Lawrence Widow Shock at Decision

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I'm quite surprised this one hasn't come up yet, so excuse me if it has:
The Story
Related Article
About the Murderer

Using the human rights act in, in my opinion at least, totally inappropriate. I find it disheartening that criminals who have performed crimes which breach the human rights act, should be permitted to use it to protect themselves.

[Haudegen]

As far as I understand the articles it´s not about the ECHR or the British Human Rights Act, but about those Immigration Regulations. Those seem to be special privileges that allow EU-citizens a permanent stay in other EU states under certain conditions. The idea behind this is to treat citizens of other EU states as far as possible like your own citizens.

My thoughts on the issue: The decision on Mr Chindamo´s parole is not made yet. If the autorities decide he doesn´t deserve to be free, then why expel him? If they decide that he should be released, then he has served his punishment and should not be harassed further.

[Ronin]

Using the human rights act in, in my opinion at least, totally inappropriate. I find it disheartening that criminals who have performed crimes which breach the human rights act, should be permitted to use it to protect themselves.

One of the things that defines our societies as civilized is that we understand that people have rights that are not changeable or dependent on each persons actions...no matter how good or bad they may be.

this person murdered a fellow man....he was put in jail for it and rightfully so.....justice served, case closed, to suggest that he no longer is allowed to basic human rights is taking it too far in my opinion.

[InsaneApache]

As far as I understand the articles it´s not about the ECHR or the British Human Rights Act, but about those Immigration Regulations. Those seem to be special privileges that allow EU-citizens a permanent stay in other EU states under certain conditions. The idea behind this is to treat citizens of other EU states as far as possible like your own citizens.

That's the secret that Broon and co didn't want you to know. Only last week he was posturing, saying that all foreign criminals will be deported on release. Knowing full well that his government had signed up to this garbage three years ago. A worthy successor to the holy one.

So then, if this cat is out of the bag, what other little secrets does Broon have on the constitution? amending treaty?

[Don Corleone]

One of the things that defines our societies as civilized is that we understand that people have rights that are not changeable or dependent on each persons actions...no matter how good or bad they may be.

this person murdered a fellow man....he was put in jail for it and rightfully so.....justice served, case closed, to suggest that he no longer is allowed to basic human rights is taking it too far in my opinion.

When did residing in a country of which you're not a citizen become a basic human right?

I hear those terms "Basic human rights", "Universal human rights", and the like thrown around in a lot of different contexts. As far as I can tell, "Basic Human right" or "universal human right" means "Whatever I want but can't come up with a sound legal principle justifying it".

[Haudegen]

Hey, positive thinking, please: You won´t have to take all your criminal citizens back, if they want to stay in Germany, Italy, ...

[Haudegen]

When did residing in a country of which you're not a citizen become a basic human right?

It isn´t. It´s a privilege granted by EU nations to EU citizens.

I hear those terms "Basic human rights", "Universal human rights", and the like thrown around in a lot of different contexts. As far as I can tell, "Basic Human right" or "universal human right" means "Whatever I want but can't come up with a sound legal principle justifying it".

This case has nothing to do with human rights. The only connection with the Human Rights Act is the statement from Ms. Lawrence in the article.

[Don Corleone]

It isn´t. It´s a privilege granted by EU nations to EU citizens.



This case has nothing to do with human rights. The only connection with the Human Rights Act is the statement from Ms. Lawrence in the article.

I was answering Ronin's statment with a pointed question. He's the one that claimed this murdering kid had a basic human right to remain in the UK, I'm questioning that.

[InsaneApache]

This case has nothing to do with human rights. The only connection with the Human Rights Act is the statement from Ms. Lawrence in the article.

This is true. It's an example of our sovereign rights having a horse and carriage driven over them.

Dontcha just love the EU?

For Don.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The murder of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who went to the aid of a pupil being attacked by a teenage gang, aroused a national sense of revulsion that, 12 years on, has not subsided. He died of stab wounds inflicted by Learco Chindamo, a violent and illiterate boy of 15. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff that, taking his age into account, was set at 12 years.

The Government, anticipating his release on parole next year, intended to deport Chindamo, now aged 26, to his native Italy, where he was born to an Italian father and a Filipina mother.

It has been barred from so doing by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, in a ruling that has far-reaching implications for public policy and that has caused anguish to Mr Lawrence’s widow and children and bewildered the public. It is, therefore, wholly contrary to the good administration of justice in this country, based as it must ultimately be on public trust, that secrecy has enveloped every aspect of this important case.

The tribunal, disdainfully referring to “hysterical misinformed articles in the gutter press”, decided to ensure that the press could not be informed, by excluding the media from the hearing in order “to protect the private life of the appellant”. The Home Office and the Judicial Communications Office declined to make the tribunal’s ruling public � even after Chindamo’s solicitor had told the BBC Today programme that the tribunal had ruled that deportation would violate his client’s rights to a full and fulfilling family life, guaranteed by the Article 8 provisions of the Human Rights Act. The natural public reaction was to ask about the family life of the Lawrences.

The Home Office had no business withholding the ruling and its accompanying arguments. As a party to the case, it was entitled to release the document, as the public interest clearly required. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal normal practice is to keep rulings confidential, for the good reason that personal suffering and state persecution often figure in the hearings. This emphatically was not that kind of case. In the event, the document had been loaded on the tribunal’s own website, where it was discovered by The Times. We have published it on our website, placing it in the public domain where it belongs.

The ruling on the appellant’s right to a family life should, as laid out, calm indignation; it is nuanced, dry-eyed and broadly persuasive that Chindamo’s links with Italy, which he left at the age of 5, are too tenuous to justify deportation. Where this landmark ruling packs a dynamite charge is in the section on the appellant’s rights as an EU citizen under the 2004 Citizens Directive, as incorporated last year into British law.

Only last month Gordon Brown insisted that all foreign criminals “will be deported”. Yet under EU law, the Government has known for three years that it has no such powers. Each case must be considered on merit and, no matter how repugnant the crime, the only permissible grounds for deportation are “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat” to society’s “fundamental interests” or “imperative grounds of public security”. No one fitting that description would be recommended for release by the Parole Board. As the Home Office solicitor complained at the hearing, so long as the criminal has lived in this country for five years or more � whether or not at Her Majesty’s Pleasure � Britain “could never deport a lifer who had been released from prison and was an EU citizen”. Is that why the Chindamo case was kept secret?

Clearer now?

[Ronin]

When did residing in a country of which you're not a citizen become a basic human right?

I hear those terms "Basic human rights", "Universal human rights", and the like thrown around in a lot of different contexts. As far as I can tell, "Basic Human right" or "universal human right" means "Whatever I want but can't come up with a sound legal principle justifying it".

I was merely replying to Omane´s post....he said:

I find it disheartening that criminals who have performed crimes which breach the human rights act, should be permitted to use it to protect themselves.

I merely pointed out that in a civilized society even someone that breaks the law is still entitled to it´s protection.....if this man is an European citizen then the European Treaty for Human Rights applies to him...

the only point I was making is that the fact that he committed a crime does not change this.

[Haudegen]

This is true. It's an example of our sovereign rights having a horse and carriage driven over them.

Come on, it´s not like the UK was forced into the EU and doesn´t have the slightest say in the European legislation. I think it´s a fair bargain in this particular case. Your government treats other EU nationals better and UK citizens are treated better in other EU states.

Dontcha just love the EU?

I think there have been far worse mistakes in European history than the EU

[Don Corleone]

Seems as though there is a lot of confusion on this issue. So basically, the idea that you cannot be deported no matter what you do (intra-EU) is a policy you all agreed to, but there's no inalienable right (its not in the EU constitution), it's just a perk? Why on Earth did you all agree to such a thing?

[Haudegen]

To illustrate the point:

Would a Texan, residing in Florida, be expelled, if he commited a felony in Florida?

The EU is quite similar in this point.
EDIT: To be honest it´s not that simple. Foreign EU national need to have lived there 10 years in order to get the privilege.


And no, it´s not part of a constitution, is a so called regulation. This is a type of law that was enacted by the EU (council, commission, parliament). But these EU laws are just as binding as national laws.

[lars573]

Seems as though there is a lot of confusion on this issue. So basically, the idea that you cannot be deported no matter what you do (intra-EU) is a policy you all agreed to, but there's no inalienable right (its not in the EU constitution), it's just a perk? Why on Earth did you all agree to such a thing?

This might clear things up. The EU of today is much like the US was under the articles of confederation.

[InsaneApache]

Come on, it´s not like the UK was forced into the EU and doesn´t have the slightest say in the European legislation. I think it´s a fair bargain in this particular case. Your government treats other EU nationals better and UK citizens are treated better in other EU states.


I think there have been far worse mistakes in European history than the EU

That's the problem, we don't. The electorate has been lied to for over a generation in the UK. The last time we (the voters) had any say on this issue was back in '75 and that was about joining the EEC, a trading bloc. No one was ever told that laws enacted in Brussels would have any sway over our national laws. Before anyone says that you should vote for a party that doesn't agree that the EU should hold sway over our legislature, the answer is simple. There isn't (a credible) one. All three of the main parties have the same agenda regarding Europe.

It's only when situations like this arise that the public suddenly sit up and take notice.

Then again the footys on tonight.

[Don Corleone]

To illustrate the point:

Would a Texan, residing in Florida, be expelled, if he commited a felony in Florida?

The EU is quite similar in this point.
EDIT: To be honest it´s not that simple. Foreign EU national need to have lived there 10 years in order to get the privilege.


And no, it´s not part of a constitution, is a so called regulation. This is a type of law that was enacted by the EU (council, commission, parliament). But these EU laws are just as binding as national laws.

It's not the same thing at all. Despite Strike & Khafir's thoughts on the matter, neither Texas nor Florida are sovereign states. Each is under the jurisdicition of a federal government which is also directly accountable to its citizens at the ballot box. Yes, I know, you have a European government in Brussels. But they're not directly elected, there's no Democratic process. In reality, they're an aristocracy.

Put another way, what can the average Euorpean voter do to directly influence policies enacted in Brussels? Scant little.

I was surprised to see your answer on illegal immigrants living in Germany. Citizenship is traced through the father only? If my mother was a German citizen, had me in a hospital in Nuremberg, but my father was Canadian, I wouldn't qualify for German citizenship? Interesting approach. What do you do in cases where the identity of the father is unknown?

All that being said, sorry IA. Your beef isn't with the EU, it's with your own government for volunteering to put these shackles on. If the rules say every EU member country must outlaw the practice of religion and your government was dumb enough to sign you up for the EU, I don't see that you have too many choices... atheism at the barrel of a gun it is for you and yours.

For the record, it was these sorts of questions that were the reason WHY the original 13 colonies were so wary of entering into union and why the original Articles of Confederation had no teeth. In order to get the requisite number of member states to sign on to the Constitution, Massachussets and Connecticut had to threaten Rhode Island with invasion if they didn't sign.

[English assassin]

TBH other than the blatant lies told by the politicians I don't think there is much in this story.

To channel DD for a second, I think I've scraped stuff off my shoe that has made more of a contribution this country than Mr Chindamo ever will. But he's been here since he was 5, he's OUR scumbag, not Italy's.

Lets just hope his dad doesn't come to visit (at the time of the killing, Chindamo senior was serving 15 years in Italy for throwing acid in a woman's face. Currently, he is serving life for murdering a different woman. I think I can be forgiven for saying I hope Chindamo junior does not reproduce, although I fear he will, probably many times)

Put another way, what can the average Euorpean voter do to directly influence policies enacted in Brussels? Scant little.

I always think its telling, the words and phrases that you find best expressed in one language. In this case, French, and dirigisme. Democracy's awfully anglo saxon, DC. Lets just let those clever graduates of the Grandes Ecoles tell us what to think...

[Ser Clegane]

I was surprised to see your answer on illegal immigrants living in Germany. Citizenship is traced through the father only? If my mother was a German citizen, had me in a hospital in Nuremberg, but my father was Canadian, I wouldn't qualify for German citizenship? Interesting approach. What do you do in cases where the identity of the father is unknown?

I think the response in the other thread was specifically referring to the case in that thread where the mother was the illegal immigrant.
If the mother is German citizen the child of course also receives the German citizenship.