself, and I already have that ABBA CD so why would I want to steal it?
I work with the HRA on a daily basis. Sorry to say, but TJ has the closest to correct interpretation of all of the above.
Ha ha! TJ is right and all youse are WRONG! 😆
ECHR binding on UK since 1952...why the HRA then?
even the PM thinks this scumbag should be shipped off to iraq.
if it's good enough for Dave then it's good enough for me.. 😀
well thats what the pms press officer (andy- they hacked them phones without me knowing m'lud- coulson) has told him to say
coz then he looks like a man of the people for the people just like his fellow sun reading bron people disliking electorate
-and his fellow multi millionaire bullingdon buddies look like they are standing up against those lefty eurocrats, but wont actually do anything about it
fwiw the guys a scumbag but fred summed the whole thing up a few pages back
he waved the right to seek asilum here when he broke the law, send him back. good bye .end of .
well thats what the pms press officer (andy- they hacked them phones without me knowing m'lud- coulson) has told him to say
coz then he looks like a man of the people for the people just like his fellow sun reading brown people disliking electorate
-and his fellow multi millionaire bullingdon buddies look like they are standing up against those lefty eurocrats, without actually doing anything about it
fwiw the guys a scumbag but fred summed the whole thing up a few pages back
The facts are:
Non-British person who happened to kill someone in a driving incident isn't sent back to his country of origin as he has a British partner and two kids born in Britain. Court rules he has right to stay under Human Rights legislation.
I see rudeboy and tandemjeremy (I feel sorry for the person he's in tandem with) are spouting nonsense, yet again. Though also are the outraged
The ECHR is not binding [i]per se[/i] but domestic laws must follow "the principles". As unpalatable as this case is the person was sentenced to less than one year which is not a deportable sentence (it must be a prison + one-year); Further he has british children and a wife so it becomes making a (british) family move to Iraq (i.e. removing british persons to another country whilst the husband reapply for entry clearance), exiling British citizens, or the Kafka principle http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/40.html
If anyones to blame its Labour for bringing in a half thought out law and allowing immigrants who commit criminal offences (beyond speeding etc..) remain in the country, still they managed to socialy engineer the country to there own ends http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html to which we're now left with (another) mess the created
I feel sorry for the person he's in tandem with
I don't I'm quite jealous of them I'd like to ride on his tandem then I could look at his bottom. 😀
The rest of your post I really can't be bothered with; sorry. Want a beer?
Lets face it there are to many foriegners here who we dont want but cant get rid of .They are a burden on the benefit system and the criminal justice system but our hands seem to be tied as far as ridding our small overpopulated country of them.
yeah way too many foreigners them labour leftys have ruined our once great land
im off to the EDL demo in luton this weekend, gonna bash me some mooslim heads in
😳
some genuinely ignorant twunts on here
He cannot be an asylum seeker if he is granted residency in the UK so should incur jail term (if given one) ... also he should be given an appropriate jail term (I prefer a long jail term & hard labour) rather than all those fluffy community human rights shite.
If he is not granted asylum in the UK then he can be sent home after a jail term (provided he is given one) but now he is claiming his "human rights" are violated simply because the loophole of having fathered children in UK.
The question now is ... is his human rights above others? I mean is his children above others'?
No shite all this human rights shite should just be abolished.
Human rights ...
[url= http://www.****/news/article-1339152/Shivaun-Patra-Orton-faces-death-penalty-heroin-haul-Malaysia.html ]To be hanged. [/url]
[b]Lets[/b] face it there are [b]to[/b] many [b]foriegner[/b]s here who [u]we[/u] dont want but cant get rid of .They are a burden on the benefit system and the criminal [b]jusrice[/b] system but our hands seem to be tied as far as ridding our small overpopulated country of them.
I know; it's terrible. 🙁
I mean, our very culture is being eroded whilst we're powerless to do anything about it, lest we be labelled 'racists'. Even the [i]English language[/i] itself is being corrupted by evil foreign influences bent on destroying our hard-fought for Britishness....
I know we are a mix of Angles, Saxons ,Vkings ,Hugenots etc and our royal family is German and Greek but we seem overly hospitable to any sob story of hardship and alleged abuse from overseas
Minimum 20yrs jail then send the low life scum back from whence he came. Simples.
I thought you were "bored" with this thread Elfinman and you won't going to comment anymore ?
It's clear now that this thread in fact captivates you. And the real reason you said you weren't going to comment, was because you couldn't defend your position, particularly your absurd suggestion that Ibrahim's ethnicity was relevant.
But anyway.......
Elfinsafety - MemberHa ha!
Do you even know what you are laughing at........or is it just another of your knee-jerk reactions to which you haven't given any thought ?
This is what TJ said in relation to the HRA :
[i]"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"[/i]
He is of course absolutely correct, you only have to read the newspapers to know that to be true. It was the judges interpretation of the requirements under the HRA which was the deciding factor.
Lawyers for the UK Border Agency, which incidentally, although I can't be certain they ride mountain bikes, I can be absolutely positive that they deal with "the HRA on a daily basis", argued that the HRA could be interpreted in a way which would make Ibrahim's deportation legal.
It is imo, a tragedy that the judges interpreted the HRA in the way they did - it's not a laughing matter, far from it. Because the HRA has a great deal of enemies, amongst them the rabble-rousing gutter-press and Tory Party.
In fact, David Cameron himself wrote to Amy Houston's father before the last election promising to scrap the HRA. The only thing which has stopped Cameron fulfilling his promise are the terms of the coalition agreement.
But now as a direct result of the judges interpretation of the HRA in this case, the rabble-rousers are up in arms demanding that the HRA be scrapped. It is not something I welcome or feel should be celebrated.
I can't myself see anything fundamentally wrong with the HRA, as long as it can be interpreted in a way which doesn't give foreign criminals rights which they are not morally entitled to. I most certainly don't trust the Tory's "Bill of Rights" replacement for the HRA, we all know what the Tories believe their "rights" to be.
As far as I am aware, the coalition agreement does not specify that the HTA won't be scrapped, merely that the government will establish a commission to look into the matter. The outcome of this case will very much strengthen those despise basic human rights for ordinary people, preferring instead the privileges of the few.
Who's laughing now ?
The judge is compassionate towards his family life because of the children he fathered ... but the question is why his children?
The question is does the govt has the balls to change the human rights shite?
God, Ernie you dunalf talk some crap too.
And the real reason you said you weren't going to comment, was because you couldn't defend your position
Never said I weren't going to comment, just that I was fed up with this thread as it's just a load of emotionally driven opinionated vitriol, and there's bugger all actual 'discussion' going on.
I've done with the 'argument'. But feel free to carry on being clever. I'm obviously not as clever as you, so I'm afraid I can no longer 'compete'.
I'll keep an amused eye out on proceedings. Interesting to see how folk really think.
Who's laughing now ?
I am, actually. 😆
I am trying to imagine what that dog would look like, if it inadvertently chewed on a wasp.
As Ernie touched on a few pages back, none of us knows how we will react in such a situation. Remember that fine, upstanding ENGLISH lady earlier in the year? The one with a previously unblemished character who ran over a small boy, legged it and spent a month or so in hiding because she couldn't come to terms with what she'd done?
I listened to that Radio 2 interview this morning, and yes, it was quite heartbreaking (quite as in completely, rather than 'a little') but I see no reason to treat him any differently, in legal terms, than any other citizen bound by the laws of this country.
Never said I weren't going to comment
Your post 12 hours ago must have thrown me :
Elfinsafety - MemberEdit: No actually I really can't be bothered with it any more.
Posted 12 hours ago
Made a comment, then scrapped it.
But now of course I understand what you meant.....no [i]constructive[/i] comments. Just stuff like "Ernie you dunalf talk some crap".
it's just a load of emotionally driven opinionated vitriol, and there's bugger all actual 'discussion' going on.
There's certainly a fair bit of emotionally driven vitriol on this thread, but sometimes perhaps it's necessary to challenge it by offering a more common-sense approach. Although I can see that you don't agree on that one.
This is quite a serious issue imo, concerning justice, human rights, and apparently, race relations.
I see no reason to treat him any differently, in legal terms, than any other citizen bound by the laws of this country.
Yup, by some of the comments on here you would have thought that he had been found guilty of murder, rape, or child molestation, with all the talk of shooting him, or referring to him as something worse than dog shit. Much of it due to the fact that he is middle-eastern no doubt.
The truth however, is that he is a persistent criminal who forfeited all rights to remain in the UK. I right which he never had in the first place I would add.
Except that he hasn't. According to the law, which may well be hog-tied and blinkered but stands or falls on its consistency.
user-removed - MemberAs Ernie touched on a few pages back, none of us knows how we will react in such a situation. Remember that fine, upstanding ENGLISH lady earlier in the year? The one with a [u][b]previously unblemished character[/b][/u] who ran over a small boy, legged it and spent a month or so in hiding because she couldn't come to terms with what she'd done?
I listened to that Radio 2 interview this morning, and yes, it was quite heartbreaking (quite as in completely, rather than 'a little') but I see no reason to treat him any differently, in legal terms, than any other citizen bound by the laws of this country.
This guy has various records as he is a:
1. Disqualified driver.
2) He went on to commit a string of other offences.
3) Twice turned down for asylum.
[b]4) Could stay on the grounds of his right to family life. (judge let him stay on for this reason i.e. family life)
[/b]
So basically you need to have a family to commit offences and then get a slap on the wrists if found guilty.
The law is blind ... yet the people that apply it do not carry common sense. Yes, he has a family so are others. Therefore, the question is why is he treated differently?
Except that he hasn't.
I was of course referring to "in most people's eyes". We all know how the judges interpreted the HRA in his favour. The fact that he has a [i]legal[/i] right does not detract from the comment.
You have completely missed user-removed's point chewkw.
ernie_lynch - MemberYou have completely missed user-removed's point chewkw.
Regardless, the guy has no good track record to be warranted a residency in the UK. Where is the so called good characters?
The only way for him to stay on is to get someone pregnant use that as an excuse for having a "family" life and be treated equally ... he is not supposed to be here in the first place!
Human rights? What about others?