h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

They are Somalians right?

Bing bong - "Charter flights to Mogadishu are currently interupted, due to civil war, lack of government and tanks all over the runway".

Last time we had this discussion, the solution proposed by someone was to parachute them in.

My comment, then as now, is that if that is what we want, then it is both cheaper and more humane to execute them here.

sprout

They're only Somalians for now. In ten years they'll be British. Yippee.

"if a foreign national commits a crime on UK soil then they should be sent back to their own country to stand trial"

Whether they stand trial or not is their own country's business. Just get them the out of OUR country. What happens next is their problem.

"If that's the case, then just who's laws should be taken into consideration..."

Ours, until the moment they touch down back home. Then theirs.

"you risk someone committing a crime in the UK getting off scott-free because what they did is not against the law in their own country."

Fair enough. As long as their not *here*, I'm fine with that. If some Bod-forsaken barbarian scum-hole doesn't mind murderers walking the streets, that's not a problem because I don't ever have to go there. Equally, if they have the death-sentence for drunk-and-disorderly, boo hoo.

"Silly examples:

All Indian nationals employed in UK abatoirs to be immediately sent back to stand trial for killing sacred cows."

They haven't broken our laws. (Seriously, how many Indian nationals are there working in abattoirs??)

"Alternatively, a Jordanian woman marries an Englishman against the wishes of her family and her brother decides to turn a shotgun on her... She is killed, he is shipped back to Jordan where he's given a maximum of six months in Jail for committing an 'honour crime'."

Fair enough. Like I said - he's Jordan's problem now. I don't ever have to go to Jordan, whereas he's sentenced to the rest of his life living there. No problem. Who wants to live in a country named after topless model anyway...?

SoRB

"They are Somalians right? Bing bong - "Charter flights to Mogadishu are currently interupted, due to civil war, lack of government and tanks all over the runway". Last time we had this discussion, the solution proposed by someone was to parachute them in. "

One of my best friends has just gone on 'holiday' to Somalia. (Her father came from there). She seems to have had no problem arranging transport. I wouldn't suggest just waving these people off on an EasyJet flight, and I don't think it's beyond the resources of this country to arrange secure transport to pretty much anywhere in the world. If it comes to it, kick them out of the back of a hovering Chinook in the middle of the night four feet above the middle of nowhere.

"My comment, then as now, is that if that is what we want, then it is both cheaper and more humane to execute them here."

I will never support judicial execution because of the possibility of miscarriage of justice. That of course applies only to my own country. I oppose the death penalty in principle, but if other countries wish to employ it, fine, I just will try to avoid ever going there.

SoRB

Obvious problem with that one:

N Korean spy sent over to UK to assasinate say the PM, Wayne Rooney and Delia Smith.

He's arrested afterwards, sent straight back to N Korea where he is feted as a hero...

sprout

Like certain French saboteurs
Sent to a very nice French island to serve their sentence, had it cut short, then feted as national heroes on return to France

<>

Yeah, happens every day that one. The prisons are full of North Korean spies.

>>"They're only Somalians for now. In ten years they'll be British. Yippee."

Doesn't the 10 year rule apply to EU/EEA citizens who are here legally?
Last time I looked, Somalia wasn't in the EU, even in the rabid imagination of the Daily Mail.

Kind of moot anyway, since they're doing 35 years+, and there's a fair chance they won't get out. If they do get out, presumably Somalia could be in a rather different condition.

"Absolutely. Works both ways. Anyone with a British passport convicted of drinking alcohol in Saudi ABSOLUTELY should be put on the next flight back to be dealt with as is appropriate in our justice system. I.e. welcomed with open arms and a big placard saying "that's what you get if you go to nasty, filthy uncivilised countries - coming to the pub?"

No hypocrisy at all. Get all the British drug traffickers off death row in Thailand and get them back here. And get all the foreign prisoners in British jails out of the country and back where they came from, *tomorrow*, regardless of where and how they end up. They came here and broke the law. Why does anyone think we owe them oxygen?"

Except that, as I've pointed out, the home country couldn't put them on trial as they haven't actually broken any laws there. So, in effect, what you're arguing is that a foreign national who breaks a law here should be sent home and... er... that'd be it. Not exactly justice in action. Under your scheme the boy who stabbed Mr Lawrence to death would have been sent home to Italy leaving a confused Italian state to wonder why on earth the British don't put people in prison for breaking the law.

As I said - anyone committing a crime here should serve the time here. After they come out if they're considered to still be a danger to society (as a believe the young man who killed Lawrence has been hence the original intention to deport him) then we should deport them back home if possible. If they are not considered a danger to society (ie they committed a more minor crime such as drunk and disorderly) then they should be allowed to stay here *but* their time in prison should not count towards their "ten years" required to stay here to obtain permanent residence (indeed there might be an argument for "resetting" that period - I'll think about it, I'm sure someone here might have a good argument against it).

"One of my best friends has just gone on 'holiday' to Somalia. (Her father came from there). She seems to have had no problem arranging transport."

Wherabouts in Somalia? Parts of it are a de-facto independent state which isn't recognised internationally and parts of it are in a state of war between the Islamist Islamic Courts army and other Somali factions (many of whom are supported by surrounding and other countries who fear a second Afghanistan situation).

Incidentally, the US rather sensibly doesn't allow convicted criminals into the country. Does this affect our ability to deport people to the US?

"Wherabouts in Somalia?"

Don't know. I'll ask her when (if...) she gets back. (She's been before...)

SoRB

Whilst the entertaining posts on deporting whom, for what, where to, and when, have got a discussion going, it is not the one I had hoped to see when I started it.

Mrs Lawrence had cogently expressed the dissatisfaction felt,(I suspect very widely ),not with the HRA and the admirable intentions behind it, but with the regular 'abuse' by shrewd lawyers to protect the 'guilty' at the cost (literally) of the innocent.

Perhaps we are missing Blues Shark here, since no doubt the CPS have some input - but we need to do something positive as a nation, in order to preserve the rights of our citizens against the criminal. Maybe it requires a change , or adaption to the Act on the Statute Book, maybe D.C. is right to suggest its' repeal and subsequent replacement with something better.

Personally I would favour a Bill of Rights & Responsibilities, a sort of Citizens Charter with an emphasis on responsibilities. I lean towards SoRB's view, and regret the tendancy over recent years to find more and more 'excuses' for criminal behaviour.

Novo

Surely if the UK law (even ignoring the HRA) doesn't allow EU citizens to be sent home if they've been here for >10 years, it's a bit cynical for the government to effectively pursue an attempt to deport someone which was highly likely to fail, and which could be seen as an attempt to do the "We're tough on crime, but those nasty courts let people off!" thing which governments of all stripes seem to enjoy, with the assistance of a fair slice of the media, irrespective of the distress it might cause by falsely raising hopes.

Looking cynically, I guess a lawyer prearing a double defence might get paid more than someone who didn't involve the HRA, but then the lawyer's job IS to use whatever laws are there which could arguably be used in the interests of their client even if some might not need to be used.

Much of the publicity around the HRA seems to be about situations where it either wouldn't have made any difference, or where someone who didn't understand it was wrongly guessing what it might mean.
Effectively, a lot of coverage follows precisely the same model as coverage of the EU - doesn't matter whether it's true, as long as it makes a useful story.

novosibirsk the tribunal said in its judgement that the HRA was not the primary consideration in its judgement. I'd expect the Daily Mail and the Tories to ignore why the decision was actually made but should we?

What the flock have the conservative party and the Daily Mail go to do with this ?

Other than displaying your own personal prejudices.

I'd say reporting on this story reflects the standard of reporting as a whole. (With an excption for Jon Pilger who it was nice to see back on the tele the other night.)

The Tories and the right-wing press have been using this judgement as the excuse for another of their attacks on the HRA. Since novosibirsk seems to believe that the Tribunal based their decision on the HRA when they didn't it seems reasonable to assume he might have based that opinion on those pushing that false view

David Cameron really is losing it. Apparently, he'd repeal the 1998 human rights act.

Great, well done Dave. What will that achieve? It will put us back to the situation we were in before, where UK law could be overruled from Strasbourg.

Unless you meant you'd ALSO withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights which was ratified... before I was born, I think. And if you mean that, you mean you'd leave the EU entirely... Have you thought this one through.

SoRB

Er, Nooo

Read post 1 again, and particularly the bit about release of prisoners.

I am aware of the law governing the deportation of Mr Lawrences' killer,just as Mrs Lawrence is.

My concern is that the HRA is being used, or the threat of it, to cover other obvious systemic failures.

As SoRB eloquently expresses it, if you break the law you get punished, but there is no reason why the country of which you are a guest, should pay for you to be imprisoned.

My personal view is that some (admittedly) with a professional obligation, have often used the HRA in unfair and prejudicial ways.
I have objected therefore to the law as presently on the Statute Book, because it has the capacity to be used for unintended reasons, and should therefore be discussed, amended, or changed - as with the 10 year rule.

Novo

How is the HRA being used to cover other failures?
It is being blamed by those who wish to abolish it for decisions that weren't made because of it.