Jump to content

What do you do???????


Marym2
 Share

Recommended Posts

You cannot call the man a "Scumbag".

It's insulting, sexist and a load of other nasty offensive things.

[Www]

[:D]

Apart from which, this scumbag ([:D]) is simply one of any number who are running rings around sensible and long-established law, thanks to the sheer idiocy of the Human Rights Act

A large number of failed asylum seekers, who vanished into society and committed many serious crimes, which included rape, violent theft etc, similarly, found the Home Office's attempts to deport them were foiled by the same act.

The "Human Rights" of the moral law abiding majority of honest hardworking taxpayers (Who pay for these charades) are, of course of zero importance.

Still, one mustn't discuss such issues as its "Racist"; rather than pragmatic critique......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier today I wrote to my MP... for all the good it will do. I get fed up with the standard answer.. "well, it's the Act of human rights". What can we do?

If being signed up to the Act for human rights means pieces of sh*t like this  get away with this we should take whatever action we need to ensure they don't.

[:@][:@][:@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi.

Well just the thought of stiring up a few 'rights' people this was a end of feeling due to the pace of what is called 'progress'

I want more outrage of '''HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN' but due to the 'rights' act this will not show its true face.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he has family now in the UK who one assumes have not committed any criminal offence. Deporting him not only effects his human rights (he would not be able to see his family) but more importantly his families (and children's) human rights who are innocents. From what I read and really can't understand is that the guy got a driving ban (which was pointless as he was already banned) and a 4 month prison sentence, that's what I find totally outstanding. I would have thought 20 years or longer would be more realistic seeing as he ran from the scene not knowing if the girl was alive or not.

Personally I would think it quite acceptable for any country to expel any foreign person who commits a crime in their country and ensure people entering it know this then they have no excuse. Unfortunately once you have gone down the path the UK has there is little you can do. The human rights lawyers are not in it for their clients, like any lawyer, they are in it for the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then drove again when he came out !

Yesterday Blackburn magistrates heard Ibrahim had again been caught driving while banned, on July 11.

The court was told he got behind the wheel of a BMW because he had been to the area where Amy had died and was scared of reprisals.

Ibrahim admitted driving while disqualified and without insurance.

He was made subject to community supervision for two years, banned from driving for three years and made subject to a 7pm to 7am curfew for four months.

But Amy's father Paul Houston hit back: "If he is scared to walk the streets, why doesn't he take a taxi when he knows he is disqualified from driving?

"The courts are limp. They are powerless. People like Ibrahim make a mockery of our legal system."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was nobut a lad my bosom chum's elder brother - who was a total lunatic and very strange : he'd been totally indulged by his mother, who enjoyed private means -  was banned from driving.

And one day, he took the MG his doting mother had bought him out of the garage and he and a friend went out racing each other on the roads: didn't hit anyone; didn't cause an accident: didn't damage any property.

Made one singular error: sped round a corner on three wheels, tyres screeching when the Deputy Chief Constable was standing on the corner discussing some point of local importance with a senior member of the council.

Nicked: and rightly so.

Ran away and got a job working on ships. A year later when he stepped ashore at Southampton, two cops arrested him.

He received an 18 months sentence.

Mainly since he was not only driving dangerously, he was driving without road tax, a license and more critically, insurance: which then was indeed, a criminal offence. And rightly so too.

Fast forward: Paul Channon MP, who used to be my local MP, when Sec. of State for Transport, De-Criminalised driving without insurance.

Britain has gone backwards ever since.

In my book this apology for a man should be banged up for 25 years: and then deported when he comes out.

Family? Well, no doubt social services and the DWP et al will take good care of them: as they probably are, already.

What a bloody joke Britain has become!

[:@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]

He was jailed for four months

Only four months !!!!

[/quote]

This is the real point, nothing to do with deporting him my argument is the length of sentence. I see peoples comments in the press and all they talk about is not deporting him when what they should be asking is 'hang on a minute, only 4 months sentence'.

I remember years ago when they bought in a law about stealing mobile phones by force, it was on the Jimmy Young show. Some 'do gooder' was going on about the sentence be too much, 3 years maximum, "that's like the same as they give paedophiles" so your lumping them in together. Nobody seemed to have picked up that the normal time a paedophile spent in jail was 3 years. You can see where this was going to go and sure enough today a Vicar who downloaded porn pictures of kids and also took some himself got let off a custodial sentence. His 'fine' is to be on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years and the phot I saw of him outside the court he was actually smiling. Then we have the two boys and a girl beat a guy almost to death on a train and get 3 months suspended. Personally I think it's about time we handed over sentencing to the jurors because they are there to represent a cross section of the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think it's about time we handed over sentencing to the jurors because they are there to represent a cross section of the public.

 I once had the experience of being on the jury of a coroners court ( I didn't know they had jury's until then) After several hours of harrowing testimony regarding an employer not securing his fork lift trucks correctly and a young lad dying as a result, the jury would have happily hung the employer who we all felt was criminally negligent.. instead we were directed that there could only be one verdict which I think was either accidental death or death by misadventure, I forget which. What a waste of time ! Why did they need 12 of us to give up our time when we had no options ? I suppose it is just possible that we could have found those involved innocent, but as they did not deny blame in any way it was highly unlikely.....

 I think letting juror's give a sentence might lead to our jails being very full on a very long term basis !!!![:@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="pachapapa"]French Assize Court...jury + Presiding Judge.[/quote]

I've long dispared at the Uk legal system but having sat through a long and well publicised French Court process last year where a severely drunk driver who killed 4 people including two 10 year old children (who were in the boot of his Jeep Cherokee) in an over loaded car when some of them weren't wearing seat belts was given a 2 year suspended sentence, a €200 fine and a 7 year ban that applied only in France AND then avoid paying any of the 7 individual and corporate litigants in the civil case ANYTHING because he'd moved all his assets back to the UK the day before the trial, there is nothing too great in the French system either.  Tho the stupidity in this case wasn't anything to do with the Human Right Act, the judges and adjudicators agreed with the Procureur, he'd suffered enough.

As for the UK case, if it were my child he'd killed I'm afraid I don't think he'd have made any sort of trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case is truly appalling. It's time we started concentrating more on people's responsibilities and less on their rights. Am I the only one who thinks he fathered these children just so he could stay here ? Apparently he doesn't live with them.

Hoddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"] a severely drunk driver who killed 4 people including two 10 year old children  [/quote]

The common thread in both these cases seems to me to be the impunity and arrogance with which they treat the law, this alone demonstrates the need for tougher penalties I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I believe in innocent until proved guilty. Once found guilty I believe you loose your human, and any other, rights. Bit like burglars entering your property, if it is obvious they have violent intent then you can use whatever and apply whatever force you need to protect yourself without concern for any 'come back'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Personally I think it's about time we handed over sentencing to the jurors because they are there to represent a cross section of the public.

 I once had the experience of being on the jury of a coroners court ( I didn't know they had jury's until then) After several hours of harrowing testimony regarding an employer not securing his fork lift trucks correctly and a young lad dying as a result, the jury would have happily hung the employer who we all felt was criminally negligent.. instead we were directed that there could only be one verdict which I think was either accidental death or death by misadventure, I forget which. What a waste of time ! Why did they need 12 of us to give up our time when we had no options ? I suppose it is just possible that we could have found those involved innocent, but as they did not deny blame in any way it was highly unlikely.....

 I think letting juror's give a sentence might lead to our jails being very full on a very long term basis !!!![:@]

[/quote]

There is another answer. The Yorkshire Ripper has been put on a diet because he has 'ballooned' to 19 stone. A elderly woman was mugged, taken to hospital, waited 6 hours to be seen, no xrays were taken, then sent home. Turns out she had two broken hips and died. We also have elderly people dying of malnutrition in hospitals. Why not send criminals to hospital and the elderly to prison.

In your other posts, you are right, Think about the Great Train robbers, they stole money and a person died from injuries. They got 30 years, not so much for the death but for the money they took which proves we have been going down this particular slide for a long time. Perhaps my father was more right than I thought, he always said "Don't bop somebody on the nose, take the money out of their pocket. It will hurt more and they will remember longer". It does seem that if you steal money you go to prison longer than if you carried out any physical offence against a person.

I do blame the politicians (of all parties), they simply don't listen to the people who elect them nor understand their concerns, " a pox on them all" is what I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having sat on a few jurors courts and see three Jamaican drug importers and another rapist trial amongest a lot more. I am with anyone who thinks our justice is a joke. The first trial was directed by a judge who told me (being the foreperson) to find all not guilty due to a 'error' as we all found them guilty prior to going back to deliver our verdict The rapist was found guilty by all again but as he somehow got bail? he did not turn up in court and police with egg on their face said they were told he gone back to his home in India. Anyone who goes into a court in England feels a great sense of power in its interiors, now this has been so badly watered down that there is no justice here for law abiding people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many of us are thinking along the same lines as Mr Houston, the father of the girl who was killed. Like him and many others I have always been to work, paid my bills and have never been a liability on the state. I have never even had a speeding ticket. I have brought up two children who behave in the way that I do.

I seems to me that the government is not keeping its part of the bargain. They should be providing justice and efficient government services so maybe it's time that people like me wrote to the government and told them that were are resigning from the social contract and will in future behave in a more selfish manner. I'm not thinking of taking up burglary, but I may begin by parking where I want to and when they do me for it I shall draw attention to my resignation. If enough people did this then perhaps the government might actually start to take notice of the ordinary citizen.

Hoddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I follow and track this sort of thing, perhaps more closely than most, for various reasons, my own conclusion, quite some while back is that simply, Government have reneged on their commitment to their country, their electorate and, more critically, for me, those who pay for the whole charade.

It is a very easy option for us all, to say we'll do things: and then either not do them, or make a fist at doing them purely because we can't really be bothered, and invariably, we believe we can con the person who asked us to do whatever, that we have not only completed the task, but made a superlative job of it too!

In business it's simple: I wouldn't pay.

In society, I do not enjoy that option!

Since Willie Whitelaw became Thatcher's  first Home Secretary, the electorate have been promised rafts of solutions to crime and disorder: and each and every successor of that office has been the same: long on stirring rhetoric and such pithy epigrams as "Short Sharp Shocks": and as each year passes, disorder and crime become worse and worse.

It's no wonder criminals and smart guys like the Iraqi have zero respect or concern about breaking numerable laws: if they are caught, if, the sanctions are derisory.

If you are in the UK, I can only suggest you take a morning out and attend your local magistrate's court: stay in the court when the JPs and clerks retire between sessions: and then you will see precisely what "Respect" the young oiks have for law and the system.

It will, I believe, help to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...