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, which is quite frankly irrelevant anyway.“

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 invited statement is irrelevant?

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 really can’t be bothered with it any more.

I do challenge any one to tell me which clause in the European convention on human rights they object to

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!

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.

You 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:

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 all 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 2.1, introduction

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 :

“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.”

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?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4QqMKe3rwY[/video]

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 .