|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 15, 2011 15:34:31 GMT -5
A killer and a rapist have used human rights laws to avoid being deported from Britain for their crimes. Both claimed that their “right to family life” trumped the decision of the Theresa May, the Home Secretary, that their crimes meant they should be removed from the country. The cases are the latest - and among the most serious - examples of how the courts have used human rights legislation’s contentious Article Eight, which says that everyone has the “right to a family life”, to overrule attempts to deport serious criminals and illegal immigrants. In the cases revealed today, both men should have automatically been deported from Britain because of the severity of their crimes.
Any immigrant who has been jailed for more than 12 months is supposed to simply be removed from the country at the end of their time in prison. But each man had appeals against deportation orders upheld when they claimed that they should not be separated from their families under human rights law.
Critics said the nature of the family life which they used to stay in the country raised questions over the judgments. Raja Mohammed Anwar Khan was driving after taking heroin when he killed another driver, leaving two children without a father. He was jailed for six and a half years, reduced to five on appeal, then appealed against the deportation order served at the end of his sentence. A judge ruled that the presence of his wife and children in Britain and his close relationship with his parents meant he should stay in Britain Khan left Britain to marry his wife in Pakistan and lived with her there before the couple came to the United Kingdom, while his father last week said he was estranged from his family.
In the second case Rohan Winfield raped a professional young woman after leaving his wife - by whom he had three children - for a mistress, but said the marriage was evidence of family life. As he let him stay in the country, Senior Immigration Judge Andrew Jordan said his decision would “at first glance appear to be wrong, if not perverse” but then went on to say that it was correct for the rapist’s rights to come ahead of the safety of society, the reason the Home Office wanted him removed.
The root of the problem is that the original human rights rules gave protection against persecution to citizens of Europe. Yet over the years, judges’ decisions have extended these rights to people who are simply in Europe. Women’s groups last night expressed incredulity that a rapist had used human rights laws to stay in Britain. Yvonne Traynor, of the National Sexual Violence Helpline, said: “Is this what our immigration laws are for, to give sanctuary to perpetrators of sexual violence and allow them the freedom to rape again?
“What happened to the rights for women to be safe in their own country?”
What happened? We were redesignated as second-class citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Oct 15, 2011 15:40:18 GMT -5
A killer and a rapist have used human rights laws to avoid being deported from Britain for their crimes. Both claimed that their “right to family life” trumped the decision of the Theresa May, the Home Secretary, that their crimes meant they should be removed from the country. The cases are the latest - and among the most serious - examples of how the courts have used human rights legislation’s contentious Article Eight, which says that everyone has the “right to a family life”, to overrule attempts to deport serious criminals and illegal immigrants. In the cases revealed today, both men should have automatically been deported from Britain because of the severity of their crimes. Any immigrant who has been jailed for more than 12 months is supposed to simply be removed from the country at the end of their time in prison. But each man had appeals against deportation orders upheld when they claimed that they should not be separated from their families under human rights law. Critics said the nature of the family life which they used to stay in the country raised questions over the judgments. Raja Mohammed Anwar Khan was driving after taking heroin when he killed another driver, leaving two children without a father. He was jailed for six and a half years, reduced to five on appeal, then appealed against the deportation order served at the end of his sentence. A judge ruled that the presence of his wife and children in Britain and his close relationship with his parents meant he should stay in Britain Khan left Britain to marry his wife in Pakistan and lived with her there before the couple came to the United Kingdom, while his father last week said he was estranged from his family. In the second case Rohan Winfield raped a professional young woman after leaving his wife - by whom he had three children - for a mistress, but said the marriage was evidence of family life. As he let him stay in the country, Senior Immigration Judge Andrew Jordan said his decision would “at first glance appear to be wrong, if not perverse” but then went on to say that it was correct for the rapist’s rights to come ahead of the safety of society, the reason the Home Office wanted him removed. The root of the problem is that the original human rights rules gave protection against persecution to citizens of Europe. Yet over the years, judges’ decisions have extended these rights to people who are simply in Europe. Women’s groups last night expressed incredulity that a rapist had used human rights laws to stay in Britain. Yvonne Traynor, of the National Sexual Violence Helpline, said: “Is this what our immigration laws are for, to give sanctuary to perpetrators of sexual violence and allow them the freedom to rape again? “What happened to the rights for women to be safe in their own country?” What happened? We were redesignated as second-class citizens. Marvellous, isn't it?  "Those whom the gods wish to destroy; they first make mad"  |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 15, 2011 15:43:41 GMT -5
A killer and a rapist have used human rights laws to avoid being deported from Britain for their crimes. Both claimed that their “right to family life” trumped the decision of the Theresa May, the Home Secretary, that their crimes meant they should be removed from the country. The cases are the latest - and among the most serious - examples of how the courts have used human rights legislation’s contentious Article Eight, which says that everyone has the “right to a family life”, to overrule attempts to deport serious criminals and illegal immigrants. In the cases revealed today, both men should have automatically been deported from Britain because of the severity of their crimes. Any immigrant who has been jailed for more than 12 months is supposed to simply be removed from the country at the end of their time in prison. But each man had appeals against deportation orders upheld when they claimed that they should not be separated from their families under human rights law. Critics said the nature of the family life which they used to stay in the country raised questions over the judgments. Raja Mohammed Anwar Khan was driving after taking heroin when he killed another driver, leaving two children without a father. He was jailed for six and a half years, reduced to five on appeal, then appealed against the deportation order served at the end of his sentence. A judge ruled that the presence of his wife and children in Britain and his close relationship with his parents meant he should stay in Britain Khan left Britain to marry his wife in Pakistan and lived with her there before the couple came to the United Kingdom, while his father last week said he was estranged from his family. In the second case Rohan Winfield raped a professional young woman after leaving his wife - by whom he had three children - for a mistress, but said the marriage was evidence of family life. As he let him stay in the country, Senior Immigration Judge Andrew Jordan said his decision would “at first glance appear to be wrong, if not perverse” but then went on to say that it was correct for the rapist’s rights to come ahead of the safety of society, the reason the Home Office wanted him removed. The root of the problem is that the original human rights rules gave protection against persecution to citizens of Europe. Yet over the years, judges’ decisions have extended these rights to people who are simply in Europe. Women’s groups last night expressed incredulity that a rapist had used human rights laws to stay in Britain. Yvonne Traynor, of the National Sexual Violence Helpline, said: “Is this what our immigration laws are for, to give sanctuary to perpetrators of sexual violence and allow them the freedom to rape again? “What happened to the rights for women to be safe in their own country?” What happened? We were redesignated as second-class citizens. Marvellous, isn't it? "Those whom the gods wish to destroy; they first make mad" Its enough to make a sane man weep |
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz 
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Oct 15, 2011 15:46:24 GMT -5
In the first place law gets interpreted by judges.
Some of them have less brain cells than the average mugger.
Different judges give different rulings.
For what it's worth I don't agree with either of these decisions by the courts (especially the rapist).
Human rights is supposed to be about protecting people from abuse.
The trouble is that civil rights are getting increasingly confused with human rights, both by the PC mob and by the far right.
What's happening is that idiotic decisions like this are strengthening the hands of people who don't believe that ANY of us have human rights and whose basic agenda is to enslave the people.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater ain't the answer but pulling out the plug and putting some clean water into the bath certainly is.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Oct 15, 2011 15:48:59 GMT -5
Marvellous, isn't it? "Those whom the gods wish to destroy; they first make mad" Its enough to make a sane man weep Or even a woman. |
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Oct 15, 2011 15:51:16 GMT -5
In the first place law gets interpreted by judges. Some of them have less brain cells than the average mugger. Different judges give different rulings. For what it's worth I don't agree with either of these decisions by the courts (especially the rapist). Human rights is supposed to be about protecting people from abuse. The trouble is that civil rights are getting increasingly confused with human rights, both by the PC mob and by the far right. What's happening is that idiotic decisions like this are strengthening the hands of people who don't believe that ANY of us have human rights and whose basic agenda is to enslave the people. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater ain't the answer but pulling out the plug and putting some clean water into the bath certainly is. All very true, Lin, but it seems to be getting worse, not better, and THAT is what sticks in the craw |
|
|
|
Post by chriswood on Oct 15, 2011 17:58:45 GMT -5
I would let the rapist stay on the provisio he signed an agreement to have his pockets picked.
Lets see if he had any balls then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2011 4:28:07 GMT -5
A killer and a rapist have used human rights laws to avoid being deported from Britain for their crimes. .... how the courts have used human rights legislation’s contentious Article Eight, which says that everyone has the “right to a family life”, to overrule attempts to deport serious criminals and illegal immigrants. And that's why the Human Criminal Rights Act must go; despite the protestations of the BHB (Bleeding Hearts Brigade). Prashna |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 16, 2011 4:34:18 GMT -5
A killer and a rapist have used human rights laws to avoid being deported from Britain for their crimes. .... how the courts have used human rights legislation’s contentious Article Eight, which says that everyone has the “right to a family life”, to overrule attempts to deport serious criminals and illegal immigrants. And that's why the Human Criminal Rights Act must go; despite the protestations of the BHB (Bleeding Hearts Brigade). Prashna "The root of the problem is that the original human rights rules gave protection against persecution to citizens of Europe. Yet over the years, judges’ decisions have extended these rights to people who are simply in Europe. " |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 16, 2011 10:20:59 GMT -5
And that's why the Human Criminal Rights Act must go; despite the protestations of the BHB (Bleeding Hearts Brigade). Prashna "The root of the problem is that the original human rights rules gave protection against persecution to citizens of Europe. Yet over the years, judges’ decisions have extended these rights to people who are simply in Europe. " exactly..a bill against the happenings of ww1-2...now used for every tomas..hussain and mao chi li |
|
|
|
Post by chriswood on Oct 17, 2011 7:37:49 GMT -5
Come the revolution brothers........................................
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 17, 2011 7:58:01 GMT -5
The longer the world goes without a war......
The more unrealisitc the bleeding hearts become...
Then another war comes along, with all it's horrors....
And the unrealistic dreamers are seen for what they are.....dangerously naive,
not to be taken seriously.
ALL illegal immigrants should be sent home....
ALL legal immigrants who significantly break the law of their host country....
should be sent home, AFTER their prison sentence is served.
This...is logical realism.
|
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Oct 17, 2011 8:11:47 GMT -5
The longer the world goes without a war...... The more unrealisitc the bleeding hearts become... Then another war comes along, with all it's horrors.... And the unrealistic dreamers are seen for what they are.....dangerously naive, not to be taken seriously. ALL illegal immigrants should be sent home.... ALL legal immigrants who significantly break the law of their host country.... should be sent home, AFTER their prison sentence is served. This...is logical realism. Well said, that man  |
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 17, 2011 8:26:46 GMT -5
The longer the world goes without a war...... The more unrealisitc the bleeding hearts become... Then another war comes along, with all it's horrors.... And the unrealistic dreamers are seen for what they are.....dangerously naive, not to be taken seriously. ALL illegal immigrants should be sent home.... ALL legal immigrants who significantly break the law of their host country.... should be sent home, AFTER their prison sentence is served. This...is logical realism. Well said, that man Thank you Mark.... Went to Ft. Worth yesterday...met a Scott-dude who was in America competing in single action (cowboy) shooting....what an accent! It's good to see that not all Europeans are fearfull of guns.... |
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Oct 17, 2011 8:36:32 GMT -5
Well said, that man Thank you Mark.... Went to Ft. Worth yesterday...met a Scott-dude who was in America competing in single action (cowboy) shooting....what an accent! It's good to see that not all Europeans are fearfull of guns.... I suppose that it depends which end you're looking at...  But you're right - I'm not fearful of them being used appropriately. Guns don't kill people - people kill people; the firearm is merely a tool... |
|
Alpha 
