No limits to immigration

[TomTomKent]

The sub judice issue is important - possible trials must not be prejudiced by external comment.

As for your last question, I've already admitted that there is nothing I can do to help you.

Then why ask my opinion on a case, based on limited information, if you will not even state what is meant to make that case exceptional?

Oh and a statement why any of the potential defendants should, or should not, be treated differently as a UK Passport holder to a failed assylum seeker or any other immigrant is not likely to prejudice the case: it offeres no insight into the case or has the potential to prejudice any future decision, only your opinion of the process.

If you are genuinely concerned, then I will rephrase the question: What possible difference would it have made if the defendant in the case you posted had a British passport? Why expect a comment on that case, because he was a failed assylum seeker?

[Robert]

I think you are becoming a little confused. The case I posted was not sub judice - the man was charged, convicted and jailed.

The cases you posted involved one arrest (not sub judice), one charge (sub judice), and one conviction (not sub judice). I think Bob will correct me if I am wrong, but if someone is charged with an offence then it is expected that no comments on the case will be made. You wrote "All were tragic cases in which somebody died due to dangerous driving." I know this is unlikely to be read by anyone to do with the trial, but still, it is assuming that there was dangerous driving. It's only really safe to say this kind of thing when someone has actually been convicted - not when they've only been charged or arrested.

[TomTomKent]

I think you are becoming a little confused. The case I posted was not sub judice - the man was charged, convicted and jailed.

The cases you posted involved one arrest (not sub judice), one charge (sub judice), and one conviction (not sub judice). I think Bob will correct me if I am wrong, but if someone is charged with an offence then it is expected that no comments on the case will be made. You wrote "All were tragic cases in which somebody died due to dangerous driving." I know this is unlikely to be read by anyone to do with the trial, but still, it is assuming that there was dangerous driving. It's only really safe to say this kind of thing when someone has actually been convicted - not when they've only been charged or arrested.

Then only use one example. And explain why THAT should be handled differently because of the nationality of the driver. Or answer the questions as i restated them to avoid your concerns.

Seriously, I have already answered your concerns and restated the question to avoid them. Feel free to stop stalling and explain why the case you posted would need to be handled any differently based on the nationality of the driver, and why that nationality justifies the guilty party forgoing human rights you would not expect a British citizen to forgoe.

Either that, or explain what the point of posting the story and asking my opinion was.

[Robert]

The point of posting the story was to ascertain, once and for all, your mindset. Having ascertained it, I can only repeat what I said before : there is nothing I can do to help you.

[TomTomKent]

The point of posting the story was to ascertain, once and for all, your mindset. Having ascertained it, I can only repeat what I said before : there is nothing I can do to help you.

Yes there is. You can explain why you would possibly expect a case to be handled differently based on the nationality of the defendant, or why foreign nationals should be expected to forgoe human rights that british citizens are not expected to forgoe. (You asked my opinion, now feel free to give YOUR opinion, waht about that case exactly is it YOU think is worthy of comment?)

Or you could explain why you think anybody who happens to have differing political views to your own may need "help". Or perhaps it isn't me who is getting confused... After all you have still missed the bit where I rephrased the question to avoid your concerns. Again.

[RonIpstone]

In the three cases it is not clear whether the offender or alleged offender is an immigrant or asylum seeker or native, so it really does not take us much further.

It seems sensible for governments of every country to restrict immigration in one way or another for the good of the established population. I've always wanted to live and work in Burkina Faso but I cannot just roll up and start living and working there, I would need a visa yet the natives there do not need a visa.

[TomTomKent]

In the three cases it is not clear whether the offender or alleged offender is an immigrant or asylum seeker or native, so it really does not take us much further.

It seems sensible for governments of every country to restrict immigration in one way or another for the good of the established population. I've always wanted to live and work in Burkina Faso but I cannot just roll up and start living and working there, I would need a visa yet the natives there do not need a visa.

All three cases are clearly natives, but again, the question has been rephrased simply: What difference would it make if they were or were not british citizens, and why should non british citizens be expected to forgoe human rights a british citizen is not expected to give up?

There have been lots of posts telling me they should, and how horrible it is when foreign people commit crimes, but no reason has been given WHY it is any worse than the same crime being commited by a british citizen, or why the rights of a non british citizen should count for less.

[RonIpstone]

The third, where we have had a determination of guilt, seems to involve a native miscreant. How do you know whether the alleged offenders in the other two are natives or immigrants?

I don't think that a crime committed by an emigrant is any worse than one committed by a native. But the host country should have power to deport immigrant malefactors, a sanction which obviously cannot be employed against its own citizens. This applies to foreigners in the UK AND to Brits in other countries. I have no sympathy with my fellow countrymen who fall foul of foreign laws, when in Rome do as Rome does etc.

[TomTomKent]

The third, where we have had a determination of guilt, seems to involve a native miscreant. How do you know whether the alleged offenders in the other two are natives or immigrants?

I don't think that a crime committed by an emigrant is any worse than one committed by a native. But the host country should have power to deport immigrant malefactors, a sanction which obviously cannot be employed against its own citizens. This applies to foreigners in the UK AND to Brits in other countries. I have no sympathy with my fellow countrymen who fall foul of foreign laws, when in Rome do as Rome does etc.

I only selected one report from each of the crimes, but other reports go into more details.

The suspect in the first is described variously as being from the Great Dummow area, not from abroad. And the other also names the origins of the suspect in other reports, but I do not have them to hand. As I was happy to reword the question to avoid such conserns I see no issue, but frankly I see no issue with discussing cases that have already been reported on and placed in the public domain anyway.

I agree that crimes are no worse or better if committed by local citizens or those from abroad, and will go further: Despite needing "help" (apparently) I see no reason to expect others to have their human rights waived because of where they happen to be born. They are "human" rights, not "british" rights.

And I still see no reason to judge the majority of immigrents who do not run people over by the few who do. Unless we also judge British citizens by those who also drive dangerously.

[Bob Hinton]

This is an uphill task............

Anyone found to have committed a serious crime from another jurisdiction would not be granted a visa to this country.

Yes we know that Derrick which is why these people come here as illegal immigrants. However once discovered as illegal immigrants they should deported immediately. We are not doing that, we are quite happily letting them remain in this country committing more crimes - in the case outlined in my post - that of murder.

Germany had the right idea,once he had committed a crime out he went.

[TomTomKent]

Germany had the right idea,once he had committed a crime out he went.

After having made his case, and gone through the appeals process.

Which is what he was doing in the UK.

Or are you suggesting that some people are not worthy of recieving the same level of dilligence from the courts as others?

[Bob Hinton]

Not again!

Peter Tobin killed at least three, and is suspected of the Bible John murders as well. A thoroughly fine Englishman who considered murder his work. Peter Sutcliffe. Fred West. All "indiginous" inhabitents of this isle.

I assume based on their conduct we must follow the model Bob is advocating and no longer allow white british people in the UK.

Unless of course what Bob is doing is not statistically significant, or a suitable basis on which to base immigration policy. The laws of big number suggest there will be some undesirable elements in any group of people. The good far outweighs the bad,and frankly the best argument Bob can us his "evidence" for is better enforcement of current controls, and not against the right for the majority to contribute peacefully to our economy.

Or that his bigotry is based on a few cases that pale in comparrison to the evils our ownkind are capable of.

Poor little Tom Tom, like a sneaky little swot trying to ingratiate himself with the headmaster we hear once again his whiny little voice and see the raised hand.

“Please sir we’ve got nasty men in this country too”.

And once again the kindly, paternal, respected and knowledgeable man bends down to pat his dandruffy head. (then quickly wipes his palm in his gown)

“Yes all the boys and girls know that Tom Tom, which is why we don’t really need any more capiche? Now you run along and see matron over that nasty boil you have on your face – oh it’s your nose? Well here’s a handkerchief. Now because you are so stupid as to keep repeating the same old drivel, I want you to go away and write out 1000 times –in block capitals since you cannot handle cursive script- the following:

WE HAVE ENOUGH CRIMINALS IN THIS COUNTRY WE DON’T NEED TO IMPORT ANY MORE

Now after you have done that perhaps the message will fight its way through that disgusting , spongy, putrid mass you call a brain and actually reside in your memory.”

So little Tom Tom pencil and paper ready and off we go………

WE HAVE ENOUGH CRIMINALS…………………………………

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

After having made his case, and gone through the appeals process.

Which is what he was doing in the UK.

Or are you suggesting that some people are not worthy of recieving the same level of dilligence from the courts as others?

There should be no right of appeal. He was an illegal immigrant and a violent, convicted criminal and should have been deported the second he was discovered. Instead we allowed him to stay in this country and let him murder someone.

Actually I am in error, apparently he was supposed to stay in Germany but sneaked back into Britain where he committed a whole string of violent attacks culminating in a brutal murder.

I've got a good idea. Why don't we ask the victims whether they support my idea of taking out the trash immediately or your preferred option which is letting him stay in Britain and attack more people?

I wonder what you would say if it was one of your family that was a victim of this brutal thug?

[Bob Hinton]

Stop Press!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yesterday I spent the day with a chap I joined up with. He left the Navy before me and joined the police force, ending up in the Fraud Squad. After retiring from the police he joined the Border Control Agency, from which ill health has just forced him to retire.

What he has been telling me has blown the lid off the whole Immigration issue. Here is a man with over 35’s years experience in law enforcement telling us the down and dirty truth.

Of course I don’t expect the LWL to accept what he has said as the truth, no doubt the will accuse him of reading the wrong paper or something.

If I get the time I will post the information later today.

[TomTomKent]

There should be no right of appeal. He was an illegal immigrant and a violent, convicted criminal and should have been deported the second he was discovered. Instead we allowed him to stay in this country and let him murder someone.

Actually I am in error, apparently he was supposed to stay in Germany but sneaked back into Britain where he committed a whole string of violent attacks culminating in a brutal murder.

I've got a good idea. Why don't we ask the victims whether they support my idea of taking out the trash immediately or your preferred option which is letting him stay in Britain and attack more people?

I wonder what you would say if it was one of your family that was a victim of this brutal thug?

There should be no right of appeal? So again, why should foreigners not recieve that right? Or do we simply repeal it for all? Are you suggesting we give up a major principle of the justice system, or that people who don't happen to be born here don't deserve the same rights (and you still haven't given a single reason why, leaving us to assume petty bigotry).

I wonder what you would say were you ever in prison, for something you may not have done. I am pretty sure you would hold the right rather dear then. But what is that? It wont happen to you? Tsk tsk, the family of the victim "knew" it was you. Let's ask them...