Calling all remainers

[Fast Pat]

Another brexit petition request

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/238092

[Guest pelmetman]

Your also needed to stand as MEP's for the EU elections ;-) .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only Losers need apply :D ........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2019-04-01 7:56 PM........................Our Remoaner biased high court obviously cant read *-) .........

Oh yes they can, Dave. That is why, when they read the Home Office policy, they ruled it unlawful.

 

I think what you may have meant is that people in the Home Office have trouble reading, which is a quite different thing.

 

The point was that the Home Office policy was a blanket policy that discriminated against people because they were foreign rough sleepers. It was that discrimination that sunk the Home Office policy. Had they taken the rough sleepers to a hostel, investigated their employment status and, if they had no job and were rough sleeping because they couldn't afford accommodation, they could then have been deported legally.

 

While on the subject of reading, the above is all in the Guardian article. I can't imagine how you managed to miss it! Are you perhaps a "high court judge"? :-D

[Fast Pat]

pelmetman - 2019-04-15 7:29 AM

 

Your also needed to stand as MEP's for the EU elections ;-) .........

 

I've been asked to. But as I fear it will be a long term commitment that won't end on the 31st October I've had to decline.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2019-04-15 7:04 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-01 7:56 PM........................Our Remoaner biased high court obviously cant read *-) .........

Oh yes they can, Dave. That is why, when they read the Home Office policy, they ruled it unlawful.

 

I think what you may have meant is that people in the Home Office have trouble reading, which is a quite different thing.

 

The point was that the Home Office policy was a blanket policy that discriminated against people because they were foreign rough sleepers. It was that discrimination that sunk the Home Office policy. Had they taken the rough sleepers to a hostel, investigated their employment status and, if they had no job and were rough sleeping because they couldn't afford accommodation, they could then have been deported legally.

 

While on the subject of reading, the above is all in the Guardian article. I can't imagine how you managed to miss it! Are you perhaps a "high court judge"? :-D

 

Actually..... all that proves is technical knit picking is the weapon of choice for our soppy liberal lawyering brigade *-) .........

 

No doubt the long suffering British taxpayer picked up the tab yet again :-| ........

 

 

[Fast Pat]

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2019-04-16 8:14 AM...……………..Actually..... all that proves is technical knit picking is the weapon of choice for our soppy liberal lawyering brigade *-) .........

 

No doubt the long suffering British taxpayer picked up the tab yet again :-| ........

Well, what would you have instead of a legal system that requires evidence of law breaking before it finds an accused guilty, and takes individual circumstances into account before when it passes sentence -a good, old fashioned, lynch mob?

 

I understand from you posts that you don't pay UK income tax, so I'm most grateful for you concern for those who, like me, do. :-D However, while accepting that any legal system will occasionally throw up anomalies, I would be far happier if the UK government were sufficiently competent to avoid losing cases because it is following legally dodgy practises in trying to cover up its own mendacity.

[Violet1956]

Brian Kirby - 2019-04-16 6:32 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-16 8:14 AM...……………..Actually..... all that proves is technical knit picking is the weapon of choice for our soppy liberal lawyering brigade *-) .........

 

No doubt the long suffering British taxpayer picked up the tab yet again :-| ........

Well, what would you have instead of a legal system that requires evidence of law breaking before it finds an accused guilty, and takes individual circumstances into account before when it passes sentence -a good, old fashioned, lynch mob?

 

I understand from you posts that you don't pay UK income tax, so I'm most grateful for you concern for those who, like me, do. :-D However, while accepting that any legal system will occasionally throw up anomalies, I would be far happier if the UK government were sufficiently competent to avoid losing cases because it is following legally dodgy practises in trying to cover up its own mendacity.

Well said Brian.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2019-04-16 6:32 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-16 8:14 AM...……………..Actually..... all that proves is technical knit picking is the weapon of choice for our soppy liberal lawyering brigade *-) .........

 

No doubt the long suffering British taxpayer picked up the tab yet again :-| ........

Well, what would you have instead of a legal system that requires evidence of law breaking before it finds an accused guilty, and takes individual circumstances into account before when it passes sentence -a good, old fashioned, lynch mob?

 

I understand from you posts that you don't pay UK income tax, so I'm most grateful for you concern for those who, like me, do. :-D However, while accepting that any legal system will occasionally throw up anomalies, I would be far happier if the UK government were sufficiently competent to avoid losing cases because it is following legally dodgy practises in trying to cover up its own mendacity.

 

I'd have a legal system that wasn't biased in favour of the criminal *-) .......

 

Here's yet another example of our IDIOT JUDGES at work 8-) ........

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6901271/Judge-ruled-Turkish-criminals-gang-membership-showed-socially-integrated-Britain.html

 

 

[Violet1956]

Full judgement overturning the Judge's decision at first instance can be found here-

 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/551.html

 

It ilustrates the complicated hoops that a court has to go through when considering an appeal against deportation. That the Daily Mail chose to focus on the erroneous judgement of the Judge at first instance in the headline and in the first few paragraphs rather than the fact that it could not stand up to scrutiny and was overturned is to be expected I suppose. They know what their readership wants to hear and what it will ignore.

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 9:19 AM

 

Full judgement overturning the Judge's decision at first instance can be found here-

 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/551.html

 

It ilustrates the complicated hoops that a court has to go through when considering an appeal against deportation. That the Daily Mail chose to focus on the erroneous judgement of the Judge at first instance in the headline and in the first few paragraphs rather than the fact that it could not stand up to scrutiny and was overturned is to be expected I suppose. They know what their readership wants to hear and what it will ignore.

 

Which just goes to prove how biased towards the "Criminal" our so called British Justice system is *-) ......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Violet1956]

I really don't understand why you remain unhappy given that the decision was that he should be deported. How is that proof that our criminal justice system is biased in favour of the criminal?

 

 

[malc d]

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 10:38 AM

 

I really don't understand why you remain unhappy given that the decision was that he should be deported.

 

How is that proof that our criminal justice system is biased in favour of the criminal?

 

 

 

It may not prove that our criminal justice system is biased - but it definitely proves that some of our judges are totally out of touch with the concerns of the general public.

 

This case clearly should never have got to the second hearing.

 

:-|

[Violet1956]

It may show that the Judge who dealt with it at first instance was as you say "out of touch" with the concerns of the general public. However having read the judgment he seems to have been persuaded this person was a reformed character as well as making a rather strange assessment that gang membership was an indication of social and cultural integration. The appeal court put him right on that one, pointing out that to use the term "Home Grown" criminal led him down the wrong path.

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 10:38 AM

 

I really don't understand why you remain unhappy given that the decision was that he should be deported. How is that proof that our criminal justice system is biased in favour of the criminal?

 

 

From your link......

 

Conclusion

 

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the UTJ was entitled to remake the decision of the FTJ and to reach the determination which he did, namely: (i) TB is a "foreign criminal" as defined in s.117D(2); (ii) Exception 1 in s.117C(4) NIAA does not apply and (iii) the "very compelling circumstances" test is not met.

 

ie.......He's not committed enough crimes .....YET *-) .......

 

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2019-04-17 11:10 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 10:38 AM

 

I really don't understand why you remain unhappy given that the decision was that he should be deported. How is that proof that our criminal justice system is biased in favour of the criminal?

 

 

From your link......

 

Conclusion

 

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the UTJ was entitled to remake the decision of the FTJ and to reach the determination which he did, namely: (i) TB is a "foreign criminal" as defined in s.117D(2); (ii) Exception 1 in s.117C(4) NIAA does not apply and (iii) the "very compelling circumstances" test is not met.

 

ie.......He's not committed enough crimes .....YET *-) .......

 

You've misunderstood Dave. The defendant had to demonstrate that there were very compelling circumstances that meant he could not be deported and he did not do so therefore he should be on his way to Turkey.

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 11:22 AM

 

pelmetman - 2019-04-17 11:10 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 10:38 AM

 

I really don't understand why you remain unhappy given that the decision was that he should be deported. How is that proof that our criminal justice system is biased in favour of the criminal?

 

 

From your link......

 

Conclusion

 

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the UTJ was entitled to remake the decision of the FTJ and to reach the determination which he did, namely: (i) TB is a "foreign criminal" as defined in s.117D(2); (ii) Exception 1 in s.117C(4) NIAA does not apply and (iii) the "very compelling circumstances" test is not met.

 

ie.......He's not committed enough crimes .....YET *-) .......

 

You've misunderstood Dave. The defendant had to demonstrate that there were very compelling circumstances that meant he could not be deported and he did not do so therefore he should be on his way to Turkey.

 

I should of been clearer ;-) ........ie Judge Ruth implied he hadn't committed enough crimes..... yet *-) .......

 

Whether he is "Actually" ever deported is an entirely different matter, as we know from the Rochdale grooming gang farce 8-) ........

 

BTW are you anywhere near winning that bet ......YET? :D ........

 

 

[malc d]

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 11:04 AM

 

It may show that the Judge who dealt with it at first instance was as you say "out of touch" with the concerns of the general public. However having read the judgment he seems to have been persuaded this person was a reformed character as well as making a rather strange assessment that gang membership was an indication of social and cultural integration. The appeal court put him right on that one, pointing out that to use the term "Home Grown" criminal led him down the wrong path.

 

 

Well if I had been the original judge this character would have been on a plane to Turkey the day after the trial.

What on earth did a character like this have to do to convince the judge that he was a bad lot ?

 

It is nonsensical judgements like this that give ammunition to the far right in this country.

 

:-|

[Violet1956]

There is no doubt Judge Ruth got it badly wrong when applying the law. Perhaps he couldn’t “see the wood for the trees”. He seems to have got bogged down in the technicalities which to be fair to him are of some considerable complexity. For example, the case reveals that the wording in the Act defines a foreign criminal as someone who “is a persistent offender”. You may have noticed there was a discussion about the use of the present tense and whether someone who was a persistent offender in the past but has committed no offences more recently is nevertheless to be categorised as a persistent offender in law so as to meet the criteria for deportation.

 

Everything has gone silent on what has happened to Shabir Ahmed Dave. We know he was one of the four men who were deprived of citizenship three of whom lost their appeals against that deprivation order in August 2018. As I think I said at that time there was no mention of him in the case where the three lost their appeals. He went down for 22 years so he’s still inside, who knows he may have decided not to pursue an appeal. He had a year added for an assault on another inmate. Given what happened to his three mates he should realise there is no chance of him succeeding in overturning the deprivation of citizenship order. He was by far the worst of the lot. He’ll be 75 when he’s served half the term of his imprisonment. I don't think he'll survive long enough to be sent back. He doesn't look the healthiest of specimens.

 

[malc d]

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 12:22 PM

 

There is no doubt Judge Ruth got it badly wrong when applying the law. Perhaps he couldn’t “see the wood for the trees”. He seems to have got bogged down in the technicalities which to be fair to him are of some considerable complexity. For example, the case reveals that the wording in the Act defines a foreign criminal as someone who “is a persistent offender”. You may have noticed there was a discussion about the use of the present tense and whether someone who was a persistent offender in the past but has committed no offences more recently is nevertheless to be categorised as a persistent offender in law so as to meet the criteria for deportation.

 

 

 

 

What you say clearly defines the problem.

 

To the judges it is an intellectual discussion about what words mean - to the general public it is finding excuses to allow a persistent foreign criminal to remain in the U.K.

 

That clearly illustrates the disconnect between the establishment and the public.

 

We have enough criminals of our own - we don't need to import them.

 

:-|

[Violet1956]

Exactly Malc. Way back, when I was involved in the criminal law, there weren’t so many prescriptive rules and regulations. Judges could do what they thought was the right thing and interpret the rather simpler laws to support it without opening themselves up to challenge. Unfortunately, there is no category “he’s a bad ‘un and he’s got to go”.

[Bulletguy]

 

I haven't read through this case as i saw Pelmets link was DM so knew straight away, more xenophobia involving some 'johnny foreigner' Pelmet has such an aversion to, he spends half the year in a foreign country...probably because it's overrun by Brits. Long favoured hideout haunt for Brit crims on the run usually drug lords, but Pelmet always prefers to ignore those.

 

Afaik commit a crime in a country, assuming a custodial sentence is handed out then the time served is in the country the crime has been committed with deportation following the end. The only exception being if a more serious charge has already been filed by the criminals own country authorities in which case there would be a marker via Interpol.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2019-04-17 1:22 PM

 

Afaik commit a crime in a country, assuming a custodial sentence is handed out then the time served is in the country the crime has been committed with deportation following the end. The only exception being if a more serious charge has already been filed by the criminals own country authorities in which case there would be a marker via Interpol.

 

What a insular lefty bubble you live in Bullet *-) .........

 

You love to preach......yet ignore the damage you folk sow 8-) ......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 12:52 PM

 

Exactly Malc. Way back, when I was involved in the criminal law, there weren’t so many prescriptive rules and regulations. Judges could do what they thought was the right thing and interpret the rather simpler laws to support it without opening themselves up to challenge. Unfortunately, there is no category “he’s a bad ‘un and he’s got to go”.

 

Our "So" called great British laws are nowt but a feeding ground for knit picking lawyers and criminals *-) ..........

 

It's high time they thought about the ruddy victims! >:-( .......

 

 

[Violet1956]

You may be surprised Dave but I share your sentiments regarding the public's perception of the lack of justice for victims of crime. I never saw anyone go to jail that didn’t deserve to go when I was involved in the criminal law and a goodly number who deserved to go and yet didn’t. It was one reason why I abandoned my involvement in it many years ago now. That said I am firmly of belief that there is much to be done in terms of crime prevention. Locking people up is one way of protecting the public but there comes a time when there need to concerted action to reduce what leads people to commit crime in the first place.