Tuesday, August 21, 2007

The Human Rights of Mrs Lawrence

The case of Philip Lawrence's murderer being allowed to stay in this country upon his release, because to deport him back to his native Italy would breach his human rights, surely has to call into question the future of this fault-ridden piece of legislation. Listening to Philip Lawrence's widow this morning, there can surely be few people who would argue that this Act has failed her and her two children. What about THEIR human rights? The right to live in peace and security and free from the fear that one day they might run into their beloved husband's and father's murderer.

I hope the Home Office will use their right to appeal this case, because the precedent it sets will be of huge importance.

PS Mr Chindamo was sentenced to life for Philip Lawrence's murder. He will be released after twelve years. So a headmaster's life is only worth twelve years. That is perhaps just as big a scandal as the abuse of the Human Rights Act.


The Military Wing Of The BBC said...

I also hope that Cameroon will want a "bare knuckle fight" over this one as well.
Or does he only have "washing up" hands?

Anonymous said...

Whilst it's important to remember that Human Rights legislation is in placee to protect the rights of all human beings - even those who commit the most deplorable acts - there can be no possible justification for not deporting this heinous example of our species. As far as I can see he faces no threat to this life in being sent back to Italy. He should be on a plane right now.


Anonymous said...

Much as I loathe the Human Rights legislation (because it creates more problems than it purports to solve), Mr Lawrence's killer was brought to this country as a child - therefore not of his own volition - and has no contacts in Italy apparently, nor does he speak the language.

I would be happier if I knew why he is likely to be released after only 12 years, how well rehabilitated has he been, and what prospects he has of living an honest and worthwhile life in this country.

Anonymous said...

EU law prohibits deportation within the Union unless their is a significant threat caused by him staying. god the EU is an odious organisation.

so he will stay due to rubbish laws that nobody in the UK wants or ha any control over

Anonymous said...

He'll be able to apply for parole after twelve years. No guarantee he'll get it.

And what have the Italians done to deserve being lumbered with him?

Anonymous said...

Its not human rights! Its the EU.
The ECHR will probably be our only defence against the EU if they abolish the UK. Put the blame where its due.

He also dismissed the government's protests as "posturing", saying it had accepted the 2006 European Commission regulation into British law.

Anonymous said...

Mrs Lawrence is clearly just trying to use the deportation process to further punish her husband's murderer. He was brought to this country as a 5 year old child and has never subsequently lived outside it - this is the country that should deal with the consequences of his actions. It might make you feel all tough and old school Tory Iain but this is the exception that proves the rule when it comes to automatic deportation.

Anonymous said...

Mrs Lawrence's interview was moving because she was able to acknowledge the conflicts between her emotional and intellectual feelings.

We need to be careful not to let our emotions get the better of us at the first mention of the Human Rights Act.

I am sure you have read the judgement in this case Iain which is something I do not pretend to have done.

On the face of it, however, it seems that regardless of the HRA Mr Chindamo would have to remain in the UK. He does not pose a terrorist threat and - if he is paroled - the implication is that he poses no danger to the public. This two things being judged to be the case, you are barking up the wrong tree when you blame the HRA. HRA or no HRA the ruling in this case would have been the same.

Anonymous said...

Did I notice the headed paper of Gareth Peirce's law firm when the future of Mr Chidamo was discussed on BBC news? Since these people have no shame, it will be up to a Conservative government to subtract us from the European Human Rights legislation, and to ensure that someone who kills a headmaster stays in jail for a lot longer thatn 12 years.

Anonymous said...

The government is guilty of cynically giving Mrs Lawrence false hope for good headlines. They have always known that Chindamo does not meet the crteria for expulsion under the HR legislation. Anyway a an EU citizen it will be his 'human right' to a passport and what's to stop him coming back?

This Government has been wrong-footed by HR ever since they signed up for it, (Tony egged on by Cherie. )Hoist by their own petard.

Tuscan Tony said...

I understand he moved to England when he was 5 years old; why should the Italians have to endure this oxygen thief's presence now when he was "brunged up" (and presumably acquired his dislike for decent headmasters and authority) elsewhere? What has this charming product of the UK edukashun system and present chav-centric moral code got to to with the Eyeties? His mother was a fillipina - why not ping him "back there", by that logic?
Aside from that, as the EU is a homogenous area with regard to the rights of abode (and one that I take advantage of myself) how is his immediate subsequent return to England from Italy to be prevented, as passport checks are virtually non-existent through, say, the Channel Tunnel (and de facto non-existent though much of the continental EU?

Our collective revulsion at this boll weevil as an individual, and the bemusement of some of us (esp. me)re most aspects of the hilarious lawyerfest of the Human Rights Act should not be allowed to cloud these points.

Anonymous said...

The Human Rights Act was always a piece of legislation enacted by New Labour to work against their perceived opponents-the honest,the law abiding,the tax paying,the quiet,the victim.The decision did not surprise me at all.The wretched McNulty was squirming on the radio this morning blustering about an appeal.He will know that it is likely to fail.

Anonymous said...

I'm not entirely sure your first sentence makes any sense!

Anonymous said...

Goebbels never reads what he writes.

Anonymous said...

I have great sympathy with Mrs Lawrence but notwithstanding political postering what will be achieved by sending him to Italy!

Surely he should not fight and come back on the next flight home.

To be honest it is a little unfair given his education in UK to send back 'home' to Italy. Why should the Italian people have to put up with and rehabilitate him into decent society.

Perhaps the biggest scandal is that he has been released so soon -or his he expected to be rehabilitated in Italy in Sicily!

The biggest scandal is the Govt signing up to things in which it is not aware of the actual consquences. as another responder commented "Hoist on their own petard"

Anonymous said...

Iain if the politicians of this country would give us the citizens of ths country a written constitution there would be no need for the Human Rights act.

So like everything else Westminster is to blame

Anonymous said...

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life states:

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The crucial bit is the last few lines of section 2 as this could equally be interpreted in favour of Mrs Lawrence and her children and is open to the interpretation of the legislation and its intended meaning and effect by the judge who heard the application. The decision needs to be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, has this blog become a subsidiary of the Daily Mail?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

This case was never a case for promoting the role of the "have-a-go-hero"

Mr Lawrence intervened to "save" a 13 year old (William Njoh), who has since specialised in petty crime, leading to robbery, leading to a firearms offence, for which he was jailed this week.

His widow has succumbed to the dilemma of the liberal middle classes in that she cannot figure out who the bad guys are any more and is reported to have "blown a kiss" to William Njoh as he went down for four and a half years.

As for Chindamo, her moral compass spins wildy as ever:

"Forgiveness is such a complex issue or maybe such a simple one and I don't think I really understand it yet, and I'm not sure what it is that I'm meant to do.

"This is really difficult but I think I've probably always forgiven Chindamo but it's the dealing with it - that's so difficult."

No dear, you don't have to forgive the scumbag and the problem is not yours to deal with. He took away a life that was precious to you, a life you will never have.

He deserves to hang, but we don't do that anymore, but at the very least he should spend the rest of his life either behind bars. Whether here or in Italy is irrelevant.

What makes me angry is that we are having a debate about this. As far as I am concerned, Chindamo gave up his rights to everything but food and water when he joined a violent gang, carried a ten inch knife and stabbed somebody who worked for crap money doing something useful.

It's time to get back to a moral reality. A reality where the liberals aren't allowed to muddy the waters with their misplace zeal for "rights".

If this does not happen, every street punk and every scumbag that infests our cities will prosper on the ambiguity and utter confusion, the miasma of moral vacuity, that is a function of liberal humanist philosophy.

Anonymous said...

One Democratic Presidential candidate(I think it was Dukakis in 1988)had released as state governer shortly before the election a murderer who reoffended immediately.Photos of this pond life so dogged the campaign that it was almost believed that he was his running mate.If Mr Lawrence's killer is not deported because of Nulab legislation,then the Tories should do the same so long as Mrs Lawrence agrees.

David Boothroyd said...

The Human Rights Act conferred no extra human rights which people had not possessed since the early 1950s. Commenters seem to be unaware of this.

simon said...

How would we feel if the situation was reversed and someone who had murdered in Italy was being sent here because he happened tohave been born here? There was, I recall, a case a year or two ago involving an Australian sex offender who was due to be sent to Scotland because he was born there, even though he's lived his whole life in Oz. Much outrage on that score, I recall

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I wish you would think things through Iain.

This makes no policy senses at all.
"The right to live free from the fear that one day they might run into their beloved husband's and father's murderer".

Please clarify that this reall is only a 'human right' if the murder was a foreigner. If this guy was a brit this wouldn't be a issue.

If this guy was a brit in order to uphold this new human right you have created you would have to:

1. never let murderes out of prison (is that the policy of the new liberal conservatives)

2. If you do let them out of prison, insit that they live, say in coventry, so that the relatives of the victim had no chance of accidentlyt bumping into them.

You rail against the Human Rights Act, them make up new Human Rights that are just stupid.

The right needs to get a grip before it argues itself into oblivion.

Anonymous said...

I think most of the other comments seem to have covered the main areas of this case, i.e. it's really about him being let out early, rather than his deportation.

But I do hate this "what about the victim's human rights" stuff, and now Iain seems to have fallen for it too. But then it's been repeated so often by the tabloid press and the government I'm not entirely surprised. Whenever I read it really sounds like the writer doesn't know what human rights are (although I have to assume they do, and are merely using a powerful sound bite). Given Iain's recent trip to Rwanda it surprises me that he has fallen for this.

On the basis that most people agree that HRA is flawed in some respects, it might be worth framing this point in terms of the UN declaration on Human Rights which is a little bit more uncontroversial (although I do sense that some Daily Mail readers would like to inflict cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment on most criminals or refugees).

The whole point of human rights is to grant inalienable human rights to everyone, irrespective of what they have done or who they are. If it was just being nice to people we like there would be no point.

Inalienable human rights cover things like inequality, threat to life, slavery, lack of privacy, freedom of speech, education, trials and punishments.

Mrs. Lawrence has clearly been through the most traumatic of experiences, but "an eye for an eye", having an input into punishment of those who have wronged you or "The right to live in peace and security and free from the fear that one day they might run into their beloved husband's and father's murderer" are not an inalienable human rights.

Anonymous said...

There is a very widely held perception in England (and I suspect in the wider UK) at the moment that we have "lost control" of our country. It cuts across political allegiance, gender, age and race. It is a nebulous concern, not always easy to put your finger on where the problems truly lie, but with plenty of suspects. Issues like this case cause this unease to well up.

If Cameron wants to win the next election, then convince people that (a) he can sense this concern too and (b) he has some answers without (c) coming across as a Fascist little Englander. Forget the environment, forget tax cuts - show the people he is onside and he catches Brown offside. Brown has been the Government for ten years, but the essence of this country has been degraded on his watch. He is part of the problem and re-electing him is not the solution.

Get that message across in the Midlands, the North-west, the inner suburbs - and he has a working majority. And it is a message that can be got across in a three-week election campaign.

The bulk of the electorate now has very shallow allegiances to one political party. Huge swings are possible and getting more likely. I think that when the next election comes, a well-fought campaign can inspire mass migration of voters. And I still think that Cameron could deliver that campaign.

Iain Dale said...

Anonymous at 10.57. This man has never been a British national, therefore we have every right to deport him. Your argument falls down at that stage, I'm afraid.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

This plays very well with Government spin doctors.

The current line is "this is terrible and we will vigorously pursue and appeal", thus appearing tough and also making sure that they can blame the courts if Chindamo is not deported. Very clever.

Now, I wonder why it is that a government that can pursue an illegal war in contravention of International law, cannot somehow navigate its way around this bit of inconvenience.

They say where there is a will there is a way, and in this case there is no real will. Tony McNulty has made all the right noises. He has done his duty.

peter said...

Human rights law has got nothing to do with it.

I'll say it again, because it seems the message is not getting through:

Human rights law has got nothing to do with it.

It is about EU law - which says that nationals of one EU country can't be deported there from another unless there are over-riding security concerns.

It's part of building a single European entity that all EU nationals have the right to work, travel and commit crimes wherever they like within the EU.

Blame the EU treaties and jurisprudence - not the Human Rights Act.
Of course, if he were not an EU national, then the killer could still try and argue that deportation was a breach of his human rights to a family life - in which case a Judge would have to weigh up whether deportation was a proportionate measure or not. As somebody else mentioned, that has not changed since 1950.

Anonymous said...

Is it just me or is this story a bit of an irrelevance? He serves his time either here or in Italy. If he was deported, as an EU citizen, there would be nothing stopping him coming back in future.

I'm afraid this just smacks of the usual posturing by certain individuals. What's more important is that he serves his time. Why expend energy trying to deport him? It's not as if that is going to extend his jail sentence (which is actually the real agenda here)

Tony said...

Iain, do you propose the UK withdraw from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

Sir Pointon said...

Anonymous 10:57 has it right. The problem is with the sentence, not what happens afterwards. The idea that the tariff for justice should depend in any way on who you are is fundamentally illiberal and unworthy of you, Iain, and Britain.

The HRA is completely irrelevant to the issue of justice in this case.

Anonymous said...

Iain Dale said...
Anonymous at 10.57. This man has never been a British national, therefore we have every right to deport him. Your argument falls down at that stage, I'm afraid.

Yes but as has been said your issue is with the free movement of people within the EU not the HRA (Different Anon.)

Anonymous said...

mcnumpty is the worst example of morally bankrupt nulab coward. he spouts incoherent rubbish in support of the indefensible. his govt allowed the widow to believe this two-bob loser was going to be deported all along knowing it was never hoing to happen. when will one of these nulab ministers actually get some backbone and morality. a lying thieving non-entity just like the rest.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Newmania said...

If he was swinging from a rope with fairs and bunting acrobatic dwarves and minstrels celebrating the events then we wouldn’t have to have this discussion.

Why is it when the country consistently supports Capital punishment it is not even on the horizon? We have lost all confidence in the concepts of justice and punishment and this is one of the reasons this sort of thing continues to happen.
In this case I don’t know if the noose would be right but there are about twenty cases where it absolutely would and the example would deter.
They say there is no evidence for this well what do you want? It would deter me how about you! The sophistry of weasel remarks like this is breathtaking
"The whole point of human rights is to grant inalienable human rights to everyone, irrespective of what they have done or who they are "
..The sheer intellectual insult of this garbage is enough justify kicking the whole rotting pile of hypocrisy into the waste recycling container. The distance from the wishes of the people of this country is cavernous and the arrogance of self appointed priests intergalactic. Start from justice and make the law fit it not the other way round . In common law’s development it was assume the law pre existed and the process of framing it was to "discover” the justice...oh we `ve come a long way since.....
Anon 11.02 seems a fine example of degraded 21st century man. Morally and philosophically illiterate he nonetheless knows exactly what a ‘human right’ is well , what it is according this weeks Liberal agenda anyway.

Anonymous said...

Iain - can you answer a simply question?

Do you think even with the HRA/ ECHR still in force Mr Chindamo would be deported were he not an EU citizen?

Chris Paul said...

The Home Office are intending to appeal. However they do not have a hope in hell of success.

The reasons for not deporting this young man who has lived in Britain for all but three years of his life are both legally and philosophically bankrupt.

The British State cannot possibly succeed on this one, and do you know what? I'm glad.

My information, to answer Judith's questions - from Channel 4 News - on which Tony McNulty looked like a shallow idiot with no concept of either law or moral philosophy - is that the young man is extremely well rehabilitated and has an extremely good chance of living an honest, worthwhile and productive life here in the UK.

I know, I know, I know Iain. This is in danger of being the most mad and stupid comment I have ever made anywhere.

Free Farmer Martin I say. (There, that's made sure)

Anonymous said...

Predictability and precedence - these are the problems with our legal system. They create situations like this and they encourage the criminally inclined and their lawyers to 'play' the system.

This murderer probably never intended to kill Mr Lawrence, it was an unpredictable consequence of his fight outside the school. So why should the law not apply unpredictability to the application of punishment? A random application of severe penalties would put fear back into the criminal mind and would also be an honest reflection of the unpredictable effects of crime on its victims.

Similarly, the legal profession exploit precedence as a mechanism to ratchet down the sentences meted out to their clients. Exploiting the vague concept of 'fairness', whatever that means.

What this case illustrates, above all else, is the unsatisfactory nature of our criminal legal system. In my view, a more random and occasionally very severe an arbitrary approach to sentencing would do much to put this back on track.

Johnny Norfolk said...

This is more to do with the united states of europe than human rights.

We are losing our nation state bit by bit its all one now so he can stay where he likes.

Kris said...


This is a disgusting outcome and this killer's feet shouldn't touch the ground in this country on his release.

I don't know, but the French and Spanish don't seem to have the hand-wringing problems we do in implementing the ECHR.

I used to think less of the USA for not signing up to these sorts of international human rights treaties. Learco Chindamo's case vindicates the US position.

Anonymous said...

A poor post.
1.Its not human rights legislation.
2.Mrs Lawrence has acknowledged that had she been a judge on the case she would've made the same decision.
3.Eligible to apply for parole is not the same as being released.

Be equally careful with the Journey times to hospital story.

Anonymous said...

Iain, rather than offer such truely poor arguements, if they can be called that, you should be attacking the Home Office for appealing when they and everyone else with a bit of wit knows they have no chance of success.

One of your poorer posts.

Newmania said...

man is extremely well rehabilitated and has an extremely good chance of living an honest, worthwhile and productive life here in the UK.

Hows the victim getting on then? Feeling any better? Rehabilitated at all? I didn`t see C4 perhaps you wouold update me on the position

JMB said...

Can someone explain why we have this tradition in the UK of sentencing someone to "life imprisonment" when everyone knows that they will only spend a few years in prison.

They should get a sentence of a "minimum of x years" though someone like this should spend the rest of his life in prison.

I must admit that I will not lose a lot of sleep about him having to learn Italian if he is deported.


Newmania said...

The Human Rights Act conferred no extra human rights which people had not possessed since the early 1950s. Commenters seem to be unaware of this.

Back that up because I somehow doubt your knowledge of either the current EU impositioon of the legal frame wrok of the 1950s is remotely up to it. Is it ...by any chance ..something you read a pro EU Liberla bleeding heart opine during an apoligising session ?

richardcalhoun said...

Hang on here, if the Chindamo had happened to be English born what would your position be then??

Surely you cannot have family and friends intervening after the convicted has served his sentence

Scipio said...

I feel sympathy for Mrs. Lawrence, and I felt that she is one of the most dignified interviewees I have ever heard.

However, the murderer came to the UK aged 3, has no family or contacts in Italy, doesn't speak Italian and is in every sense, effectively British!

If this situation was different, then deporting him would be legal and justified.

The answer to this problem is not deporting him, but not releasing him in the first place!

The real problem is not the Human Rights Act (which I think should actually be scrapped), but in EU law, and the fact that a murderer gets insufficient time in prison.

Anonymous said...

Hi Iain,

You've actually proved my point for me.

This new right you've just made up, "The right to live free from the fear that one day they might run into their beloved husband's and father's murderer" only exists according to you because this guy is not a british citizen.

Would this new right still be relevant if the murderer wa british?

Think before you post man.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11.36 wrote: 'This murderer probably never intended to kill Mr Lawrence, it was an unpredictable consequence of his fight outside the school.' If that was the case, he would not have been convicted of murder.

No one has mentioned the fact that, if one is given a mandatory life sentence, then one is only released on license - i.e. you can be recalled to gaol at any time. If he remains in this country, it will presumably be easier to recall him than if he is in Italy.

However, I concur with those who have noted that (a) the problem lies as much with EU law as with the HRA (both are relied on in the case) and (b) the crucial issue is not what happens to him after release, but rather when he is released. He may be a reformed individual - as his lawyer claims - or he may not, but that does not negate the fact that he has murdered another human being and punishment should reflect the severity of the crime. There needs to be a review of the current sentencing guidelines. In my view, there should be a minimum tariff of twenty years for murder, unless there are compelling extenuating circumstances which the judge should specify in sentencing. The emphais, though, should be on the minimum. There is something morally repulsive in allowing a murderer to enjoy freedom when they have denied that to another human being. In some cases, it is appropriate that life does mean life.

Anonymous said...

We do have the death penalty in this country - it is called 'shoot to kill'. Unfortunately it is innocent people like Jean Charles de Menezes who are executed, courtesy of the aptly named Cressida Dick (yet another EU Common Purpose 'graduate').

As a society we gave up our right to exact vengeance in return for protection by the State and the promise that the State would respond with overwhelming force if our rights were violated.

However, thanks to the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law, our EU lords and masters and their satraps in Westminster, Whitehall, Town Hall and ACPO have denied us the right to defend ourselves, our families or our property. If we dare to raise a finger against anyone attacking us, we are the ones on whom the implacable wrath of the State descends. The Lockean contract between State and Citizen has been broken by the State, so we are released from any moral obligation to obey their failed laws.

Scipio said...

Newmania - a great rant, but sadly I suspect that even if hanging was brought back, they wouldn;t allow the hanging of 15 year old kids - not even 15 year old kids who knife their headteachers through the heart!

Alan Douglas said...

So even if we CAN deport him, does it matter ? As an EU citizen he will have the right to return here right away, no ?

Alan Douglas

Anonymous said...


The Tories are already committed to scrapping the HRA and replacing it with a Bill of Rights type document.

However that still leaves the ECHR which both the Gov, Tories and the Home Office dislike on very specific points such as the deportation of foreign prisoners.

vanfuertes said...

People who say "What about the human rights of the victims" show a complete lack of understanding of the concept of human rights. They should stop making themselves look stupid and keep their mouths shut.

However...as was mentioned at the end of the post, why on earth is this man getting out of prison? Why doesn't life mean life? Anyone mentally unstable enough to kill another human being should be locked up for good. More prison ships please.

Unsworth said...

Nice to see some reasoned debate here - for a change!

Iain, you say " The right to live in peace and security and free from the fear that one day they might run into their beloved husband's and father's murderer.

I hope the Home Office will use their right to appeal this case, because the precedent it sets will be of huge importance.

PS Mr Chindamo was sentenced to life for Philip Lawrence's murder. He will be released after twelve years. So a headmaster's life is only worth twelve years. That is perhaps just as big a scandal as the abuse of the Human Rights Act.

No one has the right to not come into contact with such a murderer (or rapist or whatever) once they have been released. The law merely allows a sentence of incarceration, not what might happen once sentence has been served. So whilst one might sympathise with Mrs Lawrence and her children, the fact is that she (they) run the same risk as everyone else who has had a relative murdered. In this case there was no recommendation for deportation at the time of the trial, anyway.

As to the killing of a Headmaster, it should not be the case that special treatment or sentences should be meted out to criminals on the basis of their victims' professions. That is a very slippery slope.

Should doctors or teachers or nurses or dentists or whatever profession or calling merit 'special protection' on the basis of 'special sentencing'? How long would it be before various others climb aboard the bandwagon?

Already the sentencing policy has changed so that those attacking policemen - and some other groups - are given extra 'punishment' on the basis of aggravating factors. So we'll end up with two tier or multi-tier justice.

Is that really acceptable in a society where the law (apparently) regards all as 'equal'?

Chris Paul said...

I have just fisked Dale on Chindamo. Intelligent comments very welcome. Clearly iain you will post this comment here immediately and then set about your defence to give others an equal chance. this being a Tory philosophy and all.

AloneMan said...

Not with you on this one, Iain.
Te guy was five when he came from Italy. He doesn't speak the lingo. He has no real ties. Regardless of the HRA, common sense says he should stay here, where his roots are.
You're reacting like someone from the Monday Club.

Anonymous said...

What can you expect from judges whose status is now lower than that of estate agents. The cowardly anonymous judges who made this decision are so beyond contempt that they're too too scared to stand up in public and account for themselves. And let's not forget that whenever the opportunity arises for the government to appoint a lawyer to Strasbourg to formulate EU law, instead of appointing the creme de la creme they send some sleazebag who's representatives have handed over a wad of cash to Labour Party funds on his behalf.

Anonymous said...

They say there is no evidence for this well what do you want? It would deter me how about you! The sophistry of weasel remarks like this is breathtaking

Given that all evidence states that jurisdictions with comparable justice systems (ie NOT human-rights-free autocracies like Singapore) that do have the death penalty have higher murder rates (see US states for an example) then either

a) Newmania doesn't actually know what 'sophistry' means


b) it is his sophistry that is breathtaking.

It's not that 'the evidence isn't there to say that it is a deterrent' [my itals]. It's that the evidence says it isn't.

Oh, it's also more expensive (yes it is, check the figures), and prone to messing up.

Sir-C4' said...

With a nation full of of corrupt fascist politicians (Blair, Brown, Harperson and the EU), lazy police officers (Blair), a biased leftwing media (The BBC and Toynbee) and feral youths, I predict a rise of vigilantism, a maybe even a popular coup against the establishment.

The Hitch said...

Just one more piece of crap on our streets , deporting him will not make one jot of difference.
As the excellent Mr Weasel pointed the victims wife has a pretty confused set of values so lets not get too concerned about her opinions.
As retarded as this revolting creature is , no doubt he would have had a few doubts about stabbing a man if he knew that he faced the rope.
I would bring back hanging for murder , stranger rape , all child abuse , armed robbery , mugging and voting labour(that bit was a joke)
When singapore had a spate of muggings , they solved it very quickly, how?
counseling the poor dears?
No, they stationed police snipers at high vantage points with the authority to shoot to kill without warning any mugger.
End of mugging in singapore.
violence needs to be fought with violence not good intentions.

Anonymous said...

If going to a country where you have no ties and can't speak the language was as unacceptable as some people seem to think we'd have no immigrants in this country at all and no Brit would ever take their family abroad. Are these posters suggesting that if a 20 year old arrives here with no ties and no English language the Immigration Tribunal should say, "No, it would be cruel to accept your application. Go home to your family where they speak your language."

Tony said...

The Hitch>

I would add fascists to your list, otherwise we will end up in a totalitarian state...

Anonymous said...

I would bring back hanging for murder , stranger rape , all child abuse , armed robbery ,

Hitch, you're entitled to your views (I disagree, needless to say) but, if you would:

- define 'armed'

(ie just guns n' blades? technically, the law reckons you're 'armed' if you threaten someone with anything including, eg really sharp combs / an angry hamster etc)

- define 'child abuse'

(something tells me, for example, that you're going to be in support of 'reasonable chastisement', apologies if I'm wrong)

- why is raping a stranger worse?

(would you be able to get the sentence commuted if you could prove you knew them?)

Mulligan said...

So our government wants to send this individual back to Italy whilst trying to get 5 more unsavoury characters back from Guantanemo (for god knows what reason).

Whatever any of us thinks (and IMO this murderer being released after a paultry 12 years is more the issue than which country's benefit system supports him from now on) they can't have it both ways....

The Hitch said...

Tony kennick
It seems to have escaped your notice that we are already in one.
A corporatist one party fascist state.
Your or my vote doesnt count.

towcestarian said...

Quite frankly, there was never any realistic prospect of the murdering b*****d being deported (to another EU country) and it was very irresponsible of the Home Office to tell Mrs Lawrence that he would be. A bit of honesty up front rather than headline grabbing statements from NuLab ministers would have spared the poor woman a whole load of extra grief.

WindsorBloke said...

the man is extremely well rehabilitated

Good. No doubt he feels genuine remorse for his actions and will demonstrate his respect for Mrs Lawrence's feelings by voluntarily leaving Great Britain when he is released from prison.

If he can find any country that will have him, of course.

Vienna Woods said...

The problem as I see it, is that we have been badgered by legislation into believing that human rights is to do with the singular rights of the individual and not as a group. We have become so self centred and selfish that we look after ourselves and our immediate family, discounting everybody else but a few friends. We don’t think as a community and very few of us concern ourselves with others, for the simple reason we have no time. Personally, I have a deep loathing for antisocial behavior, from the graffiti scrawlers to the thugs that infest our streets. Perhaps they are victims of bad parenting, but people like this always existed and their kids were no better than today. What is different nowadays is a complete breakdown of group discipline because we have falsely evolved into an “everyone for himself” society instead of taking a wider view. I was recapping only yesterday about a visit to my parents by the local Bobby regarding my behavior (I answered him back when he accused me wrongly!). I received a smack from my mother that nearly knocked me off my feet, not for the false allegation, but for being impudent to an adult. Whilst at the time I felt aggrieved, it taught me a certain lesson which I have never forgotten. Today, the Bobby wouldn’t bother and if he did then most parents would be screaming about their rights, lobbing complaints at the poor bugger. We have to rediscover our past if we are to recover our sanity. If we are to deal with crime then bad legislation should be scrapped, the lunatic PC crowd buried and told to find a real job and allow an expanded Police driven zero tolerance strategy to return us to former times. We really need to get to grips with sentencing, were life means life and mandatory tough sentencing of juveniles as well as adults.

Madasafish said...

Of course Mrs Lawrence has Human Rights. I thought, however, the treatment of criminals was convicted was the province of the judicial system.
Has the law changed?

So Ian's comments are bollocks.

So are McNulty's .. he knows an appeal has no hope of winning.

The Ministry of Criminal Injustice has a policy aimed at aiding criminals by passing conflicting laws without thinking through the consequences thus allowing the judicial system to free criminals asap.

The concept of keeping the public safe by imprisoning some for life (LIFE) means building more prisons. As the Criminal Injsutice system cannot afford that .. and it means being serious on crime...it will not happen.

AFter all if crime levels fall, what will the lawyers do?

If Ian exposed those issues,.... but speaking bollocks is typical of the Conservative's inability to fasten onto a real case and get to the basics rather than the symptons..

No wonder Gordon has a lead in the polls... with such a pitiful opposition. Where is the Shadow Home Secretary? Silent and ineffective (as usual)

Anonymous said...

The Victorians had it right! The murderer would have hanged.

This country is led by politicians OF ALL PARTIES who are too liberal, too bloody soft and who put the offender before the victim.

IF politicians did what their constituents or the majority of their constituents wanted perhaps now we would have the death sentence for murder and manslaughter.
The birch for these thugs and a prison system which no criminal would want to return to!

We shall just have to wait until we are all under Shia law to return to some level of protection from the law. There, most certainly, is nowt at the moment.

I bet this murderer will be helped into accomodation etc etc!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tony said...

Although people are saying Human Rights legislation was not a factor in this case, Chindamo's lawyers did use a human rights argument in their appeal. If the HRA was not a factor, as so many people here are saying, why would Chindamo's lawyers bother with the argument?

Chindamo had never been granted British citizenship and so he was only ever a guest in this country. We should not have to put up with him in this country if he is not a citizen of it. Why should we pick up the pieces for his choices and those of his family when tey decided to come here but not become British? Guests can be invited to leave if they make themselves unwelcome and so they should be.

The right of free movement in the EU should not apply to people who have committed serious crimes. Member countries should have the right to refuse admission to serious criminals.

As for sentencing policy, we are sending people to prison who should not be there and freeing people who are not fit to be in society and reoffend.

Yak40 said...

desparate dan - good point !

Looks like many of the issues and disgust at the increasing levels of street violence are crystallising around this case.

The answer is to kick out this Labour government who have had ten years to "do" something and replace them with an a government that will truly be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and who will also tackle the deeper problems of a total lack of discipline and respect.

I look forward to Mr Cameron's bare knuckle fight.

Anonymous said...

And all this on the day that they announce that 6%less of failed asylum seekers have been deported this year, without of coarse giving last years low figure to show the true poor state of affairs.
Now where's me shovel to dig up some moore bad news.
As for this case, it will not be any better if we follow Scottish Foreign policy and Brown signs the constitution.

Unsworth said...

Chris Paul: "Intelligent comments very welcome"

If I were you I'd stop right there. You're in the middle of a very dangerous minefield.

Intelligent? Who's to judge?

jailhouselawyer said...

What do you know about this topic? Your opening paragraph speaks volumes about your ignorance: "surely has to call into question the future of this fault-ridden piece of legislation". Just because Mrs Lawrence has failed to grasp what the Act is about, and people like David Davis has failed to grasp what the Act is about, it should be changed?

Gareth Ellis said...

Rights are what the government gives you, when it has taken away your freedoms.

Rights are a positive act narrowly defined gifted by a government, and thus suspended when necessary. Freedoms are yours as an Englishman.

Think of a lake and your access to it. A 'Right' could give you the right to swim in the lake between 10 and 3pm during the months of july and august.

A freedom would enable you to swim in the lake whenever you wanted to unless a law says otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Tuscan Tony - Chindamo was a Juvenile when he committed this murder, who had been brought up for 10yrs in this country.

This country has to take the blame for what he became, and has to take the responsibility for his rehabilitation.

What happened to Mr Lawrence was a ghastly tragedy, but had he been murdered by a British national, his family would have had to face the fact that one day they might be confronted by the murderer when he had been released.

This is what David Cameron was talking about in the speech that was so poisonously rubbished as 'hug a hoodie'. If we don't take steps to destroy the breeding grounds for such feral youths, we will never find a solution to the increasing violence of our society.

And yes, I do believe that Chindamo is as pitiable in his way as is Mrs Lawrence and her family.

Guthrum said...

" Its not human rights! Its the EU.
The ECHR will probably be our only defence against the EU if they abolish the UK. Put the blame where its due."

THe ECHR is a con where else can you have a Court where if you are seeking redress for a wrong committed against you as an individual does that country have the RIGHT to put a judge on the panel hearing the case, eighty per cent of cases are weeded out before they even get to committal stage by EU Civil Servants

The Bureaucrats run the EU and therefore Europe, not politicians of any standing or probity. The EU reflects the people who run it craven,cowardly, self seeking and undemocratic.

And this is from a supporter of the EU

Anonymous said...

I was recapping only yesterday about a visit to my parents by the local Bobby regarding my behavior (I answered him back when he accused me wrongly!). I received a smack from my mother that nearly knocked me off my feet, not for the false allegation, but for being impudent to an adult. Whilst at the time I felt aggrieved, it taught me a certain lesson which I have never forgotten.

what, that might is right? Let's recap: a public servant made a false accusation against a member of the public, who queried it, and was subsequently physically struck for not 'knowing their place', and you think this was a valuable educational lesson?

I don't care that the person it happened to was you - if you think it was a good thing then thank God you don't run the country.

WindsorBloke said...

On the general issue of human rights, it's instructive to refer to the speeches of Enoch Powell, which can be found in the collection "Still to decide", edited by John Wood.

In essence he says that those things that are described as rights are in reality aspirations or wants. The problem is, the need of a job somehow becomes the right to a job; the desire for a good education become the right to one etc.

Powell asserts that in reality there are very few fundamental rights - the right to protection by the law, the right of free speech, and so on.

I'm with Enoch on this (as on so many other things)

Newmania said...

Hitch , when China had a drugs problem they rounded up 20,000 drugs dealers and shot them. Solved the problem. Or in Zaire before the rumble in the jungle they rounded 10,000 crims and shot every tenth one with a warning that if there was any trouble they would be back...decimated , you might say. It’s a thought ..but its not what I would base an argument for the death penalty on

Jilted John

Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. Are you trying to be little Miss knows a little Greek with me? I intended the modern meaning as would almost anyone using the word .
In this sense it is sophistry. We all know that the possibility of being dead would dissuade us considerably more from a course of action that the remote possibility of watching TV in a comfy room for a few years . According to you and other Liberal argufiers some alchemical; process happens between the obvious truth and “ The figures” whereby the reverse is true . In fact it would appear that the prospect of being dead is actually an encouragement to run about the place committing murder .( Now just pause to ponder on the ocean going gold plated asininity of the suggestion in your own time ). This is the misuse of statistics especially across cultural divides a notoriously complex area in which straightforward comparisons are to mistake the provenance of the data . That’s why you are a sophist capiche ?
For example during the 19th century the rate of church building across the US showed the rate of Saloon building According to you that proves churches cause drunkenness . Actually population causes both and that’s the sort of trick. Similarly the presence of guns and the incidence of murder is proven by comparison between the UK and the US .. leave Switzerland out and you have your self some “evidence” put it back in and you have a problem.
The death penalty is present in far fewer countries in the developed world because in tandem with industrial and post industrial economic development there has been a the growth of a certain moral relativism and a cowardice in confronting moral choices. You assume that everything that is modern is good , you assume that all change is in one direction and always for the good . You do not want to unpack these statistics because they are too convenient despite the glaringly obvious problem with the nonsensical topsy turvy conclusion about the motives of individuals you reach.. It is perfectly straightforward to do so along the lines I suggest. There is no evidence if the sort you claim you simply do not wish to think about the inconvenient truth that people do not like being dead.

In any case deterrence is secondary , The primary purpose of law is justice and in some cases there is no doubt and there is no question that death is the only fit punishment. Rose West ?
Yes its expensive and yes its difficult to look at but if we go on avoiding right and wrong we will end up with animals where once there were men ....It looks to me as if we are long way to far down that road already. The death penalty comes from the love and duty you bear the departed. To you it may be enough lock it away where you cannot see but the stink of this moral abstention is nosing its way down our streets with insidious intent every day. That’s why the people who live in them are in favour of returning Justice and punishment to the hear of our penal system.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see incitement to murder making it through comment moderation at 1.48PM.

Newmania said...

I have just fisked Dale on Chindamo. Intelligent comments very welcome.

I `ve just done a thing about a robbery when the perp used a vibrator in a bag. Stupid comments very welcome.

Any one else begging today ?

Nich Starling said...

Sentenced, of course, when there was a Tory in the Home Office.

I agree 100% though with what you say.

The Hitch said...

jailhouselawyer said...
What do you know about this topic?

Unlike you most of us know the difference between right and wrong it helps us to make decisions such as
"should I beat this old lady to death for annoyng me" ?
Heres a clue the answer is NO

Bob Piper said...

Thank heavens that David Boothroyd, Chris Paul and Jailhouse Lawyer in their efforts to try to promote the discussion on this above the level of the gutter that Iain Dale knew it would descend to when he embarked on this piece of Daily Mail shite.

Also, thank heavens for the likes of Iain Dale, the Daily Mail and the anonymous muppets who comment here. They serve to show us all that despite Cameron's smiley happy people, beneath the surface, the Tories haven't changed one jot, they are still the same old hang and flog 'em party they always were. Don't let the facts get in the way of making cheap right wing reactionary points.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Iain and early poster Judith. The real scandal here is that the killer has served only 12 years of a so-called life sentence for one of the most disgusting crimes in recent years. The anti-Human-Rights rantings are just that; rantings, and rantings that are really about anti-EU prejudice that verges on the irrational.

This killer was brought to the UK as a young child and has no real connection with Italy - what kind of country are we if we just want to 'move on and dump' our problems on others because our own legal system and judiciary cannot manage an effective system of law?

Anonymous said...

Mr Cameron. please come out and say that we will opt out of free movement within EU. people wih a sound resan can come and go as they please but we MUST have control of our borders. we have thousands of undesirables here we can do nothing about. the EU is the problem not the HRA. if you do this you will be elected by a landslide.

The Remittance Man said...

If I were an Italian I'd be a bit miffed to hear that being sent to Italy somehow violated someone's "human rights".

I mean, by definition Italians are strange people; they're foreign after all. But Human Rights abusers? I think not.

Anonymous said...

we live under the rule of law in this country.

parliament pased the human rights act, but we are also signatories to the EHCR, so even if we repealed the act, he could still appeal to strasbourg.

once he is out of jail he is deemed to have paid his debt to society, rightly or wrongly.

you can't let someone out of jail then give them the equivalent of a boot up the arse by denying them rights which parliament has granted them.

come on, have some intellectual rigour. either suggest that the UK pulls out of the EHCR (which would also mean pulling out of the EU, since the EU insists that all members are signatories) or be quiet.

this comments section read like the toilet wall in the monday club at times, and fulminating against things gets no-one anywhere.

Barnacle Bill said...

Come on Iain you are getting as rabid as your leader.
Firstly, he will only be eligble for parole after twelve years, not automatically released, and he might not be granted parole on his first attempt.
Secondly why has this case been brought now?
I fear that a bit of ZaNuLabor monkey business is going on here.
Brown must be laughing himself silly at the way everyone is tying themselves up in knots over this.
Instead of presenting a united opposition and holding this government to account over more serious matters.
This matter has managed to get the different factions in the opposition arguing amonst themselves.
Karl Rove hasn't joined the Smith Institute by any chance?

Anonymous said...

lets pull out of the EU it is of no use to anyone. except 3rd rate politicians

Anonymous said...

"it's important to remember that Human Rights legislation is in placee to protect the rights of all human beings"

If only that were the case. The Appeal Court has established that the 'right to life' provisions do not apply to NHS patients. If you've got cancer, you can legally be left to die.

On the other hand, if you're a Somalian murderer, Egyptian muslim extremist or Italian gangsta, then you're laughing.

Anonymous said...

. Are you trying to be little Miss knows a little Greek with me?

No (though I do). But you're right, it would smack a little of the sixth-form cleverness you yourself so often employ to attack your argument on that ground. Good try at being patronising, btw.

I intended the modern meaning as would almost anyone using the word .

As do I, and it is you that is using a false argument. Thus, I repeat, either you are ignorant of the meaning of the word, or knowingly guilty sophistry yourself.

May I suggest some light academic reading? I heartily recommend "Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, (Oxford, Clarendon Press if you're interested). He's a criminologist, with qualifications, in criminology (as opposed to a blogger).

And what do we find? Ah, here it is:
"it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder"

The fact that you find it counter-intuitive is neither here nor there. As are your syllogistic (and somewhat sophist - see? It's the word that keeps on giving) 'analogies'.

Your argument about morality is a different matter - you may think it is just to execute the perpetrator of a vicious crime (and it's a view I can respect, if not agree with). I think that judicial murder is abhorrent. That's a different fish for a different kettle. But on the deterrence issue all the evidence is against you. Capiche?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Newmania, I enjoyed the story about the guy who held up the bookies shop with a vibrator.

How do you defend yourself against such a swine?

Or what if someone were to do a bank job by threatening people with crotchless panties?

Anne Summers should be banned, or at the very least your girlfriend would have to apply to the police to own a vibrator over .22 calibre.

Newmania said...

Don't let the facts get in the way of making cheap right wing reactionary points.

There is a void of facts in your comment Piper. While you may like to arabesque foppishly into wine bars with your metro-sexual friends comparing pigtails and progressive attitudes , others are concerned about the tsunami of crime breaking over the country. Why not adjust your panty hose and teeter outside the trendy warehouse abode and see the despair in the streets of England. Your diet of sun dried tomatoes toasted pine nuts and jalapeƱo drizzle olives has addled you mind.

Perhaps returning justice to the heart of the penal system would help. Perhaps right and wrong should not be discarded just because it does not match a natty blue tie. Just possibly in you all consuming desire to be gorgeously robed in modish fragile adrogeny , you have lost touch with the whole point of politics . You are a wriggling courtesan , decadent harbinger of the new dark age corrupted beyond all salvation. Perfumed wanton be gone !

( err what did he say ?)

Anonymous said...

You do know he's an EU citizen? Deporting him would be pointless because he could - and should - have the right to come straight back. Mrs Laurence's human rights don't extend to a veto on which EU citizens are allowed to be governed by the Union.

Or, an analogy, a man convicted of murder in Colorado would not, could not, and should not, be prevented from ever entering Arizona.

Anonymous said...

bob piper:3.16.

" beneath the surface the Tories haven't changed one jot; they are still the same old hang and flog 'em party they always were."

If only.

Anonymous said...

I've just read Bob Piper's comments and it's clear that in Bob's world we should be hugging murderers not hoodies. Don't let the facts get in the way of a kneejerk left wing reactionary rant eh Bobby? Labour's still the same old "blame everyone except the poor misunderstood criminal" party. Tough on the victims of crime.

David Lindsay said...

Why is Philip Lawrence's murderer being released from prison at all?

And it's no use the Tories banging on about either the Human Rights Act or the EU. They have not the slightest idea what, if anything, would be in their imaginary "British Bill of Rights", nor do they have the slightest intention of restoring the supremacy of British over EU law.

Ralph said...

Bob Piper,

I believe that we should deport foreign murderers as soon as they are released so they are no longer a threat to the British people.

That's one thing Gordon Brown and I (but not you) agree on.

Anonymous said...

tony [1.49] You say: "... we are sending people to prison who should not be there ..."

I disagree. This is a fallacy, oft-repeated on the liberal left. In my experience judges and magistrates lean over backwards to avoid sending people to prison. They do so only when there is no alternative, or when all other options have been tried and failed.

As to Mr Lawrence's killer, and others like him, this is really a early release problem. Nobody would suggest deporting him to Italy if he had served 30 years. We are simply letting these people out too soon.

I don't think the public realise that a defendant sentenced to twelve months imprisonment will actually serve no more than three months in custody.

Prison works. But not if you let them out.

Anonymous said...

Goodness, some of these posts go right off the edge of the screen!

Just imagine what pearls of wisdom they might contain.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Bob Piper you are a luvvie but you have gone tits up with this one.

Your Labour credentials are showning, and like the bloke who held up the bookmakers with a vib, your flies are undone and you have caused two and a half inches of outrage.

Kris said...

Oh for crying out loud!!

This country made him what he is??

"This country" did not put a knife in the little scrote's hands. This country did not make him kill.

He decided to kill.

Why is it that criminals are exempt from taking any responsibility for their actions in this country?

And, Bob Piper, why does me wanting them to make me a "rabid" reactionary?

Kris said...

Anonymous said @ 4.51 ...
"Or, an analogy, a man convicted of murder in Colorado would not, could not, and should not, be prevented from ever entering Arizona".

A murderer in Colorado wouldn't see the light of day. Life tends to me 50 years plus in the US.

12 years. What a joke. Trouble is, you and I are the punch line.

Anonymous said...

Bob Piper - do your constituents agree with your views, I wonder - sympathy for the murderer and none for the victim or their family? What a strange world you must inhabit.

Such a serious subject, and all you can do is resort to petty sniping.

Chris Paul said...

Tony is right in so far as Liarco's lawyers did include the HRA in their representataions. But that was not a major part of their case. I've not checked but immigration matters have some fairly barmy little nonsenses in them. In this case possibly meaning that there would have to be a marker for the HRA line even if that were not prioritised at this stage. Otherwise if the HRA did become more significant in the case the Home Office would say:
"Oh really, you should have said so at the time".

Immigration Law is barking and over complex. And I'm not just saying that because I think more cases should be allowed, though I do think that, but because the whole thing is a morass.

There is also a real issue with lack of information and lack of clarity in the zillions of permutations.

But back to this case. There's racist dog whistling, there's a real appeal to the lowest gut feelings going on here. I'd say the more rant-tastic offerings over at my blog have however come the direction of Comment is Free, though Newmania is certainly not out of the frame whatever she calls herself.

Anonymous said...

Just watched Cameron on Hospitals and the Human Rights Act.
Does everything this guy does fall apart within minutes?

Anonymous said...

Chindamo is only an Italian in the technical sense. His only connection with Italy is that he was born there. There's no justice in "sending him back to Italy".

Chindamo is a convicted murderer, and will be released on licence. Unless you propose to imprison all murderers for the remainder of their natural lives, they will, at some point, be released back into society. That they should not be released if they are likely to reoffend is, to me, obvious, but it is possible for people to choose to change their ways. It is surely more likely that someone who committed a serious crime whilst young and stupid, or whilst under particularly unusual circumstances will go on to lead a law-abiding life than that a career criminal will change his spots.

Tapestry said...

Hang 'em and cane 'em. We've 'ad enough.

How about a referendum on that?

Anonymous said...

Forget Italy - he should have been deported to Hell via a noose a long time ago.

Windsor Tripehound said...

Unless you propose to imprison all murderers for the remainder of their natural lives

When capital punishment was abolished in this country that is precisely what was supposed to replace it.

Vienna Woods said...

jilted john - you are exactly what is wrong with this country today. You fail to understand that being disrespectful to adults is worse than suffering embarrassment for being accused wrongly. You are obviously the type that rushes to defend your kids for assaulting their teacher, when he mistakenly accuses them of a misdemeanour. Which is worse? No, don't answer that!

Anonymous said...

chris paul:6.26.

If you think there should be more immigration, perhaps you could devote your energies to encouraging it in countries that may be suffering from discrimination in this department like for example Albania or Pakistan. It would certainly give us all a rest from your quasi legalese dogs bollocks.

Newmania said...

not out of the frame whatever she calls herself.

You are always saying I am lots of people .Sigh...I am one person , always newmania and still male of course
You seem a bit odd sometime Chris and I doubt I am the first to mention it. I `m guessing divorced lonely and getting past it . Relax a little you try to hard that sort of thing is creepy not clever.

"Newmania is a girl".. dur hur dur hur ..dur hur yeeeesh. What sort of little wierdo are you ?

Gavin said...

I shall put on my best Margaret Thatcher accent for this, but I mean it seriously:
There is no such thing as "human rights". Instead, there is responsibility and reward, and conversely, crime and punishment.
The law has no business restricting us by setting out our "rights", and even worse, by making these "rights" apply universally to all, making no distinction between the innocent and the criminal. To do so is in fact evil and against the very notion of justice. The Human Rights Act is, I believe, an evil piece of legislation. It grants no further protection to the law-abiding than they already had in the first place; indeed it robs the innocent of protection from the lawless, by affording the lawless "rights" which by their actions they do not deserve to have.
All the law ever need concern itself with is "human wrongs"; to say "this, this and this are illegal. If you do such deeds, you shall be punished in this manner". Such a framework is all that is required to protect the "rights" of the innocent.

strapworld said...

Deport Bob Piper!

He shows the Liberal thinking which has made this country a third world country.

If he cannot be deported then a life sentence on Canvey Island may be as good!

Steven_L said...

I like the idea of off-shoring penal arrangements to impoverished but friendly nations such as Thailand for murderers. They know how to build secure prisons that provide an effective deterent to crime. They could use the extra money too, we could pay them sat 25% of what it costs here per prisoner and insist that they treat our folk as least as well as they do their own murderers.

We'd have to re-negotiate the a few treaties or leave the EU, but hey, that'd save us a few bob too wouldn't it?

Not only that we'd have saved on all the court costs we've just incurred telling us this nasty piece of work cannot be sent back to Italy.

Anonymous said...

The background to this hoo-ha is well explained in an item in Wednesday's Guardian; this is not a matter of human rights at all:
'Human rights lawyers claimed last night that the government would have little chance of overturning [it] on appeal . . The detailed written judgment . . makes clear that the decision was taken on the basis of "compelling" European Union law that applies to any EU citizen resident in another EU country for at least 10 years. . . one argument the Home Office tried to make was that Chindamo had lived in Britain for only nine years before being jailed - not the 10 required under the 2004 EU directive on citizenship to qualify for its protection. But the tribunal ruling clearly decided that the EU directive made no distinction between time spent in or out of prison in an EU state.'
You may not like this but please ascertain the facts of the matter before sounding off about it.0,,2153680,00.html

Vienna Woods said...

tom tyler wrote

I shall put on my best Margaret Thatcher accent for this, but I mean .......innocent.

Very well put tom, you echo my own feelings on this subject!

Vienna Woods said...

...and by the way, it would be good if criminals appealing against deportation were automatically deprived of any form of legal aid. It appears to me obscene that a convicted felon can dip into the public purse to bolster the coffers of the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

Folks, please put your head under a cold shower and try to get the red haze out of your eyes. Mrs Lawrence's human rights are exactly the same as they would have been if her husband's murderer had been British, in which case there would have been no thought of deportation. To all intents and purposes, he is British - unless you believe that the Italians are racially different from us. It is crazy to send a released long-term prisoner to a foreign country where he doesn't speak the language and has no family.

I have every sympathy with Mrs L. but she is not alone in her situation. If it is wrong it has nothing to do with deportation.

If he is still a potential danger, of course he should stay locked up. The difficult question is, if it is decided that he is not dangerous, how long a sentence should he serve? Whole life seems an unsatisfactory answer if you believe that at least some people can potentially be reformed. Less than that, there will be tabloid hysteria whenever any high profile murderer is released, however long the sentence served.

Anonymous said...

So a life sentence for murder is now just 12 years is it? That's very encouraging. This sub-human cretin should never see the outside of a prison again and should be told so in no uncertain terms.

Human rights is for humans. It's time the judiciary were able to distinguish between people for whom the law was passed and those who choose to operate at a lower level.

Sir-C4' said...

Tony kennick
It seems to have escaped your notice that we are already in one.
A corporatist one party fascist state.
Your or my vote doesnt count.

The Hitch is right (for once)

Anonymous said...

Iain, I have just posted on this in OurKingdom, mentioned your family trip to Zurich, hope you don't mind. You are wrong on this one.

Merseymike said...

This is due largely to citizenship regulations.

Now, lets assume that a young British passport holder, who speaks no English, and had lived in Italy since he was 5, had committed a similar crime in Italy

Can you imagine the reaction when your preferred choice of deportation brought him to the UK?