The Zohan

Quote
"New Home Secretary John Reid promised there would be no more "****-ups" over the deportation of foreign prisoners.

Mr Reid said the public was right to demand systems funded by their taxes worked properly.

He said the current situation was not good enough and he would sort out the mess.

Writing in the News of the World Mr Reid said the courts must not put the human rights of foreign prisoners ahead of the safety of British people.

"They (the public) believe that it is wrong if court judgments put the human rights of foreign prisoners ahead of the safety of UK citizens," he wrote.

He said people believed the Government's and their wishes were too often thwarted by the courts. They wanted the deportation of foreign nationals to be considered early in their sentences.

He added: "And they rightly believe that official systems in my new department, paid for by their taxes, shouldn't **** up systemically.

"They believe the present situation isn't good enough and I agree with them."
End Quote


I do hope he means it!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Don't hold your breath. This is the guy who was armed forces minister.

In my opinion, he's not fit to p*ss on, let alone be a minister. Trust him about as far as you could chuck him AND the rest of his mates.

Alcazar

unclebuck

As ever. Just saying what people want to hear. Nothing will change.

Chip

As you said in the title it's just another Labour soundbite.

Chip

Leslie

They sound fine words, as UB said. Despite their strange actions, or more likely the lack of them, They still know perfectly well what the electorate wants to see. However as ever, the electorate is the least of their considerations anyway!

Les

Suresh

Oh FFS you lot. If they don't listen they're damned and if they do listen they're damned too. Stick to voting for the Chameleon or the facist party if you want to!

Petem95

Sounds good, but lets face it, Labour have an exemplary record for NOT keeping their promises...

The fact of the matter is the majorit of these foreigners should never have been allowed into the country in the first place - so even if John Reid keeps his word and deports the ones which commit serious crime that doesnt put out a very good message does it...

"come to the UK where its a bit of a free-for-all, but be careful - if you go around murdering and raping and get caught you MIGHT get deported "

sti-04!!

He stays about a mile from me & his son Mark was a friend of mines at school. When i met him i think he was just starting off in his roles. Seemed a nice guy to me, but then again i met him as my friends dad not as a politican.

hedgehog

They can't deport criminals and they must know this. EU directive 2004/38 which came into force on the 30th of April this year, only a few days ago and just as this row was brewing, states "Expulsion orders may not be issued by the host Member State as a penalty or legal consequence of a custodial penalty"

So, there you go. More hot air from Labour. I guess what will happen is they will "expel" a handful of criminals and then provide them with legal aid to take their case to the EU. By that time all of that has taken place the current events will be long forgotten about by the press and so will the Labour "promises." Once the criminals win their cases against deportation then there will be no further attempts at deportation using this directive as an excuse. A simple plan really, offer the public something they want but that you can't deliver and then be ready to blame someone else when, to your shock, it turns out that you can't deliver it.

22BUK

Tut, tut. Scaremongering, Hedgehog?

Your quote just doesn't exist in 2004/38. Read it here:
http://www.ecas.org/file_uploads/1008.pdf#search='eu%20directive%202004/38'

Example quote
"Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health."

2004/38 does not apply to non-EU citizens either.

Chip

Even if they are deported under Labours human rights laws they can legally return to the UK and claim asylum.

Chip

Suresh

Do you have a credible link to support that particular fact?

hedgehog

Yes it does, you are talking rubbish. Section 33.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/...en00350048.pdf

As you can see I'm not scaremongering at all, the words are there in plain text for all, except for those who don't wish to, to see.

hedgehog

I can't support that particular fact but can point out that the EU directive to which I referred above has an article which means that after 3 years anyone deported can apply to return.

The actual wording is as follows:

Persons excluded on grounds of public policy or public
security may submit an application for lifting of the exclusion
order after a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances,
and in any event after three years from enforcement of
the final exclusion order

As can be seen it doesn't make it 100% that you will get back in but I assume if you are making big enough loans to the ruling party that not only will you get back in but you will also be a Lord by the time you arrive.

22BUK

So the fact that you've left out the last part of that sentence "...custodial penalty, unless they conform to the requirements of Articles 27, 28 & 29" means I'm talking rubbish?

hedgehog

So, first of all you announce, in a rather emphatic manner, that it doesn't exist.

Then, when I point out to you that it does exist you announce that there is more of it than I quoted which, to be fair, is correct as there are 14 pages more than I quoted and I didn't think it necessary to post all 14 pages when a short quote covered the point relevant to the topic under discussion.

So, what are you doing for your next stunt? Maybe you are going to quote a paragraph each evening and turn your posts into an exciting docu-soap that will chain us all to our computers awaiting the next installment of EU Directive?

Did you read Articles 27, 28 and 29 by the way? Or the rest of the document? You'll love 29, I'll quote some of it just to get you going, now this isn't all of it, I don't pretend it is all of it and I know there is more but I thought this would be the bit you would enjoy most:

The only diseases justifying measures restricting freedom
of movement shall be the diseases with epidemic potential as
defined by the relevant instruments of the World Health Organisation
and other infectious diseases or contagious parasitic
diseases if they are the subject of protection provisions
applying to nationals of the host Member State.

Brendan Hughes

Nice directive. Shame about the biaised interpretations of it on here. Stalinist propaganda, I suppose.

As I read it, they can certainly deport any non-EU criminals that they feel like.

They can also deport EU citizens (criminals or otherwise) on proportionate grounds of public policy, security, or health - but not for economic reasons.

"Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.
The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society." Translation - you can deport multiple rapists, murderers, drug traffickers, but not someone who lifted a wallet once.

It's tougher if the person has already lived in the new country for more than 10 years.

As for coming back after 3 years, they can reapply IF they can establish that there has been a material change in the circumstances which justified the decision ordering their exclusion. How you materially change a multiple rapist I'm not sure - couple of housebricks slammed together, perhaps? Otherwise, they'll stay out.

Anyway, there's a fairly neutral interpretation, I hope.

I certainly don't see any grounds for the statement "They can't deport criminals".

22BUK

Well said, Brendan.

Suresh

Indeed. Then please stop posting rubbish you know not to be true!
Or alternatively, if you do want to do so, please do it in Muppets!

lozgti

So true.Perhaps the most untrustworthy bunch ever.Quite prepared to simply gloss over the fact too.In fact happy to gloss over all their failings.

What were Blair's pledges/promises nine years ago?What did he promise and what has he delivered? I will only remember him for a war and an ugly wife.

Sorry,don't believe Mr Reid.

Labour.All talk,no action,lots of tax.

hedgehog

Errr, but I do know it to be true because it is stated to be the case in the EU Directive which we signed up to some short time ago. I directly posted from this Directive and you are capable of reading it yourself, or at least some are.

The fundamental fact remains that the government are unable to carry out their promise to deport criminals because in many cases this will be illegal. Any of these criminals who are EU citizens or who are family members of EU citizens, and this includes being married to an EU citizen, can not be deported and once they are deported their case may be reviewed after 3 years.

This is certainly a much different picture from that painted by the current administration who wish to give the impression that they are in control of the situation and will have it all sorted out in no time. In truth they can, in many cases, do nothing about it because of legislation from Europe.

So, the British Government no longer have the right to decide deport criminals as an automatic result of conviction and article 27 specifically states this. This is a very different picture to that of a "government in control" that Reid intended to paint. They are not in control of this situation just because they have devloved control of it to Europe and Europe has made it illegal for them to carry out the actions they state they will carry out.

So, at best we must face up to the fact that the Government are being economical with the truth. Your problem with this, I suspect, is that while others are discussing the subject in general terms I have presented proof that it is not going to happen in the way the Government say it will.

The Tele reported the following, which is rather more limiting again as it includes the oft used clause that we can not deport prisoners whose lives may be at risk in their home country:

Tony Blair promised "automatic deportation" in future for jailed foreigners. But the Prime Minister's get tough" pledge fell apart when it emerged that he was talking about "a presumption" that foreign prisoners would be deported, rather than a guarantee that it would happen in every case.

No 10 later admitted that it would not be able to send prisoners back to countries where their lives would be at risk and the Home Office acknowledged that appeals could be made under human rights legislation.

The deportation pledge was immediately challenged by European Union officials in Brussels. They said that any automatic system of expulsions would contravene a new EU directive that specifically bans national governments from seeking to expel an EU citizen solely on the basis of criminal convictions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nclarke04.xml

Brendan Hughes

Totally ignores what the law says, prefers to quote from the Telegraph.

Riiiight.

Diablo

I wouldn't worry Brendan.

Hedgehog is one of those people for whom a little knowledge is dangerous.

Specifc sections of legislation should never be quoted in isolation, but in conjunction with all other sections which relate to them, otherwise they can be mis interpreted.

Anyone with half an ounce of legal know how would be well aware of that.

Cheers

Leslie

I suppose the fair answer is that we shall have to stand by and see if it really happens, permanently.

Les

hedgehog

I've quoted from the law on several previous occasions, as you may have noticed unless you were among those who couldn't see those bits in the EU Directive, but the Tele gave a useful summary and also outlined the situation where those who were in danger in their home country could not be deported either. It was also clear that the Tele provided a suitable summary for those for whom reading a 14 page EU Directive was not an option.

In most situations it is reasonable to assume that those reading this and who are interested in the details would read the Directive for themselves, it isn't hard to get access to it. It is, however, necessary to be aware of the target audience.

While these attacks upon how I present the facts are entertaining they don't detract from the fundamental point of this discussion and, in my case, that is to make it clear to those with an interest that the current Government have promised to do something which they can't carry out.

If you can come back to me in 3 years and demonstrate that the Government was able to physically deport all non-UK criminals then it will be clear that my reservations were ill founded. I would, however, assert that to believe every word from a politician, especially in circumstances where what he says he is going to do is against EU law, is, at best, naive.

Brendan Hughes

Hedgehog, all I can say is, having seen your interpretation of a law, I wouldn't even employ you in a legal office to make the tea.

It's highly amusing to see this quote from you "So, at best we must face up to the fact that the Government are being economical with the truth" given your selective quotes from the above law.

You strike me as someone who can't be bothered to read the whole law but just search through for "catchphrases" and take them totally out of context to further your agenda. On the other hand, as pointed out by SS on a different thread, you then like to eulogise at great length about these, in an authoritative manner, to persuade the more ignorant to believe what you preach (despite it being a loooong way from the truth) - preferably with lots of predictions of impending doom should others not follow what you suggest.

I'd say you have no qualities whatsoever to be a lawyer - you should try another profession. I can think of one in particular.

BTW, your name isn't Stuart H is it?

Diablo

hedgehog

Yes, selective quoting is an awful thing and should be stopped. However, I am now fully aware of the fact that you wouldn't employ me as your legal representation, a most unfortunate situation indeed, but can you detail how your ad hominem attacks further the debate on the matter in hand?

Lest you have forgotten the matter being discussed is that the Government have said that they will expel those jailed for a crime but there is an EU Directive which will prevent them doing this and, it is reasonable to assume, the Government are aware of the EU Directive and, therefore, have made a promise which it looks like they can't carry out.

When put in those terms, quite frankly, it makes the current Government look nearly as stupid as the opposition who have elected a leader who cycles to work while his shoes travel in his car. Perhaps we could, once this discussion is finished, have a further discussion on whether it is worse morally to be a complete and utter fruitcake (like someone who lets his shoes travel by car while he stands in the rain) or to be economical with the truth.

lozgti

If we ditched Europe we would have no such problems.

Brendan Hughes

Lest you have forgotten, the EU Directive only prevents them doing this in certain circumstances, so your blanket statement about it is WRONG.

Once you can cope with that fact, and maybe when you've matured enough to realise that a counter-argument is not an ad hominem attack, we can perhaps continue the discussion. Ad nauseam, I suspect.