Sunday, July 15, 2012

The ongoing degradation of our legal system

The legal system in this country in respect to human rights is fast becoming a disgrace the country can ill afford to live with. Using the Human Rights Act as put into legislation by the last Labour government the various lawyers, barristers and advocates have used it in ways that the general public never envisioned to give judges the power to allow sheer evil in the form of rapists, murderers and terrorists wanted by other countries to remain in our midst along with the odious 'right to a family life' clause which has enabled the very worst of offenders to remain when common sense should have dictated their instant removal...
The UK Border Agency has reacted with fury to a court ruling allowing a Sudanese asylum seeker who raped a 12-year-old girl to remain in Britain. Sani Adil Ali, 28, originally from Darfur and part of a threatened tribe, came to Britain in 2003 and was awarded refugee status in February 2005, it was reported.
But only a few months later he was arrested at his home in Middlesbrough and later admitted one count of raping the girl.
Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to take action on the legislation that helps foreign criminals stay in the UK.
Ali was reportedly jailed for three years at Sheffield Crown Court and released in 2008, when the Home Office ordered that he return to Sudan and he was locked up in an immigration removal centre. But he appealed to an immigration court and though a judge rejected his bid, he mounted a fresh appeal to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, the Mail on Sunday reported.
He was allowed to stay because deporting him, the court ruling showed, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Yes, the odious Human Rights Act strikes again as lawyers use it to allow the rapist of a twelve year old girl to remain in the UK as being a Muslim from the Zaghawa tribe in Darfur he'd be in danger of 'persecution' if he was deported.
Tbh, my personal belief is that anyone who rapes a twelve year old (or indeed rapes anyone) deserves to be persecuted. Nor if they are an immigrant or asylum seeker should they be allowed to remain in the UK, this should apply to any serious crime, whether they are naturalised or not. But Labour in their usual wisdom decided that the rights of criminals to remain in the UK should supersede the rights of the indigenous populace to remain free of foreign criminals living amongst us. After all, in Labours view, if we have the right to be free of persecution, so do criminals. Yet amazingly enough the vast majority of people don't hold to this view at all, not even the Prime Minister. Yet our judges and lawyers apparently do, though the judge in this case (Judge Jonathan Perkins) has form for allowing the dregs of foreign society remain in the UK as he was the one who allowed the Taliban terrorist to remain as well, the one who may have murdered UK troops, certainly fought against us.
If ever there were a case for zero tolerance it should be applied to those who have come here as refugees yet who commit crimes.

2 annotations:

English Pensioner said...

Tbh, my personal belief is that anyone who rapes a twelve year old (or indeed rapes anyone) deserves to be persecuted.
I fully agree with this except for one work, the last. Its should read "Executed"

Tatty said...

Where precisely does it say in the legislation that they can ONLY be deported directly to their country of origin ?

A one way ticket to the country of their choice and let them sort out refugee status there.

The only thing that should count is that they are out of THIS country. Girlfriend, illegitimate children and cat to follow, at their own expense, if they wish.

How hard can this be, really ?