Is this what human rights act is for?

[johnw]

was pathetically punished by our legal system to the extent that he commited the same offence time and time again until he killed somebody, and then even carried on offending after that!

I don't think we are too far apart on this but i would like to point out that the justice system can only exercise the powers it has been given by parliament. This man was punished according to the guidelines.

Don't forget that any decision taken by a magistrates court or crown court can be challenged in a higher court. So if a court does make a mistake and sentence above or below the guidelines, without giving clear and acceptable reasons why they did so, that sentence can be challenged and corrected. Within the guidelines as set out by parliament and the (appointed by parliament) sentencing guidelines council.

With recent court closures, to be followed by prison closures and taking into account a hugely underfunded probation service things can only get worse.

 

[jbailey]

Am i just reading this wrong or not thinking straight. The report says

"Mr Houston had to make the decision to turn off his daughter's life support machine hours after the crash."

A couple of hours? Arent people on life support machines at least months before any thoughts of taking them off it are considered? If that's not true, other things in the report might not be either.

Anyway i agree if you immigrate to another country of your choice. You should take particular care to obey that countries laws and four months for murder is just unthinkable. Especially in comparison to longer sentences for less serious crimes.

 

[custard]

Am i just reading this wrong or not thinking straight. The report says

"Mr Houston had to make the decision to turn off his daughter's life support machine hours after the crash."

A couple of hours? Arent people on life support machines at least months before any thoughts of taking them off it are considered? If that's not true, other things in the report might not be either.

Anyway i agree if you immigrate to another country of your choice. You should take particular care to obey that countries laws and four months for murder is just unthinkable. Especially in comparison to longer sentences for less serious crimes.

if you are brain dead then a few months makes no difference
cold as it sounds.keeping whats basically a body on life support is not an effective use of hospital resources

 

[jbailey]

if you are brain dead then a few months makes no difference
cold as it sounds.keeping whats basically a body on life support is not an effective use of hospital resources

Was just wondering since the report didnt say what condition the girl was in. Your right though but still, if you were/are a fafther it'd take me more than a couple of hours to make the descision no matter how rational i was thinking. I'm not saying the fafther did anything bad or wrong at all just came across a bit strange to me. But then again i'm not a doctor and neither has my daughter just been run over so im probally talking out of my ass.

 

[sludgeguts]

The human rights act should be revoked for all criminals.

If we are supposedly a civilsed society then it should be a condition that to be allowed to carry on living as a part of this society you do not break the laws. To be allowed access to 'rights' then you should not only pay back what you have taken (if you stole) but you should also pay society back for keeping you warm and comfy and fed in prison - only then should you start on the road to accessing rights (after , say, 5 years of being a good person?).

Trouble with being a civilised society is that people from 'uncivilised' societies come here to sponge - we are seen as a soft touch.

OK, fine - but the minute you step out of line your punishment will be decided upon based on the laws of the country you came from.

 

[jnoiles]

well in my opinion todays justice system is soft. i mean really 4 months for what he did? how can you justify or defend his sentence? if you did that law in their country, lets see you claim human rights, anmd if your sentence will be just 4 months

I'm not. The sentence is appalling. And I've no plans to commit a crime in this country or any other.

Where's the "We" that you refer to? Canada, Ausdtralia, or the UK?
Have you been badly treated as an Immigrant?
I think we should be told.

Not sure which 'we' you're referring to here?

And no, J Noiles, I am not about to leave the country that I was born in because a man who was no doubt a villain when he arrived here in the back of a lorry, then broke the law on numerous occasions, was pathetically punished by our legal system to the extent that he commited the same offence time and time again until he killed somebody, and then even carried on offending after that!

What would you do about it then? Moan on a forum? Campaign for some reform?

J Noiles argues that if we simply deport people that commit crime, then they are getting away with the crime. True, but, most people want to see villains locked up to keep them out of circulation. If they are deported (and kept out) then they are out of circulation in our country at least and they will not be taking up a prison place, or taking our benefits, and then coming out to do the same crime again. Not ideal perhaps, but pragmatic.

If you think what you propose is a reasonable solution, get some support for it. Put together enough backing to make it a serious issue. Look here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease150808a.htm The supposed sentence for what he did is 2 years. This guy got 4 months. Something wrong on both counts there.

O'h, and one last question, J Noiles - you seem to suggest that life here as an immigrant is difficult (or maybe I am mis-understanding you), but I ask, how welcome would this Iraqi criminal have been made in Australia? How would they have dealt with him?

No way. I've had a great time here as an immigrant. I have a decent job, I have a bunch of great friends, I even have a local girlfriend And I'm not suggesting Australia or Canada would be better. If we're talking about Australia the guy likely would never have had a chance to commit the crime. He's still be rotting in a detention centre somewhere while they 'considered' his case for asylum.

Are you trying to say this guy deserves to live here despite being convicted as a criminal?

I'm only pointing out that the crime and the wanting to stay here are not necessarily completely related. He killed a girl. He got tried for it. He did his punishment, the matter is dealt with. He wants to stay because now he has a family. Different matter. The killing of the girl was dealt with. Look, killing a girl like this is a pretty severe crime in my book. But check the link I posted above. The UK Ministry of Justice's own guidelines say that the crime he committed should attract a 2 year sentence. Given that, I wonder if the 4 months served was added on to any time he served while waiting for the sentence to be handed down. For instance, if it was 2 years and he'd been locked up for 18 months before the sentence was handed down then 4 months doesn't look all that unreasonable under the law. having served his sentence and moved on with his life he's entitled to have his case to stay heard.

How is that a fair argument? We are no longer allowed to fight for what we believe in for our country, and should just leave instead?

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that he if was unhappy with the way the UK deals with this then go somewhere else, where crimes are dealt with in a way more to his liking. Or work to change the laws here. Or any one of a number of more productive responses than just moaning about it on a forum.

Also why is it always you responding to all these threads with similar undertones with the same do-gooder hippy everyone is equal jibberish.

Dunno? Why does everyone else respond in such a base, Daily Mail, simpleton sort of way?

Which evidently isn't true in any other country in the world so why should it be for the UK?

Because we're better than places who hang people. Celebrate that.

All I'll say on the matter is you'd make a bloody good defence lawyer for scum bag idiots such as the one in the OP's link

Thanks

 

[Stu DemonD]

Multiquote FTW :slayer:

 

[jnoiles]

There's a multiquote function? I've been pressing quote, then pasting it into notepad, then back button, repeat until I've got all the stuff. Then I move the quote tags around manually.

 

[johnw]

If you actually read the link from this quote

Look here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease150808a.htm The supposed sentence for what he did is 2 years. This guy got 4 months. Something wrong on both counts there.

you will see that jnoiles has completely missed the fact that it refers to the (then) NEW offence of causing death by careless driving or when disqualified, uninsured or unlicensed. Those things became specific offences on 18 August 2008.

The offence in which the child was killed occurred in 2003. The driver was charged with dangerous driving. Dangerous driving cases MUST be based on on how far below the required standard was the driving. In sentencing for dangerous driving it is not possible to increase the sentence by very much to reflect injury or death that may have been caused. Which is why the new laws were brought in.

 

[ChrisUK]

Well it's pretty simple if you want someone killed, pay an illegal immigrant without a license "treefiddy" to run them over in his untaxed, uninsured, un-mot'd car. He can then get some 'burd' pregnant so he can do his pitiful sentence and then become a free UK citizen.

 

[jnoiles]

If you actually read the link from this quote


you will see that jnoiles has completely missed the fact that it refers to the (then) NEW offence of causing death by careless driving or when disqualified, uninsured or unlicensed. Those things became specific offences on 18 August 2008.

My bad.

 

[pooroldcodger]

I don't think we are too far apart on this but i would like to point out that the justice system can only exercise the powers it has been given by parliament. This man was punished according to the guidelines.

Don't forget that any decision taken by a magistrates court or crown court can be challenged in a higher court. So if a court does make a mistake and sentence above or below the guidelines, without giving clear and acceptable reasons why they did so, that sentence can be challenged and corrected. Within the guidelines as set out by parliament and the (appointed by parliament) sentencing guidelines council.

With recent court closures, to be followed by prison closures and taking into account a hugely underfunded probation service things can only get worse.

On that cheery note John!!
Is it any wonder that we get depressed?

 

[pooroldcodger]

I'm not. The sentence is appalling. And I've no plans to commit a crime in this country or any other.



Not sure which 'we' you're referring to here?



What would you do about it then? Moan on a forum? Campaign for some reform?



If you think what you propose is a reasonable solution, get some support for it. Put together enough backing to make it a serious issue. Look here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease150808a.htm The supposed sentence for what he did is 2 years. This guy got 4 months. Something wrong on both counts there.



No way. I've had a great time here as an immigrant. I have a decent job, I have a bunch of great friends, I even have a local girlfriend And I'm not suggesting Australia or Canada would be better. If we're talking about Australia the guy likely would never have had a chance to commit the crime. He's still be rotting in a detention centre somewhere while they 'considered' his case for asylum.



I'm only pointing out that the crime and the wanting to stay here are not necessarily completely related. He killed a girl. He got tried for it. He did his punishment, the matter is dealt with. He wants to stay because now he has a family. Different matter. The killing of the girl was dealt with. Look, killing a girl like this is a pretty severe crime in my book. But check the link I posted above. The UK Ministry of Justice's own guidelines say that the crime he committed should attract a 2 year sentence. Given that, I wonder if the 4 months served was added on to any time he served while waiting for the sentence to be handed down. For instance, if it was 2 years and he'd been locked up for 18 months before the sentence was handed down then 4 months doesn't look all that unreasonable under the law. having served his sentence and moved on with his life he's entitled to have his case to stay heard.



Not at all. I was merely pointing out that he if was unhappy with the way the UK deals with this then go somewhere else, where crimes are dealt with in a way more to his liking. Or work to change the laws here. Or any one of a number of more productive responses than just moaning about it on a forum.



Dunno? Why does everyone else respond in such a base, Daily Mail, simpleton sort of way?



Because we're better than places who hang people. Celebrate that.


Thanks

I don't know how to do this multi-quoting stuff, so you will just have to take my replies and match them to the appropriate comment above ( abit like a quiz in the newspaper!)
1.I think you should receive an ASBO. Appallingly Smug Behaviour Order
2. Because you refer to "we" and "our", as though you are part of our culture heritage but then you distance yourself and refer to "You English" in an uncharitable manner.
3.How do you know I am not also campaining in a more direct manner?
4. No comment
5. Well I am glad you take my point. If Mr Iraqi Kurd had taken himself to Australia he would have probably not made it past the beach.
6. No further comment
7.No comment
8. So everyone who does not share your view is a simpleton? I don't know if you have kids, but if you do, I would be surprised if you could be so equivocal. Also, if this was your country instead of being a newcomer, perhaps you would feel a little diffrently?
I hope you can match up my replies !

 

[jnoiles]

I don't know how to do this multi-quoting stuff, so you will just have to take my replies and match them to the appropriate comment above ( abit like a quiz in the newspaper!)

Ok

1.I think you should receive an ASBO. Appallingly Smug Behaviour Order

I can see how you might think that. I make no apologies for it.

2. Because you refer to "we" and "our", as though you are part of our culture heritage but then you distance yourself and refer to "You English" in an uncharitable manner.

I've lived all over the world. Do that long enough and it changes your sense of national identity. At the moment, I live here in the UK, I hold a UK passport, I have a native English girlfriend, I am gainfully employed and consider myself as English as the next person for the purposes of this argument. My mother was Scottish. Her whole side of the family is from here.

I mentioned 'you English' in an uncharitable light yes, that was in response to:

Originally Posted by Percyhahn
i think all of us english who want to live in a country we can own with pride, and not be taxed to death, persecuted or anything else this country screws us over on should all move to another country, and settle there and start from fresh.

who reference 'us English'. It was an emotional response on my part intended to highlight Percyhahn's use of 'us English' and point out how odd that sounded. If you took it as a slight against all English, I apologise. That wasn't my intention. The England we're living in now has a great deal to take pride in. It saddens me when people can't see that and focus instead on negative aspects.

3.How do you know I am not also campaining in a more direct manner?

I don't for certain. Are you? Your manner and your posts would indicate not. If you are, highlight them. Let's discuss how we can effect change. As I've said, I find the sentence appalling. Positivity draws people in, negativity doesn't.

5. Well I am glad you take my point. If Mr Iraqi Kurd had taken himself to Australia he would have probably not made it past the beach.

Indeed. And last week, tragically, many didn't even get the chance: http://www.smh.com.au/national/heroics-and-heartbreak-as-christmas-island-toll-climbs-to-30-20101216-18zqc.html

8. So everyone who does not share your view is a simpleton? I don't know if you have kids, but if you do, I would be surprised if you could be so equivocal. Also, if this was your country instead of being a newcomer, perhaps you would feel a little diffrently?

No, it's just that the usual suspects around here seem to immediately jump on this emotional bandwagon where we roundly condemn things, suggest it was was better in the old days, poke the human rights act with a sharp stick as though its the source of everyone's problems, usually get in a comment about benefits spongers and taxes and round it off with a bit about 'us English'. It just seems such a base, emotional response. Which is why I feel compelled to comment and try, for the most part to do it in a factual way. I occasionally mess it up, as Johnw has pointed out.

And this is my country! I live here. I participate in society. I follow it's laws and appreciate its customs. I embrace it's freedoms and privileges. I actively support and campaign for what I believe in. I think this is genuinely a very lucky and just place to be. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Do I think it's perfect? No. But then I've yet to encounter a place that is.

At the beginning of this post you asked where is Jack Straw now. I saw him speak about 18 months ago. He was asked the direct question, did he feel the human rights act was a decent legacy. His answer was yes. He was also asked if other things that had happened subsequently - the Iraq war, our response to it - was going too far. Surprisingly, he admitted yes, but went on to say that he was, is and would remain justifiably proud of the human rights act for all his days. I can only assume that despite this hit and run idiot guy using it to make a case to stay, that Jack Straw still feels proud of the Human Rights Act. And despite disagreeing with almost everything that has ever come out of the mans mouth, I'd agree with him on this point.

Edit: Re the kids. No I don't have any. Nor do I plan to. I'm not a fan of them generally but that's not to say I want the ones that are out there being run over by idiots.

 

[The Beard]

I feel that through all the EHRA business we have lost sight of what it's all about. I'm pretty certain that it was originally introduced to protect the populations of EC countries from totalitarian regimes, such as the Nazis, Italian and Spanish Fascists, not to mention the Communists in other areas of Europe, although I don't think the various protagonists in Former Yugoslavia let that get in the way.

We could of course deal with illegal immigration the French or Italian way. The French, earlier this year, sent in the CRS riot police and simply dismantled Roma Gypsy encampments and put all the occupants on buses. I can't actually remember what they did with them after that, but they chose to leave the country en-masse.

The Italians, on the other hand, simply refuse to acknowledge the presence of illegals in their country and just let them get on with selling their tat on the streets and beaches of that country.....until this year that is. At the start of this summer season they started fining tourists who bought from the "Lucky-lucky men". Eventually they will run out of money, as will the people controlling them. I'm not sure what the authorities think will happen to the illegals then.

As there aren't any totalitarian regimes left in the EC any more I'm not entirely sure who the EHRA is meant to be protecting us from.

In this case, he should have done his time, and, despite sentancing guidelines, I think several years behind bars would have been more appropriate than several months, followed by immediate deportation. I don't really care what the state of his home country is, he came here as an illegal, and as far as I'm concerned should have been kicked out then, but not content with breaking our immigration laws he then drove without a licence (correct me if I'm wrong on this one) drove without insurance and then killed a child who he left lying in the road.

As has been already stated by others, I also obey the laws of countries I visit and as such have never fallen foul of their judicial system. If I did then I couldn't complain if I was punished.

 

[johnw]

In this case, he should have done his time

At the time he did. Well he served about half of what the court thought was correct. Which, in turn, was limited to what the sentencing guidelines council allowed.

This case, and others like it, led to a change in the law. At the time it wasn't really possible to jail for a significant length of time after causing a death, unless it was possible to prove the driver intended to kill or was reckless as to whether death was likely to result - which would have enabled the use of existing law regarding murder or attempted murder.

Now we have the offence of causing death by careless driving. So a low speed traffic light rear ender, most of which the police refuse to attend and tell you to put through the insurance, could see you in jail for up to 5 years if the car you hit has a passenger with heart trouble who dies from shock. Or an elderly person with weak bones. Or a child that has wriggled out of its child seat.

 

[Radlet6]

The Italians, on the other hand, simply refuse to acknowledge the presence of illegals in their country and just let them get on with selling their tat on the streets and beaches of that country.....until this year that is.

Hi THe Beard

Whole heartedly agree apart from the above; a couple of years ago there was some bother in Padova from these guys with anti-social behaviour. To get round the problem the Italians fenced in the ghetto where they were living and imposed a curfew. There were also armed guards in case there was any bother.

If they broke the curfew they were on the next plane home.

 

[pooroldcodger]

Ok



I can see how you might think that. I make no apologies for it.



I've lived all over the world. Do that long enough and it changes your sense of national identity. At the moment, I live here in the UK, I hold a UK passport, I have a native English girlfriend, I am gainfully employed and consider myself as English as the next person for the purposes of this argument. My mother was Scottish. Her whole side of the family is from here.

I mentioned 'you English' in an uncharitable light yes, that was in response to:

who reference 'us English'. It was an emotional response on my part intended to highlight Percyhahn's use of 'us English' and point out how odd that sounded. If you took it as a slight against all English, I apologise. That wasn't my intention. The England we're living in now has a great deal to take pride in. It saddens me when people can't see that and focus instead on negative aspects.



I don't for certain. Are you? Your manner and your posts would indicate not. If you are, highlight them. Let's discuss how we can effect change. As I've said, I find the sentence appalling. Positivity draws people in, negativity doesn't.



Indeed. And last week, tragically, many didn't even get the chance: http://www.smh.com.au/national/heroics-and-heartbreak-as-christmas-island-toll-climbs-to-30-20101216-18zqc.html



No, it's just that the usual suspects around here seem to immediately jump on this emotional bandwagon where we roundly condemn things, suggest it was was better in the old days, poke the human rights act with a sharp stick as though its the source of everyone's problems, usually get in a comment about benefits spongers and taxes and round it off with a bit about 'us English'. It just seems such a base, emotional response. Which is why I feel compelled to comment and try, for the most part to do it in a factual way. I occasionally mess it up, as Johnw has pointed out.

And this is my country! I live here. I participate in society. I follow it's laws and appreciate its customs. I embrace it's freedoms and privileges. I actively support and campaign for what I believe in. I think this is genuinely a very lucky and just place to be. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Do I think it's perfect? No. But then I've yet to encounter a place that is.

At the beginning of this post you asked where is Jack Straw now. I saw him speak about 18 months ago. He was asked the direct question, did he feel the human rights act was a decent legacy. His answer was yes. He was also asked if other things that had happened subsequently - the Iraq war, our response to it - was going too far. Surprisingly, he admitted yes, but went on to say that he was, is and would remain justifiably proud of the human rights act for all his days. I can only assume that despite this hit and run idiot guy using it to make a case to stay, that Jack Straw still feels proud of the Human Rights Act. And despite disagreeing with almost everything that has ever come out of the mans mouth, I'd agree with him on this point.

Edit: Re the kids. No I don't have any. Nor do I plan to. I'm not a fan of them generally but that's not to say I want the ones that are out there being run over by idiots.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I never set out to cause offence, but as you neither have children nor were born here, please don't dismiss the views of those perhaps less eloquent than yourself. None of us know truly how it would feel to be this parent, but without kids you know even less. Also you admit that having moved around a lot disipates your sense of National identity. So again, don't under estimate the strength of feeling of those that have remained in one country and have seen major detrimental changes in such a short time.
Just to put this in perspective, i have only ever lived in this country, but I have spent time in over 50 countries, including USA and China, so I do have a perspective. I believe this used to be the best country in the world by a long distance, but there are many troubling aspects to it now.

 

[Radlet6]

.... I believe this used to be the best country in the world by a long distance, but there are many troubling aspects to it now.

Including the abandonment of all moral justice to appease any lying, thieving, murderous, dissident scumbag that chooses to live here (legally or illegally); including those that actively recruit naive and vulnerable individuals, and then brain wash them into strapping 10Kgs of cemtex to their backs..

BTW, before anyone has me marked down as a fascist fundamentalist, I have worked with charity groups in supporting genuine refugees who have sought sanctuary in the UK because they were in danger in their own country. There is a world of difference between these poor people and the pond life that seeks to prosper from our society in ANY way they can.

 

[The Beard]

At the time he did. Well he served about half of what the court thought was correct. Which, in turn, was limited to what the sentencing guidelines council allowed.

This case, and others like it, led to a change in the law. At the time it wasn't really possible to jail for a significant length of time after causing a death, unless it was possible to prove the driver intended to kill or was reckless as to whether death was likely to result - which would have enabled the use of existing law regarding murder or attempted murder.

Now we have the offence of causing death by careless driving. So a low speed traffic light rear ender, most of which the police refuse to attend and tell you to put through the insurance, could see you in jail for up to 5 years if the car you hit has a passenger with heart trouble who dies from shock. Or an elderly person with weak bones. Or a child that has wriggled out of its child seat.

I perhaps didn't phrase my comment as well as I should. Let me re-iterate. In my view, and in light of your point about an elderly or very young passenger being killed because of frailty or being unsecured, then I would like to think that the whole circumstances of the incident be taken into account.

As an example, 31 years ago I ran into the back of a Fiesta on the M6 near Keele. Although the speed at impact was only about 15mph, because there was a girl about 6 years of age kneeling up on the back seat (and it happened right under the noses of a Police motorway patrol) I ended up being fined £100 and having my licence endorsed. Although I had to hold up my hands to it being my fault, I felt somewhat aggrieved that the prosecution almost certainly wouldn't have gone ahead had the child been seated as she almost certainly wouldn't have been an issue. Because of that I would take issue with the charge being more serious as a result of contributory factors outside the control of the culprit.

What I would like to see is a number of contributory factors taken into account.

For instance, a driver is travelling at the prevailing speed limit in good conditions and after a moment's inattention runs into the back of another car. Even if serious injury or death occurs then I feel the behaviour of the offending driver should mitigate in his defence.

Add on one, or more of the following then the sentance should increase exponentially.

Travelling at, say, 50% over the prevailing limit; driving while over the proscribed alcohol limit or under the influence of narcotics; driving without a licence, or while disqualified; driving while using a mobile phone/reading a book/map/putting on make-up etc. Driving without insurance or leaving the scene would add to the punishment.

So that in an extreme situation the errant driver could be penalised with 6 points for Driving Without Due Cause. Another 3 points for speeding and so on. If there were enough counts against the driver then a prison sentance could be added.

That could make up, in the case of this man, a (failed?) Asylum Seeker, no licence, no insurance and leaving the scene of an accident, as well as causing death, a sentance of several years. But then we don't always get what we want.