Human Rights

[Guest MattP]

For someone who claims to have travelled you are amazingly insular and ignorant at times.

Think I've told you before South America is the only continent I've not been on yet so I'd never make a judgement on its people yet, you have to admit the crime rate and sentencing that is often dished out there would worry and shock the vast majority of developed nations.

[BlueSi13]

So he can carry on fiddling his way around wherever they are from, Sudan in this case which as has been documented above is rife with child abuse. To put it another way, say it was a Cambodian refugee over here caught kiddy fiddling do you really think the best thing to do would be to send them back to Cambodia? Kiddy fiddler capital of the world.

And what if she was your daughter?

There is no defending the indefensible im afraid. We allowed this man into our country to fulfil his dream of a better life. He blew it by dishonouring a little girl. A truly despicable act both in a cultural sense and by the laws of this country. By now allowing this dangerous man to walk free and in our country only fuels the anger and resentment people have towards immigrants, and thus fuels the strengthening of the far right. Things have to change before its too late.

[Daggers]

Think I've told you before South America is the only continent I've not been on yet so I'd never make a judgement on its people yet, you have to admit the crime rate and sentencing that is often dished out there would worry and shock the vast majority of developed nations.

Undeveloped nations? Seriously? Venezuela is in the top 10 for global oil reserves. Colombia? Do some research man. Again, you are making statements from some kind of daft imperialist standpoint.

I have to admit nothing of the sort as I have no idea what you are going on about. If you wish to mention specifics...

[Captain...]

This is definitely the most nauseating and disgusting piece of liberal tosh I have ever read on this forum, but allow me to respond to your horrific bullshit with a simple question: if there is still a real and known danger that they are going to rape kids, why are you releasing them in the first place?

Well exactly this man was released and allowed to stay because he was deemed no threat. That is possibly because he knows that he is being watched, that it is unacceptable in this country and that if he does it again he will be deported.

Now you deport him back to a country where he is not being watched, where child abuse is commonplace and where there is very little threat of being caught and the punishment is not as severe. Now in which of these circumstances do you think he is most likely to offend again?

[acooling08]

Well exactly this man was released and allowed to stay because he was deemed no threat. That is possibly because he knows that he is being watched, that it is unacceptable in this country and that if he does it again he will be deported.

Now you deport him back to a country where he is not being watched, where child abuse is commonplace and where there is very little threat of being caught and the punishment is not as severe. Now in which of these circumstances do you think he is most likely to offend again?

Why not just chemically castrate him then deport him?

Then he's no longer a threat to children and won't get himself in trouble.

[BlueSi13]

Well exactly this man was released and allowed to stay because he was deemed no threat. That is possibly because he knows that he is being watched, that it is unacceptable in this country and that if he does it again he will be deported.

Now you deport him back to a country where he is not being watched, where child abuse is commonplace and where there is very little threat of being caught and the punishment is not as severe. Now in which of these circumstances do you think he is most likely to offend again?

Now im pretty sure one particular judge labelled him as a specific threat to children, why on earth should we take the risk of him doing it AGAIN? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Also, who exactly is going to be "watching" him? Nobody, not 24/7 thats for damned sure.

I understand and respect your logic, but why on earth should we behave like a prison watching over scumbags from all over the globe and putting innocent people at severe risk because their own countries are simply not up to the task? Like I hinted at earlier, I have no doubt your views will completely change if one of your family members were to suffer at the hands of men like this one. However I pray that that will never be the case.

[Captain...]

Why not just chemically castrate him then deport him?

Then he's no longer a threat to children and won't get himself in trouble.

Possibly the most compassionate thing you've ever said on here.

Unfortunately I don't think you are going to like the answer to the question though...

Wait for it...

Because it's in violation of his human rights.

I think we have gone full circle.

[Captain...]

Now im pretty sure one particular judge labelled him as a specific threat to children, why on earth should we take the risk of him doing it AGAIN? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Also, who exactly is going to be "watching" him? Nobody, not 24/7 thats for damned sure.

I understand and respect your logic, but why on earth should we behave like a prison watching over scumbags from all over the globe and putting innocent people at severe risk because their own countries are simply not up to the task? Like I hinted at earlier, I have no doubt your views will completely change if one of your family members were to suffer at the hands of men like this one. However I pray that that will never be the case.

It's ok I don't think it is ever going to happen to my kids, they are fvcking ugly.

Sorry that was in very bad taste, and they are actually really sexy kids.

No, but really, one judge said that he may still pose some risk when he left jail, but the judge in the deportation case said that he posed no risk to the general public and that is why he was not deported. But this was at the bottom of quite a long article so I don't blame you for not getting that far.

[Rincewind]

I'm beginning to think there are things as time machines and some posters on here have traveled from the Middle ages or even further back from prehostoric man.

[BlueSi13]

It's ok I don't think it is ever going to happen to my kids, they are fvcking ugly.

Sorry that was in very bad taste, and they are actually really sexy kids.

No, but really, his probation officer said that he may still pose some risk when he left jail, but the judge in the deportation case said that he posed no risk to the general public and that is why he was not deported. But this was at the bottom of quite a long article so I don't blame you for not getting that far.

The judge also said Ali could not be deported because he was not a danger to the public, and therefore could not have his refugee status taken away from him.

He said that even though his probation officers found he ‘presented some risk to young people’, Ali had ‘faced up to his responsibilities and indicated an intention to behave himself in the future’.

Ok so according to the guys probation officers, i.e those that see him and know him the most, he still remains a threat to children. The judge that sentenced him called him a danger to young girls, and the border agency also make it clear that he neither needs or deserves to remain in this country. But this particular judge believes him when he puts on the puppy eyes, says he's sorry and promises to be a good boy in the future.

Let me remind you that he was arrested and imprisoned for raping a 12 year old girl. You then stated that she may have consented (wildly unlikely)...but you forget to take into account that this guy gets his kicks from having sex with children....is this the type of man you want walking our streets? A man whom we could easily return to his own country? We don't owe him a damned thing. He had his chance at a better life, instead he ruined the life of a little girl.

[Guest MattP]

It's quite frightening a judge can actually make that decision. Shows just how out of touch they all are.

[Guest MattP]

Undeveloped nations? Seriously? Venezuela is in the top 10 for global oil reserves. Colombia? Do some research man. Again, you are making statements from some kind of daft imperialist standpoint.

Good to hear, I hope Mr Chavez distributes his countries wealth properly, hopefully when I visit it will look like a country with those reserves available.

[Captain...]

The judge also said Ali could not be deported because he was not a danger to the public, and therefore could not have his refugee status taken away from him.

He said that even though his probation officers found he ‘presented some risk to young people’, Ali had ‘faced up to his responsibilities and indicated an intention to behave himself in the future’.

Ok so according to the guys probation officers, i.e those that see him and know him the most, he still remains a threat to children. The judge that sentenced him called him a danger to young girls, and the border agency also make it clear that he neither needs or deserves to remain in this country. But this particular judge believes him when he puts on the puppy eyes, says he's sorry and promises to be a good boy in the future.

Let me remind you that he was arrested and imprisoned for raping a 12 year old girl. You then stated that she may have consented (wildly unlikely)...but you forget to take into account that this guy gets his kicks from having sex with children....is this the type of man you want walking our streets? A man whom we could easily return to his own country? We don't owe him a damned thing. He had his chance at a better life, instead he ruined the life of a little girl.

So it is ok for him to walk the streets of Sudan?

Now a different view point is the judge in the higher court, with more experience and a better judge, made the decision that he was safe to walk the streets of this country.

Also misuse of 'whom' makes all arguments invalid.

[Captain...]

It's quite frightening a judge can actually make that decision. Shows just how out of touch they all are.

Who should make that decision then? Should we have a vote in the daily mail?

Judges are there to make these decisions, people's lives are at risk if he gets it wrong. Did he get this decision right? Don't know, hope so. Is he one of the judges that presides over one of the highest courts in the land, did he have all of the relevant information to hand, did he make the decision that he believed to be correct? Yes.

Do you? No.

So what qualifies you to question his decision?

[21st Century Fox]

Good to hear, I hope Mr Chavez distributes his countries wealth properly, hopefully when I visit it will look like a country with those reserves available.

Petrol's $0.18 a gallon, take a few jerry cans with you.

[Guest MattP]

Who should make that decision then? Should we have a vote in the daily mail?

Judges are there to make these decisions, people's lives are at risk if he gets it wrong. Did he get this decision right? Don't know, hope so. Is he one of the judges that presides over one of the highest courts in the land, did he have all of the relevant information to hand, did he make the decision that he believed to be correct? Yes.

Do you? No.

So what qualifies you to question his decision?

I just find it frightening one man can make that decision that can affect so much of society, surely this should be in the hands of a group of mental health workers if anything. What gives him the right to against these experts who provide the advice?

Petrol's $0.18 a gallon, take a few jerry cans with you.

If I'm bringing stuff back from South America it's gonna be stronger than petrol.

[BlueSi13]

So it is ok for him to walk the streets of Sudan?

Now a different view point is the judge in the higher court, with more experience and a better judge, made the decision that he was safe to walk the streets of this country.

Also misuse of 'whom' makes all arguments invalid.

That is Sudan's problem. Not ours. The man is a Sudan national who was given the opportunity to live a better life here, he then completely blew it by committing a frankly evil act. Also don't believe the hogwash about him not being a threat, a man who enjoys having sex/raping children will NEVER change, they can't. The article makes it quite clear that almost everybody else who dealt with this man deemed him a threat, but one man whose personal views or sympathies we don't know, didn't. This judge has not dealt with the man on a regular basis, he has chosen to ignore the advice of those that have, this is unacceptable.

I fear though that you've dug yourself into a hole and your being a little stubborn. You can't honestly feel as if this man deserves to remain in our country and believe that this judge made a right decision for the good of the country and its people. This decision was based upon one mans opinion, and everybody makes mistakes, it shouldn't be taken as gospel as you are doing. However, IF the judge is right, and he isn't a threat, why not send him back to Sudan, surely he won't be a threat there either?

Like i said previously, you simply cannot make a judgement that will put our own people at risk because Sudan isn't up to it. Do you not understand that such decisions fuel the rise of the far right? I have lived and worked in another country and i knew the rules. If i broke as seriously as this guy has, i would have expected to have been removed. Simple.

[Captain...]

That is Sudan's problem. Not ours. The man is a Sudan national who was given the opportunity to live a better life here, he then completely blew it by committing a frankly evil act. Also don't believe the hogwash about him not being a threat, a man who enjoys having sex/raping children will NEVER change, they can't. The article makes it quite clear that almost everybody else who dealt with this man deemed him a threat, but one man whose personal views or sympathies we don't know, didn't. This judge has not dealt with the man on a regular basis, he has chosen to ignore the advice of those that have, this is unacceptable.

I fear though that you've dug yourself into a hole and your being a little stubborn. You can't honestly feel as if this man deserves to remain in our country and believe that this judge made a right decision for the good of the country and its people. This decision was based upon one mans opinion, and everybody makes mistakes, it shouldn't be taken as gospel as you are doing. However, IF the judge is right, and he isn't a threat, why not send him back to Sudan, surely he won't be a threat there either?

Like i said previously, you simply cannot make a judgement that will put our own people at risk because Sudan isn't up to it. Do you not understand that such decisions fuel the rise of the far right? I have lived and worked in another country and i knew the rules. If i broke as seriously as this guy has, i would have expected to have been removed. Simple.

The article is one sided scare mongering, it does not say that everyone else thinks he is a danger, it focuses on one man saying he may pose some threat, and then admits at the end the higher judge with higher authority says he poses no threat.

You do understand what a refugee is, you do understand why he was in this country in the first place? If you don't then read the article again, it explains why sending him back to the Sudan is a violation of his human rights.

Finally decisions like this do not lead to a rise in support for the far right, it is irresponsible, biased, scaremongering articles like this that lead to a rise in support for the far right.

[davieG]

So it's a choice between his human rights in that he may be in danger if he goes back and the human rights of an unknown girl or girls in this country who may end up being raped.

Neither are certainties but the decision is his potential risk is more worthy of protecting than the risk to unknown young girls. Hmm!

The problem with the Human Rights act is it doesn't seem to consider or put any weight to the potential risk and human rights of those that could become victims of any decision by deciding in favour of the applicant (not sure if that's how you describe these people)

[Captain...]

So it's a choice between his human rights in that he may be in danger if he goes back and the human rights of an unknown girl or girls in this country who may end up being raped.

Neither are certainties but the decision is his potential risk is more worthy of protecting than the risk to unknown young girls. Hmm!

The problem with the Human Rights act is it doesn't seem to consider or put any weight to the potential risk and human rights of those that could become victims of any decision by deciding in favour of the applicant (not sure if that's how you describe these people)

That would be the case if he was considered a risk, but the judge ruled he wasn't considered a risk, so unless you have more information to hand than the judge, on what basis are you questioning his decision?

There is also the risk to girls in the country he is deported to, which should be taken into account and not just be worried about English kids, the point I am making is that kicking a "peado" out of England does not stop him being a "peado", does not solve the problem, it just makes it someone else's problem, but the prevailing attitude seems to be that it is ok as long as it is not an English child.

Now if you believe that all peadophile rapists are incurable monsters, then you might as well get the pitchforks out hunt him down and burn him, if you believe that some or all can be helped, especially those from a very different cultural background where this may be acceptable, and they may not understand why it is wrong (lets be honest about this, there is no age of consent in the animal world, there is no concept of rape in the animal world, we are just jumped up animals, it is only our culture and education that has led us to realise right from wrong) these can be educated, helped and that is more likely to happen in the UK than back in the lands where they got these fvcked up ideas from, or do you disagree?

Going back, I have read the article again, and I would just like to highlight this bit:

When he was sentenced, another judge described him as ‘a potential danger to young girls’ and put him on the Sex Offenders’ Register for the rest of his life.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz20rvmGdTb

So when sentenced he was described as a potential danger, after 3 years of imprisonment, punishment and rehabilitation, he was ruled to not be a danger, why is that so hard for people to accept? Surely this shows the prison system works.

This should be paraded as a triumph, we cured a peado,

Read the article again, strip out all the rhetoric, bias and spin, remove your emotions and just concentrate on the facts.

[MooseBreath]

He's no longer a threat? Great, send him home.

He's still a threat? Great, keep him in prison.

[Captain...]

He's no longer a threat? Great, send him home.

He's still a threat? Great, keep him in prison.

You can't send him home, he is a refugee, he will get tortured and killed, how do you not get this?

Do you think he came here because he was a peadophile? Do you think he came here to be cured? Did you even read the article?

[MooseBreath]

You can't send him home, he is a refugee, he will get tortured and killed, how do you not get this?

Do you think he came here because he was a peadophile? Do you think he came here to be cured? Did you even read the article?

You are changing your tune now. Before we couldn't send him home because in Sudan it's apparently well easy to shag kids and get away with it. Now you're saying we can't because he's a refugee. I don't care either way. He should be deported. It's not even a talking point.

An no, I didn't read the article. What do you think I am some kind of bookworm

[Captain...]

You are changing your tune now. Before we couldn't send him home because in Sudan it's apparently well easy to shag kids and get away with it. Now you're saying we can't because he's a refugee. I don't care either way. He should be deported. It's not even a talking point.

An no, I didn't read the article. What do you think I am some kind of bookworm

If you read carefully I did already explain my point:

the point I am making is that kicking a "peado" out of England does not stop him being a "peado", does not solve the problem, it just makes it someone else's problem, but the prevailing attitude seems to be that it is ok as long as it is not an English child.

I didn't change my tune I am just capable of playing two complementary tunes simultaneously and in perfect harmony, I'm like a one man band.

And no I don't I think you are a bookworm, I think you are a lost soul in need of a hug.

[FoxyPV]

Shrapnel - Whilst your point is valid and quite an admirable one at that, I tend to agree with deportation for non national criminals who have comitted serious offences in the UK and are not UK citizens.