British justice at its best.........

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-16 6:23 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-16 5:23 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-16 4:47 PM   No Dave, I wouldn't particularly want any ex-con living next door, as you clearly wouldn't. ,

Seems a somewhat broad statement to me.  'Any'?  What ever happened to the (apparently) liberal ideals that have emanated from your posts?  They appear to have melted away in the face of having someone who has 'paid the price', done the crime/done the time and you don't want them working to reintegrate into society (with all the inherent prejudices) from next door to you.  Hardly a compassionate stand to take.

You seem to have omitted to note my next paragraph, Roger. I'll repeat it for you: "But, having said that, I do want a legal system that is transparent, fair, and even handed, and which sentences offenders sensibly and rationally, and releases them on completion of their sentence. In short justice being done, and being seen to be done."The unavoidable upshot of that is that the ex-con has to live somewhere, so may end up next door. Not a situation I would want (assuming I would ever know, which is unlikely), but one I have to (uneasily) accept is possible, and could happen. To be honest, I'd be happier if said ex-con had first reformed and completed his reintegration into society. But then, the figures for recidivism don't encourage great confidence on that score, do they? If I'm brutally honest, I'd be far happier if he moved in next door to you! :-D But then, we don't get to choose our neighbours, do we?

The omission was merely because it has no bearing on a lack of compassionate attitude towards those who have 'paid the price'.

To me your reply appears to be a case of either/or misrepresentation, distortion, out of context or irrelevance  Brian.

What you want from a legal system with regard to 'who lives next door' has no bearing whatsoever on your comment which I was addressing.  

Irrespective of your 'next' paragraph reference, which has no bearing on who lives where, you come across as quite unsympathetic in attitude towards those who have 'paid the price'.  Pay the price, try to reintegrate into society served by 'your' desired legal system but don't live next to me!! Now that is a real 100% NIMBY attitude and something I considered you were above.  Just shows how wrong one can be.

[Guest pelmetman]

So its a NO then.....just as I surmised none of our forums plastic do gooders want this violent thug as a neighbour >:-) .........

 

No doubt they'll carry on spouting their hypocritical rhetoric *-) .......

 

But my work here is done :D ......

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-11-16 8:27 PM.......................Irrespective of your 'next' paragraph reference, which has no bearing on who lives where, you come across as quite unsympathetic in attitude towards those who have 'paid the price'.  Pay the price, try to reintegrate into society served by 'your' desired legal system but don't live next to me!! Now that is a real 100% NIMBY attitude and something I considered you were above.  Just shows how wrong one can be.

You are right, I remain distinctly uneasy about those who have been found guilty of committing crimes, been to prison, and are then released. To me, that unease is sensible. I gather Dave shares that view, though I gather Antony does not.

 

Paying the price, as you put it, does not inspire me that the perpetrator emerges from prison as a reformed character. There is far too much evidence to the contrary, that tells me that a large proportion of ex-convicts offend again within a relatively short time of release, and that many are further corrupted while in prison.

 

I am not content that this ex-con will not turn out to be a repeat offender, and that is why I would be uncomfortable to have such a person as a neighbour. Some do reform, but I should want to see the evidence for that before being willing to accept a reformed ex-con as a neighbour.

 

Trust has to be earned, people who commit crimes have already lost my trust, they have to regain it. I'm happy to trust relative strangers on the basis that I know nothing to the contrary. An ex-con falls into a different category, on the basis of his record I distrust him until he proves himself trustworthy. Something he needed to consider before he committed his crime. If we're talking redemption, he has to redeem himself. That takes time.

 

I don't write him off, but I'm not naïve enough to believe that merely because he has served his time he is automatically trustworthy the day he is released. To believe that is, in my view, merely evidence that the believer lives in cloud-cuckoo land! Sorry, no deal.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-17 9:42 AM

 

RogerC - 2017-11-16 8:27 PM.......................Irrespective of your 'next' paragraph reference, which has no bearing on who lives where, you come across as quite unsympathetic in attitude towards those who have 'paid the price'.  Pay the price, try to reintegrate into society served by 'your' desired legal system but don't live next to me!! Now that is a real 100% NIMBY attitude and something I considered you were above.  Just shows how wrong one can be.

You are right, I remain distinctly uneasy about those who have been found guilty of committing crimes, been to prison, and are then released. To me, that unease is sensible. I gather Dave shares that view, though I gather Antony does not.

 

Paying the price, as you put it, does not inspire me that the perpetrator emerges from prison as a reformed character. There is far too much evidence to the contrary, that tells me that a large proportion of ex-convicts offend again within a relatively short time of release, and that many are further corrupted while in prison.

 

I am not content that this ex-con will not turn out to be a repeat offender, and that is why I would be uncomfortable to have such a person as a neighbour. Some do reform, but I should want to see the evidence for that before being willing to accept a reformed ex-con as a neighbour.

 

Trust has to be earned, people who commit crimes have already lost my trust, they have to regain it. I'm happy to trust relative strangers on the basis that I know nothing to the contrary. An ex-con falls into a different category, on the basis of his record I distrust him until he proves himself trustworthy. Something he needed to consider before he committed his crime. If we're talking redemption, he has to redeem himself. That takes time.

 

I don't write him off, but I'm not naïve enough to believe that merely because he has served his time he is automatically trustworthy the day he is released. To believe that is, in my view, merely evidence that the believer lives in cloud-cuckoo land! Sorry, no deal.

 

Brian I don't know why your putting energy into my view on this subject but if you are might be good to get what I do or do not believe correct

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-17 9:42 AM

RogerC - 2017-11-16 8:27 PM.......................Irrespective of your 'next' paragraph reference, which has no bearing on who lives where, you come across as quite unsympathetic in attitude towards those who have 'paid the price'.  Pay the price, try to reintegrate into society served by 'your' desired legal system but don't live next to me!! Now that is a real 100% NIMBY attitude and something I considered you were above.  Just shows how wrong one can be.

You are right, I remain distinctly uneasy about those who have been found guilty of committing crimes, been to prison, and are then released. To me, that unease is sensible. I gather Dave shares that view, though I gather Antony does not. Paying the price, as you put it, does not inspire me that the perpetrator emerges from prison as a reformed character. There is far too much evidence to the contrary, that tells me that a large proportion of ex-convicts offend again within a relatively short time of release, and that many are further corrupted while in prison.I am not content that this ex-con will not turn out to be a repeat offender, and that is why I would be uncomfortable to have such a person as a neighbour. Some do reform, but I should want to see the evidence for that before being willing to accept a reformed ex-con as a neighbour.Trust has to be earned, people who commit crimes have already lost my trust, they have to regain it. I'm happy to trust relative strangers on the basis that I know nothing to the contrary. An ex-con falls into a different category, on the basis of his record I distrust him until he proves himself trustworthy. Something he needed to consider before he committed his crime. If we're talking redemption, he has to redeem himself. That takes time. I don't write him off, but I'm not naïve enough to believe that merely because he has served his time he is automatically trustworthy the day he is released. To believe that is, in my view, merely evidence that the believer lives in cloud-cuckoo land! Sorry, no deal.

Clearly your liberal 'milk of human kindness' doesn't flow towards the ex con irrespective of the crime committed because you clearly said 'any' with regard to criminals living next to you.  So, for example, the guy who gets 'banged up' for doing some silly speed on a motorway is tarred with the same brush as rapists, murderers....or even terrorist offenders in your eyes and isn't wanted living next door to you. Now that is something......really something.  It does appear, in my opinion, to be a rather hypocritical stand to take.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-11-17 12:44 PM........................Clearly your liberal 'milk of human kindness' doesn't flow towards the ex con irrespective of the crime committed because you clearly said 'any' with regard to criminals living next to you.  So, for example, the guy who gets 'banged up' for doing some silly speed on a motorway is tarred with the same brush as rapists, murderers....or even terrorist offenders in your eyes and isn't wanted living next door to you. Now that is something......really something.  It does appear, in my opinion, to be a rather hypocritical stand to take.

Don't know where you gained the impression I am the fount of human kindness, Roger, but I fear it is a false. I think you are letting your obvious desire to "get a dig in", get the better of your judgement and, in so doing, getting rather removed from reality.

 

How could one actually know whether one's neighbour had a prison record? I'm unaware that there is any obligation to make such information public. Would I react equally to such knowledge (should I come to have it) irrespective of the crime concerned? Really? Why would anyone assume that level of irrationality?

 

I'm afraid this is another of your apocalyptic straw man arguments. What is the point? And you accuse Veronica of being flippant! 'Strewth! :-S

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-17 5:26 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-17 12:44 PM........................Clearly your liberal 'milk of human kindness' doesn't flow towards the ex con irrespective of the crime committed because you clearly said 'any' with regard to criminals living next to you.  So, for example, the guy who gets 'banged up' for doing some silly speed on a motorway is tarred with the same brush as rapists, murderers....or even terrorist offenders in your eyes and isn't wanted living next door to you. Now that is something......really something.  It does appear, in my opinion, to be a rather hypocritical stand to take.

Don't know where you gained the impression I am the fount of human kindness, Roger, but I fear it is a false. I think you are letting your obvious desire to "get a dig in", get the better of your judgement and, in so doing, getting rather removed from reality.How could one actually know whether one's neighbour had a prison record? I'm unaware that there is any obligation to make such information public. Would I react equally to such knowledge (should I come to have it) irrespective of the crime concerned? Really? Why would anyone assume that level of irrationality? I'm afraid this is another of your apocalyptic straw man arguments. What is the point? And you accuse Veronica of being flippant! 'Strewth! :-S

Clearly the issue was/is a hypothetical one.  It was you who said 'any' criminal with regard to their living next door to you.  I took the situation to be that it would be known the person had a criminal record otherwise the premise is pointless. So far from getting a 'dig in' and apocalyptic straw man arguments I was merely responding to your comment that you don't want 'any' ex con living next to you.....and that to me was/is a rather sweeping statement and questionable stand for you to take when you have defended other elements within society that have been subject to discrimination through posts on here.  It just seems out of character given the impression one gets from your posting of a more liberal and easy going person who appears not to be 'broad brush' judgemental.

[Guest pelmetman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.html

 

Come on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

 

 

[RogerC]

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AMhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.htmlCome on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

This despicable sickening individual had been awarded refugee status.  At the first offence it should have been revoked and he should have been deported.  As he wasn't and then re-offended he should forfeit 'all rights' and irrespective how long he was detained he should get £0.00 a big fat ZERO.  Then he should be escorted to the Guinea border and dumped. 

In cases such as this the 'Yuman rights' aspect of life today makes me sick because it serves to defend scum like this.

[antony1969]

RogerC - 2017-12-07 2:41 PM

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AMhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.htmlCome on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

This despicable sickening individual had been awarded refugee status.  At the first offence it should have been revoked and he should have been deported.  As he wasn't and then re-offended he should forfeit 'all rights' and irrespective how long he was detained he should get £0.00 a big fat ZERO.  Then he should be escorted to the Guinea border and dumped. 

In cases such as this the 'Yuman rights' aspect of life today makes me sick because it serves to defend scum like this.

Remember Roger ... They aren't all rapists ... Maybe the wets might like to sit down with some of the many rape victims of these things and explain that to them ... "Now dear your life has been changed forever , you'll have flashbacks and be constantly tortured by your experience and it will affect you and your close family for years to come but do remember dear they aren't all rapists"

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2017-12-07 2:51 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-07 2:41 PM

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AMhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.htmlCome on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

This despicable sickening individual had been awarded refugee status.  At the first offence it should have been revoked and he should have been deported.  As he wasn't and then re-offended he should forfeit 'all rights' and irrespective how long he was detained he should get £0.00 a big fat ZERO.  Then he should be escorted to the Guinea border and dumped. 

In cases such as this the 'Yuman rights' aspect of life today makes me sick because it serves to defend scum like this.

Remember Roger ... They aren't all rapists ... Maybe the wets might like to sit down with some of the many rape victims of these things and explain that to them ... "Now dear your life has been changed forever , you'll have flashbacks and be constantly tortured by your experience and it will affect you and your close family for years to come but do remember dear they aren't all rapists"

There was dumb ol me thinking one of the jobs of the British Justice (Spit) system was to show that crime didn't pay? *-) .........Can you imagine what they're thinking in Bongo bongo land as they're sat in their mud hut, perusing their EU destination of choice on their stolen iphone :-| ........Should I go to Germany where they'll pay me 3k to come home?....... Or to the UK where they'll give me 110K if I rape their children? >:-( ......

[antony1969]

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 3:20 PM

antony1969 - 2017-12-07 2:51 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-07 2:41 PM

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AMhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.htmlCome on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

This despicable sickening individual had been awarded refugee status.  At the first offence it should have been revoked and he should have been deported.  As he wasn't and then re-offended he should forfeit 'all rights' and irrespective how long he was detained he should get £0.00 a big fat ZERO.  Then he should be escorted to the Guinea border and dumped. 

In cases such as this the 'Yuman rights' aspect of life today makes me sick because it serves to defend scum like this.

Remember Roger ... They aren't all rapists ... Maybe the wets might like to sit down with some of the many rape victims of these things and explain that to them ... "Now dear your life has been changed forever , you'll have flashbacks and be constantly tortured by your experience and it will affect you and your close family for years to come but do remember dear they aren't all rapists"

There was dumb ol me thinking one of the jobs of the British Justice (Spit) system was to show that crime didn't pay? *-) .........Can you imagine what they're thinking in Bongo bongo land as they're sat in their mud hut, perusing their EU destination of choice on their stolen iphone :-| ........Should I go to Germany where they'll pay me 3k to come home?....... Or to the UK where they'll give me 110K if I rape their children? >:-( ......

Bullets door is always open he tells us ... Not heard he's taken any in yet though ... Seems to have gone all quiet on that front just like our Barry who would if he could but he can't so everyone else can have em ... Never mind Bongo bongo land they live La la land

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AM

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.html

 

Come on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

 

 

 

This is no apology for his behaviour or the apparent injustice that he should get such a sum when his victims are not likely to have received the same. It is merely my attempt to explain what has caused this situation as far as is possible to tell from the facts presented.

 

1. He should have been stripped of his refugee status when he was convicted of attack in 2011 (as Roger points out). You will see from the article that the Home Office made a mistake and failed to notice that he was a refugee when it should have been apparent from the outset.

 

2. Had he been stripped of his entitlement to refugee status in a timely fashion, i.e. before he was due to be released from his criminal sentence, his detention would have been likely lawful and he would have not been entitled to any damages. His detention would be lawful up to the point where it was established that he couldn’t be sent back because Guinea wouldn’t accept him. Something that could be established reasonably quickly because of Guinea’s history of refusal to take anyone back. Worth a try still perhaps.

 

3. There is nothing the Home Office can do if Guinea refused to take him back. Even if put on a plane the carrier could be required to take bring him back to the UK without travel documents issued by Guinea.

 

4. I can’t see any practical solution to 3. short of sending him on a boat under cover of darkness with an SBS detail and dumping him on a beach. Or perhaps you and some of your old Navy pals would volunteer to do the job Dave?

 

5. The alternative would be in this case would be to hold that it is lawful to detain him indefinitely. The question is begged how can that be justified if it is through no fault of his own that he can't be sent back to Guinea. Even if he was decent enough (fat chance I know) to apply for his own passport Guinea still could refuse to issue him with one.

 

So in summary it was a mistake by the Home Office that lead to his unlawful detention. The Judge’s comments say it all to me, though he was rightly careful not to criticise them as mistakes do happen, as opposed to conscious decisions being made to break the law. He was mindful that the fact that this odious individual fell to be awarded damages was distasteful to say the least. He still doesn’t have a choice, he has to apply the law as it stands.

 

A change in the law so that the Judge has the immediate power to order that all or part of the damages awarded in such cases are to be paid to a criminal’s victim or victims might be welcome eh? Problem with that is the number of victims who are unlikely to be benefit because anyone who wants to bring an action for unlawful imprisonment is hardly going to bother doing so if the end result is they get nowt.

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

 

 

A change in the law so that the Judge has the immediate power to order that all or part of the damages awarded in such cases are to be paid to a criminal’s victim or victims might be welcome eh? Problem with that is the number of victims who are unlikely to be benefit because anyone who wants to bring an action for unlawful imprisonment is hardly going to bother doing so if the end result is they get nowt.

 

 

 

So how much are the victims getting now? :-| ........

 

After the lawyers/sharks have gone back in for a few more bites *-) .......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

 

5. The alternative would be in this case would be to hold that it is lawful to detain him indefinitely. The question is begged how can that be justified if it is through no fault of his own that he can't be sent back to Guinea. Even if he was decent enough (fat chance I know) to apply for his own passport Guinea still could refuse to issue him with one.

 

 

 

He's obviously a repeat offender, and now knows he can earn a 110k from rape, so I very much doubt he'll be deterred when the opportunity presents itself again >:-( ........

 

Give him the choice of prison for life or a free ticket home >:-) ........

 

He left of his own volition so he can return.........

 

Meal ticket or home ticket.........Sounds like a good enough reason to lock him up? >:-( .......

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

4. I can’t see any practical solution to 3. short of sending him on a boat under cover of darkness with an SBS detail and dumping him on a beach. Or perhaps you and some of your old Navy pals would volunteer to do the job Dave?

 

 

I'd be more than happy to offer my services >:-) ........

 

Although I dunno how far he'd get with after we'd dumped him a few hundred yards from shore with a anchor strapped to his back >:-( .......

 

In the English channel >:-) .........

 

See I ain't fussy ;-) .......

 

If they cant be hung from a bit of Chatham hemp, then I'm quite happy for them to be sunk :D ........

 

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 3:55 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

 

5. The alternative would be in this case would be to hold that it is lawful to detain him indefinitely. The question is begged how can that be justified if it is through no fault of his own that he can't be sent back to Guinea. Even if he was decent enough (fat chance I know) to apply for his own passport Guinea still could refuse to issue him with one.

 

 

 

He's obviously a repeat offender, and now knows he can earn a 110k from rape, so I very much doubt he'll be deterred when the opportunity presents itself again >:-( ........

 

Give him the choice of prison for life or a free ticket home >:-) ........

 

He left of his own volition so he can return.........

 

Meal ticket or home ticket.........Sounds like a good enough reason to lock him up? >:-( .......

 

 

 

 

I was hoping you'd put yourself forward for the boat option Dave. I get seasick so I have to rule myself out.

 

You credit this moronic and dangerous individual with a great deal of foresight. "Oh I'll go to UK rape someone, be locked up for longer than I should and come into loads of money, come out rape someone again, be put back inside and get some more" Yeah right. ;-)

[Violet1956]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 4:00 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 3:55 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

 

5. The alternative would be in this case would be to hold that it is lawful to detain him indefinitely. The question is begged how can that be justified if it is through no fault of his own that he can't be sent back to Guinea. Even if he was decent enough (fat chance I know) to apply for his own passport Guinea still could refuse to issue him with one.

 

 

 

He's obviously a repeat offender, and now knows he can earn a 110k from rape, so I very much doubt he'll be deterred when the opportunity presents itself again >:-( ........

 

Give him the choice of prison for life or a free ticket home >:-) ........

 

He left of his own volition so he can return.........

 

Meal ticket or home ticket.........Sounds like a good enough reason to lock him up? >:-( .......

 

 

 

 

I was hoping you'd put yourself forward for the boat option Dave. I get seasick so I have to rule myself out.

 

You credit this moronic and dangerous individual with a great deal of foresight. "Oh I'll go to UK rape someone, be locked up for longer than I should and come into loads of money, come out rape someone again, be put back inside and get some more" Yeah right. ;-)

 

Our posts seemed to have crossed. Seems like you had a much better idea.

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 4:00 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 3:55 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

 

5. The alternative would be in this case would be to hold that it is lawful to detain him indefinitely. The question is begged how can that be justified if it is through no fault of his own that he can't be sent back to Guinea. Even if he was decent enough (fat chance I know) to apply for his own passport Guinea still could refuse to issue him with one.

 

 

 

He's obviously a repeat offender, and now knows he can earn a 110k from rape, so I very much doubt he'll be deterred when the opportunity presents itself again >:-( ........

 

Give him the choice of prison for life or a free ticket home >:-) ........

 

He left of his own volition so he can return.........

 

Meal ticket or home ticket.........Sounds like a good enough reason to lock him up? >:-( .......

 

 

 

 

I was hoping you'd put yourself forward for the boat option Dave. I get seasick so I have to rule myself out.

 

You credit this moronic and dangerous individual with a great deal of foresight. "Oh I'll go to UK rape someone, be locked up for longer than I should and come into loads of money, come out rape someone again, be put back inside and get some more" Yeah right. ;-)

 

I did ;-) .........

 

So what's stopped this moronic and dangerous individual before? *-) .........

 

All he now know's he could be in line for a bonus :-| ........

 

110k is prolly more than he'd of earn't in 10 life times in Africa >:-( ........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

 

3. There is nothing the Home Office can do if Guinea refused to take him back. Even if put on a plane the carrier could be required to take bring him back to the UK without travel documents issued by Guinea.

 

 

 

 

So we stop anyone from Guinea landing here until they take him back ;-) .......

 

That'll soon p*ss of the local despots Mrs's if they cant spend their hard earned British foreign aid in Knightsbridge >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) .......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AM

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.html

 

Come on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

 

 

 

This is no apology for his behaviour or the apparent injustice that he should get such a sum when his victims are not likely to have received the same. It is merely my attempt to explain what has caused this situation as far as is possible to tell from the facts presented.

 

 

 

Explaining the system is the same as apologising for it in my book :-| ........

 

If those at the top are incapable of seeing how wrong it is.......then frankly they need to dance the Mussolini from the nearest lamp post >:-) .......

 

Or resign........See I ain't fussy ;-) .........

 

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 4:14 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

 

3. There is nothing the Home Office can do if Guinea refused to take him back. Even if put on a plane the carrier could be required to take bring him back to the UK without travel documents issued by Guinea.

 

 

 

 

So we stop anyone from Guinea landing here until they take him back ;-) .......

 

That'll soon p*ss of the local despots Mrs's if they cant spend their hard earned British foreign aid in Knightsbridge >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) .......

 

Another good idea. Withdraw our foreign aid to Guinea. Keep 'em coming Dave. I'm enjoying being on your side for once.

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 4:19 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AM

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.html

 

Come on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( .......

 

 

 

This is no apology for his behaviour or the apparent injustice that he should get such a sum when his victims are not likely to have received the same. It is merely my attempt to explain what has caused this situation as far as is possible to tell from the facts presented.

 

 

 

Explaining the system is the same as apologising for it in my book :-| ........

 

If those at the top are incapable of seeing how wrong it is.......then frankly they need to dance the Mussolini from the nearest lamp post >:-) .......

 

Or resign........See I ain't fussy ;-) .........

 

Seriously Dave I understand why you rail against the system when examples such as this crop up. I only try to set out how I believe it works. If we understand what exactly is wrong with it then we know how best to change it rather than wasting our time asking for things that can't be achieved. I found out on a google search that Australia has a system whereby awards to prisoners for wrongs done to them in Jail are held in some kind of trust for victims. Worth the UK government looking into. Also when I said I was concerned about the risk of victims getting zilch if prisoners knew they were going to get zilch I had overlooked that perhaps the prisoners could be awarded a minimum so as to keep the incentive to bring an action. There's much to think about. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do like your ideas about how to deal with Guinea.

[RogerC]

If volounteers are needed I'm happy to oblige......won't be the first scumbag I've had a hand in getting shot of from the UK.

[nowtelse2do]

What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand).

 

Dave