English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Recently a trio of these wig wearing nits pretended that they had decided not to deport the Italian murder of the headmaster Stephen Lawrence. They were covering up for the government by trying to conceal that a recent EU Directive stated that foreign nationals committing a serious criminal offence was no longer sufficient reason for deporting them.

A Polish rapist will also escape deportation thanks to the unelected crooks of the EU.

Surely the sole purpose of law is to protect the innocent?

They used to burn witches at the stake, perhaps we should resurrect the process but burn the bent lawyers, judges and politicians instead?

Nice to see that Brown is carrying on New Labour's tradition of lying through his dentures.

2007-09-01 09:53:05 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

18 answers

I think if you read the judgement carefully, it states that the reason he cannot be deported is because of the Human Rights Act, It may have escaped your notice, but the Judges rule on the law, they don't make the law.....if you have a problem take it up with the Govt......

2007-09-01 10:00:23 · answer #1 · answered by Knownow't 7 · 2 0

Learco Chindamo killed Philip Lawrence, not Steven Lawrence. Stephen Lawrence was a whole other case. Stephen Lawrence was killed in a racist attack, some suspects were charged and brought to trial, they were found not guilty and discharged, then it was revealed that they almost certainly were guilty but the law of double jeopardy meant that they could not be brought to trial again for Stephen's murder. The case is one that has tested English courts for over a decade on whether double jeopardy should be overlooked in some cases.

There is no such EU directive stating that foreign nationals cannot be deported. If they pose a threat to society, they can be deported. Since Learco Chindamo will only be released from prison if the parole board conclude that he no longer poses a threat, he will not be deported. Reports from prison staff suggest that he is now very different to the angry 15-year-old who killed Philip Lawrence. (If he was considered a threat still then he would be deported, but then he wouldn't be released from prison anyway, would he!)

The only relevant EU law in the case was his right to family life. Chindamo has no family at all in Italy: his mother is Filipina and lives in the UK and his father, who he doesn't know at all, is in Spain. Nor does Chindamo speak Italian. He is an Italian national but does not speak the language, only English (he achieved an English GCSE in prison apparently). The right to family life was not considered by the court anyway because they did not need to consider it: with or without it, Chindamo will not be deported.

2007-09-01 21:19:18 · answer #2 · answered by quierounvaquero 4 · 0 0

No, the sole purpose of the law is to enforce the law.

Protecting the innocent and promoting justice are a distant second -- and that's only because it's hard to get people to believe in the laws if they don't have something to look forward to in doing so.

Judges can be overturned on appeal -- and I'm not sure the procedure, but there must also be some way over there to remove them from office if they are acting in a blatantly unreasonable manner.

But judges should not be subjected to criminal penalties -- including risk of prison -- just because people are unhappy with the outcomes. In most cases, the judge is actually following the law, and it's the law that people are really upset with -- the judge is just a convenient scapegoat.

2007-09-01 17:28:22 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

You cant deport an EEC member. It is the gutter press that twists the small brains of our poor and underclass. Read a better paper. The rules for an EEC member are the same for US and since we can no longer deport our criminals to Australia, we cannot deport them also. That is the beef of that topic but when Sun or Express get hold of that they say that the Judge does not want to deport them. When the reality is that It would contravene the regulations if they did.

Armchair people should take the time to find out the facts first. And another thing I've noticed about these Gutter presses is that at the end of each story it DOES say why not but by then the poor under educated's brain is already too tired to go the extra column. So Decent people can still get the real story out of say the STAR.

Edit: You cant deport EU citizens simple.

2007-09-01 17:22:16 · answer #4 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 2 2

Look's like our Enoch was right again, when he said back in the 70's, if you want to be governed by Brussels vote yes to joining
the EEC.Perhaps the current judiciary ought to take a leaf out of
judge Roland Freisler's court appearances, that would make not only the government, but possibly some of the established and up and coming offenders sit up and take notice.What a judge

2007-09-01 17:10:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

These people are scum. They may be rich and educated but they are as crooked as a dog's back leg and should be brought to account for the lives they wreck.

Too much power in the hands of the corrupt = disaster.

2007-09-02 18:00:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Give the judges to power to impose the sentence they want to give and not be tied down by government regulations and maximum sentences. abolish the human rights act.and do gooders being allowed to stand in court saying nice things about the guilty party. abolish pre sentence reports and sentencing guidelines issued by the lord chancellor build more prison let the judges JUDGE and they would not be many lousy judges left. and if they were send them to jail for being stupid

2007-09-02 05:18:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Time to change, if we elect a party that will take us out of the E.U.
Perhaps everyone who agrees on answers should start our own party after all it only costs something like £250.00 to run for government.
We could call it the Yahoo Party

2007-09-02 12:32:20 · answer #8 · answered by st.abbs 5 · 0 0

Yes, the law is there to protect the innocent, and to try and ensure that people who are innocent of everything apart from perhaps being a bit old and owning a cat, or having a wart, remain unburned at the stake.... you kind of contradict your own argument there.....

2007-09-01 17:04:38 · answer #9 · answered by eriverpipe 7 · 0 1

Yep jail em.. but you know why they let loose? Heck they are gettin paid big bucks to do it (in my opin) They are worse than those criminals ..You said surely the sole purpose of the law is to protect the innocent. Sure that's what we are led to believe... but its not..The law is there for those that break the law.. Done seen it too many times. How bout OJ?

2007-09-01 17:11:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers