ChatterBank0 min ago
Do you agree with this?
A failed asylum seeker could get as much as �50000 for being imprisoned too long after raping a 13 year old girl. are we the soft touch of the world?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6219608.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6219608.stm
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gef. 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.
How could he be imprisoned for too long ? An entire lifetime wouldn't be long enough for this animal . I thought the law was there to benefit the victim (by the way HOW much will or did the victim receive ?) not the perpetrators of crime. I don't know and do not understand why it takes so long to get rid of illegal (or failed) asylum seekers .they should just be turned round and put on a plane to whereever they came and this includes the hole this one crawled out of . I DON'T WANT ANY BLEEDING-HEART REPLIES THANK YOU .
While I agree with you about sending Asylum Seekers back the problems are:
Some Asylum Seekers get on a plane with their passports and papers, but then destroy them on the plane.
When they land here they claim Asylum, but if we want to send them back we have no idea where they came from.
Also many use false names, and again you cannot send someone back to a country if you dont know who they are or which country they came from.
Which leaves us with a massive problem of the scum of the earth coming here and making us all look like idiots because we cannot get rid of them.
This problem started under the Tories but Labour have done very little to try to reduce or stop it.
Labours legacy of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers, and unwanted eastern europeans will be with us for years.
Hope Blair is happy about that.
Some Asylum Seekers get on a plane with their passports and papers, but then destroy them on the plane.
When they land here they claim Asylum, but if we want to send them back we have no idea where they came from.
Also many use false names, and again you cannot send someone back to a country if you dont know who they are or which country they came from.
Which leaves us with a massive problem of the scum of the earth coming here and making us all look like idiots because we cannot get rid of them.
This problem started under the Tories but Labour have done very little to try to reduce or stop it.
Labours legacy of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers, and unwanted eastern europeans will be with us for years.
Hope Blair is happy about that.
This genuinely concerns the hell out out of me as we are a small over-populated island and immigration is rampant: we simply have too many here already and thanks to allowing third world countries like Bulgaria and Romania in to the EU we are going to have hundreds of thousands more in the very near future.
Immigration has served this country well in the past but that doesn't mean we should just automatically continue to allow so so many of them in: we are reaching saturation point.
If somebody claims asylum and that asylum fails, they are back to where they came from the same day - what is so wrong with that? Illegals should be returned the same day as they are found. What is so wrong with that? They are illegals for christ's sake.
Now the bleeding heart hand wringers on this site will probably decry this as racist (couldn't give a tinker's cuss quite honestly) and that this country still needs immigration. Well fine, let's choose our immigrants carefully - doctors, scientists and others that can benefit our country - but the rest of them are just simply not needed or wanted.
People are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and they are kidding themselves that it is not a problem: Polly Toynbee, the grand dame of stupid left wing social thinking (hateful bloody woman) has even started to question it - and that, for me, speaks volumes.
I visited some old school friends in Margate recently (I managed to escape from Planet Thanet when I was 14) and it was like visiting a souk. You and I are paying for these people, we are paying for their benefits, their housing, their healthcare and christ knows what else and that, frankly, really really pi55es me right off.
As for the scumbag in the question, it just beggars belief. He's got to be booted out, hasn't he? And not one penny of OUR money should go his way. Defies all logic to give this animal anything other than the
Immigration has served this country well in the past but that doesn't mean we should just automatically continue to allow so so many of them in: we are reaching saturation point.
If somebody claims asylum and that asylum fails, they are back to where they came from the same day - what is so wrong with that? Illegals should be returned the same day as they are found. What is so wrong with that? They are illegals for christ's sake.
Now the bleeding heart hand wringers on this site will probably decry this as racist (couldn't give a tinker's cuss quite honestly) and that this country still needs immigration. Well fine, let's choose our immigrants carefully - doctors, scientists and others that can benefit our country - but the rest of them are just simply not needed or wanted.
People are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and they are kidding themselves that it is not a problem: Polly Toynbee, the grand dame of stupid left wing social thinking (hateful bloody woman) has even started to question it - and that, for me, speaks volumes.
I visited some old school friends in Margate recently (I managed to escape from Planet Thanet when I was 14) and it was like visiting a souk. You and I are paying for these people, we are paying for their benefits, their housing, their healthcare and christ knows what else and that, frankly, really really pi55es me right off.
As for the scumbag in the question, it just beggars belief. He's got to be booted out, hasn't he? And not one penny of OUR money should go his way. Defies all logic to give this animal anything other than the
Surely vehelpfulguy if they get on a plane with passport and papers, then destroy them before they land in this country.
Why can't they be sent back to the country the plane took off from? You or I would not be allowed to arrive in a country without the said documents.
Great answer from flip-flop, sorry it ran out of space.
Why can't they be sent back to the country the plane took off from? You or I would not be allowed to arrive in a country without the said documents.
Great answer from flip-flop, sorry it ran out of space.
-- answer removed --
The circomstances are highly emotive, but the law is not, it is dispassionate, and it works for everyone - which is why the stattue on top of the Old Bailey is blindfolded.
So, as a parent of three daughters, I would like to cut this man into one inch cubes with a rusty tin lid, but taking the dispasssionate view that the law must take, this man's rights were infringed, and the law was broken. The fault is with the system that allowed this set of circumstances to occur, not with the judge who did his job and applied the law fairly.
As I have said many times, laws are what make us civilised - we just to make sure that they can be applied as appropriately as possible.
So, as a parent of three daughters, I would like to cut this man into one inch cubes with a rusty tin lid, but taking the dispasssionate view that the law must take, this man's rights were infringed, and the law was broken. The fault is with the system that allowed this set of circumstances to occur, not with the judge who did his job and applied the law fairly.
As I have said many times, laws are what make us civilised - we just to make sure that they can be applied as appropriately as possible.
It's true that under New Labour the law has become more automated and allows practically no discretion. And I don't disagree that this is a major flaw. But we need to approach this rationally- the story is that he could get �50,000; he might get nothing. There could be no story whatsoever.
And why has this whole thing turned into a debate about immigration? It's about a legal issue and we should keep it to that. The fact that he's an immigrant doesn't make his crime any more or less disgusting.
And why has this whole thing turned into a debate about immigration? It's about a legal issue and we should keep it to that. The fact that he's an immigrant doesn't make his crime any more or less disgusting.
Thetwo subjects are very much intertwined: if it were a released mental patient that committed this act, then we would, quite rightly, be talking about the fact that he should never have been released. As it is we are talking about a failed asylum seeker who committed this act, and therefore it is fair comment to say he shouldn't have been here to commit the act in the first place.
He should never have gone to prison. Under Muslim law he is allowed to take the virginity of non-muslim girls at any age remember?
In the eyes of Allah he has committed no crime. Yet I am the bad one for bringing the facts forward.
Those who support our open door policy to these devils, support rape and abuse of our girls.
In the eyes of Allah he has committed no crime. Yet I am the bad one for bringing the facts forward.
Those who support our open door policy to these devils, support rape and abuse of our girls.
It is illegal NOT to be a muslim in Somalia. FACT.
http://www.hraicjk.org/rape_and_islam.html
So much news on the issue.
http://www.hraicjk.org/rape_and_islam.html
So much news on the issue.
Many thanks for all your answers. The point I was trying to make was not about the rape or the judge but about the British legal system. It needs to be changed. There are many genuine asylum seekers and usually they have the correct papers and are very co-operative. If they arrive having destroyed their papers, using false names etc then they should be locked up until they decide to go home.
It's about time that this namby pamby tree hugging blame the motorist for the demise of the world two faced hypocritical bunch of egotistical parasites that are in power started to listen to the voices of the common man in the street, and stop worrying about legal backlash and political correctness.
They could do no better than try the Australian principles viz.
Got a place? Got a job? Got way of supporting yourself?
No, then sod off. Simple isn't it?
They could do no better than try the Australian principles viz.
Got a place? Got a job? Got way of supporting yourself?
No, then sod off. Simple isn't it?
I heard all the bleating on Radio 4. 'They tried to send him back but he said he did not want to go'. 'They could not force him because he said he would be killed if he went home'. Why do we always accept this lame excuse? Why do they always cross over many borders to get to Britain. Surely they are only allowed to seek refuge in the first safe country.
1 to 20 of 20
