Mandatory deportation of foreign nationals......

[BS5_RED]

Straya does not mess about......

Wow. That's a tough sentence.

[Red-Robbo]

We used to send them our convicts now they ate sending us theirs 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

FFS what about her human rights?.

Where are the greedy gravy train lawyers when you need them?.

 

[Calculus]

1 hour ago, BS5_RED said:

Straya does not mess about......

Wow. That's a tough sentence.

Good for them - we should be doing the same with foreign criminals. 

[richwwtk]

3 minutes ago, Calculus said:

Good for them - we should be doing the same with foreign criminals. 

I thought we did?

[Calculus]

5 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

I thought we did?

No, it's very hit and miss. We manage to keep the vast majority of them - its just a lot easier the way that law and peoples' rights stand.

Deportation orders can get wrapped in long legal procrsses/appeals and then there's always EU rulings. (Fairly recently the EU ruled that deporting a parent infringed a child's human rights, either being deprived of a parent or having to leave the country).

[LondonBristolian]

The thing is she's been in Australia since she was two.  What sort of life is she going to build here and what impact is it going to have on her kids to have their mum sent to the other side of the world.  Red-Robbo is tongue-in-cheek but bang on.  This is basically transportation.  I can entirely see why Australia want rid but I can't say she's someone I'm wildly keen to welcome into the country and I'd question whether, if she's lived in Australia for so much of her life, she should really be seen as our problem.

 

I guess I think with any punishment for any criminal, I feel the question has to be "will this make it less likely the person will offend again in the future?" and I'm not sure if this will.  And you could say that Australia have every right to pass on the problem but the UK and Australia have significant immigration and emigration with each other.  If they dump all British-born criminals with us and we dump all Australian-born criminals with them, does that help anyone or just become an arms race to see who has the worst criminals to dump on the other?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

10 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

I thought we did?

Not if the greedy gravy train human rights lawyers get to them first and they always do.

Normally the UK only pick on people that have say fought for the UK like Ghurka's for instance.

But always happy to look at your evidence.

[Calculus]

52 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

We used to send them our convicts now they ate sending us theirs 

She's a UK national though, not an Australian, and therefore 'ours'. You'd think she must have had the chance to become an Australian citizen at some point and chosen to keep being a Brit. 

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Calculus said:

She's a UK national though, not an Australian, and therefore 'ours'. You'd think she must have had the chance to become an Australian citizen at some point and chosen to keep being a Brit. 

I wonder if Isis will have her?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I wonder if Isis will have her?

I wonder if she's an anti semite?.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

or I wonder if she wants to enlist for WWW3?, if we leave the EU or join Hitler in the EU project if we don't leave?.

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I wonder if she's an anti semite?.

Probably anti-Pommite,  which would be ironic.

Still if they are going to revive Cell Block H: The Play, in the West End, there'll be work for her.

[Calculus]

9 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I wonder if Isis will have her?

Maybe if she's a good oarswoman, although I think the Oxford second 8 are quite strong already. 

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Calculus said:

Maybe if she's a good oarswoman, although I think the Oxford second 8 are quite strong already. 

Always on the lookout for cox....   

[Calculus]

12 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Always on the lookout for cox....   

Whatever floats your boat Robbo....

[Esmond Million's Bung]

31 minutes ago, Calculus said:

Maybe if she's a good oarswoman, although I think the Oxford second 8 are quite strong already. 

**** me that's cruel, they are going to make her row all the way home FFS?, come on Aus have some humanity.

 

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Calculus said:

Whatever floats your boat Robbo....

Rows not floats.

[richwwtk]

19 hours ago, Calculus said:

No, it's very hit and miss. We manage to keep the vast majority of them - its just a lot easier the way that law and peoples' rights stand.

Deportation orders can get wrapped in long legal procrsses/appeals and then there's always EU rulings. (Fairly recently the EU ruled that deporting a parent infringed a child's human rights, either being deprived of a parent or having to leave the country).

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/does-the-human-rights-act-prevent-us-deporting-serious-criminals/

This would suggest that we don't keep the vast majority by a long stretch.

Somewhere around 5,000 foreign criminals are deported every year and, whilst the stats appear to be hard to pin down, around 14% of appeals to stay are allowed so maybe 7-800 don't get deported.

It's also absolutely nothing to do with the EU, it's the ECHR which is completely separate and would be applicable to us regardless of our EU membership.

I think the last paragraph of the above link is probably quite true as well....

" The smoke and mirrors continue to this day, as anyone will see who reads the National Audit Office and Chief Inspector reports on management of foreign criminals. It is not the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights we should be blaming but incompetent management of the Home Office. "

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 hours ago, richwwtk said:

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/does-the-human-rights-act-prevent-us-deporting-serious-criminals/

This would suggest that we don't keep the vast majority by a long stretch.

Somewhere around 5,000 foreign criminals are deported every year and, whilst the stats appear to be hard to pin down, around 14% of appeals to stay are allowed so maybe 7-800 don't get deported.

It's also absolutely nothing to do with the EU, it's the ECHR which is completely separate and would be applicable to us regardless of our EU membership.

I think the last paragraph of the above link is probably quite true as well....

" The smoke and mirrors continue to this day, as anyone will see who reads the National Audit Office and Chief Inspector reports on management of foreign criminals. It is not the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights we should be blaming but incompetent management of the Home Office. "

The figures are not official, because this government are only interested in keeping official figures on the NHS workers, teachers and the police and nothing that will expose their own shortcomings.

of course it's nothing to do with the EU, it's to do with the ease at which legal aid is handed out for such cases in the UK and the fact that lawyers deem it as easy money with little or no loss of reputation even if they lose, in fact just try and get legal aid for such cases anywhere else in the EU, absolutely no chance.

As for the highlighted section, that is a typical liberal response of course until it affects you and then blame anyone and everyone, it's simple pass a law that if somebody commits a serious enough crime whilst an illegal immigrant or awaiting legal status, deport them after they have served the paltry sentence that they actually get handed down to them, with absolutely no appeal, if they want to appeal then appeal from their native country and use the resources of that native country to fund it, what could be fairer and simpler?, why should we be lumbered with dangerous criminals especially those who have committed serious crimes whilst not being legally in the UK?, there is already enough dangerous criminals in the UK.

PS:- Before you quote the usual response of 'small numbers' etc. if you are either the victim or a later victim of serious crime committed by one of these people, that is one too many.

[richwwtk]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The figures are not official, because this government are only interested in keeping official figures on the NHS workers, teachers and the police and nothing that will expose their own shortcomings.

of course it's nothing to do with the EU, it's to do with the ease at which legal aid is handed out for such cases in the UK and the fact that lawyers deem it as easy money with little or no loss of reputation even if they lose, in fact just try and get legal aid for such cases anywhere else in the EU, absolutely no chance.

As for the highlighted section, that is a typical liberal response of course until it affects you and then blame anyone and everyone, it's simple pass a law that if somebody commits a serious enough crime whilst an illegal immigrant or awaiting legal status, deport them after they have served the paltry sentence that they actually get handed down to them, with absolutely no appeal, if they want to appeal then appeal from their native country and use the resources of that native country to fund it, what could be fairer and simpler?, why should we be lumbered with dangerous criminals especially those who have committed serious crimes whilst not being legally in the UK?, there is already enough dangerous criminals in the UK.

PS:- Before you quote the usual response of 'small numbers' etc. if you are either the victim or a later victim of serious crime committed by one of these people, that is one too many.

I agree with you entirely on the lawyers issue, it's unethical and there should be some way to punish them if they make 'frivolous' appeals, just because they can.

But at the same time, there has to be a system in place to ensure that people are treated reasonably and fairly. it's what sets us aside from the countries that these people have had to escape in the first place. They will have served their sentence and do not deserve to be sent back to a country where their life may be in danger. The only way I can see someone seeing that as acceptable would be if they support the death penalty in this country, and I, for one, do not.

The whole 'right to a family life' decision is not made with any sense of sympathy for the criminal, but more for the people that the deportation would directly affect and, if possible, the family are deported with them anyway.

Upwards of 80% of foreign criminals serving more than 12 months are deported immediately upon their release and, bandwagon lawyers aside, I don't see too much of an issue.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 hours ago, richwwtk said:

I agree with you entirely on the lawyers issue, it's unethical and there should be some way to punish them if they make 'frivolous' appeals, just because they can.

But at the same time, there has to be a system in place to ensure that people are treated reasonably and fairly. it's what sets us aside from the countries that these people have had to escape in the first place. They will have served their sentence and do not deserve to be sent back to a country where their life may be in danger. The only way I can see someone seeing that as acceptable would be if they support the death penalty in this country, and I, for one, do not.

The whole 'right to a family life' decision is not made with any sense of sympathy for the criminal, but more for the people that the deportation would directly affect and, if possible, the family are deported with them anyway.

Upwards of 80% of foreign criminals serving more than 12 months are deported immediately upon their release and, bandwagon lawyers aside, I don't see too much of an issue.

I wonder if their victims or future share your enthusiasm?.

There was one last month where a judge refused to send somebody back to an EU country, which sort of makes a mockery of part of the EU argument.

We will agree to disagree, for me if somebody commits a serious crime whilst their status is illegal or pending a decision then **** em, if they have been told at an early interview then they are aware of the consequences, why should we put UK citizens in further unnecessary danger?.

Only today Teresa May was forced to admit that the UK had no right to prevent 'child brides' entering the UK once they have married in their country of origin to join their abuser sorry husband, which means that people like Adam Johnson can be sent to prison for what he did and men who marry child brides in their country of origin cannot.