Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Another Piece Of Worthless Scum To Be Allowed To Stay In This Country.
18 Answers
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-25 35719/J amaican -crack- dealer- banned- entire- London- Borough -deport ed-righ t-famil y-life. html
So this particular unsavoury person is to be allowed to stay in the UK, because sending him away to Jamaica would would have ruined his relationship with his wife and children?
Why bother sending him to prison then, will the three years he might spend there also ruin his relationship with his wife a children?
Perhaps sending him thousands of miles away, would be the best thing that could happen for his wife and children?
Banning him from going back to Islington for the next ten years, can we now expect an appeal on the rights of his personal freedom to wander?
So this particular unsavoury person is to be allowed to stay in the UK, because sending him away to Jamaica would would have ruined his relationship with his wife and children?
Why bother sending him to prison then, will the three years he might spend there also ruin his relationship with his wife a children?
Perhaps sending him thousands of miles away, would be the best thing that could happen for his wife and children?
Banning him from going back to Islington for the next ten years, can we now expect an appeal on the rights of his personal freedom to wander?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
why can't they consider deporting the whole family, if they are dependent on him?
Because then you are punishing innocent people for something not their responsibility.
Such rulings are protecting the familly rather than the offender.
How would you feel about being deported yourself if your spouse was found guilty of a crime?
Because then you are punishing innocent people for something not their responsibility.
Such rulings are protecting the familly rather than the offender.
How would you feel about being deported yourself if your spouse was found guilty of a crime?
Talking of worthless scum here's one being let off!
http:// www.swi ndonadv ertiser .co.uk/ news/10 716786. Drug_de aler_av oids_he avy_jai l_sente nce/
Isn't it annoying local press not showing pictures of the defendants?
How can certain AB posters know whether they're worthless scum or not unless they can see a photo?
Well I guess the name is Stewart Summerfield from Swindon and not Mohamad Khan from Luton so we can skim over it and look for something more newsworthy eh?
http://
Isn't it annoying local press not showing pictures of the defendants?
How can certain AB posters know whether they're worthless scum or not unless they can see a photo?
Well I guess the name is Stewart Summerfield from Swindon and not Mohamad Khan from Luton so we can skim over it and look for something more newsworthy eh?
Kathyan it's Article 8
http:// en.wiki pedia.o rg/wiki /Articl e_8_of_ the_Eur opean_C onventi on_on_H uman_Ri ghts
section 2 says
2. 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
This shows the limits of this right - it's not an absolute right
If you've committed a crime you can't claim that you can't go to jail because it would interfere with your familly life.
When someone has completed their sentence saying that you want to deport them to protect the public would imply that you're judging them for a crime they've not committed yet!
http://
section 2 says
2. 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
This shows the limits of this right - it's not an absolute right
If you've committed a crime you can't claim that you can't go to jail because it would interfere with your familly life.
When someone has completed their sentence saying that you want to deport them to protect the public would imply that you're judging them for a crime they've not committed yet!
jake-the-peg
/// Talking of worthless scum here's one being let off! ///
And where does it say he is being let off?
http:// www.swi ndonadv ertiser .co.uk/ news/10 716786. Drug_de aler_av oids_he avy_jai l_sente nce/
/// Isn't it annoying local press not showing pictures of the
defendants? ///
/// How can certain AB posters know whether they're worthless scum or not unless they can see a photo? ///
Best not to call them worthless scum until they have been sentenced, as regards providing a photo, if that is an example of a dependant, I am rather pleased they do not, much easier on the eye for their absence it would seem in this case.
/// Well I guess the name is Stewart Summerfield from Swindon and not Mohamad Khan from Luton so we can skim over it and look for something more newsworthy eh? ///
Must admit I missed this one not because he wasn't named Mohamad Khan from Luton, but neither was Keno Forbes from London, but the fact that it was reported in The Swindon Advertiser, not a newspaper that I am familiar with I must admit.
/// Talking of worthless scum here's one being let off! ///
And where does it say he is being let off?
http://
/// Isn't it annoying local press not showing pictures of the
defendants? ///
/// How can certain AB posters know whether they're worthless scum or not unless they can see a photo? ///
Best not to call them worthless scum until they have been sentenced, as regards providing a photo, if that is an example of a dependant, I am rather pleased they do not, much easier on the eye for their absence it would seem in this case.
/// Well I guess the name is Stewart Summerfield from Swindon and not Mohamad Khan from Luton so we can skim over it and look for something more newsworthy eh? ///
Must admit I missed this one not because he wasn't named Mohamad Khan from Luton, but neither was Keno Forbes from London, but the fact that it was reported in The Swindon Advertiser, not a newspaper that I am familiar with I must admit.
It's traditional. In the days when deportation was a sentencing option, the right to family life was respected, though not expressed in such jargony words. We did not deport those with families. Single men, yes, family men, no. The family men were jailed , always assuming the crime didn't merit hanging.
Jake, if someone is British then you cannot deport them, regardless of their name. Rather looks like you are deliberately trying to mud sling there rather without reason; as usual.
OOG, these rulings always amaze me, I wonder how many visits he must make to his family once out, (I doubt he will be living with them).
OOG, these rulings always amaze me, I wonder how many visits he must make to his family once out, (I doubt he will be living with them).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.