Davkaus Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 9 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling These are all foreign national offenders – they have all received custodial sentences of 12 months or more. They are responsible for crimes like manslaughter, rape, dealing in class A drugs My emphasis. Consider the case of this chap https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/deportation-uk-jamaica-charter-flight-home-office-detention-reshawn-davis-a9324496.html Quote A man who has been in the UK since the age of 11 and has a British baby is set to be deported on a charter flight to Jamaica within days. He is being removed from the country on the basis that he was convicted for robbery 10 years ago under the now-unlawful “joint enterprise” rule – for which he spent two months in prison. The Jamaican national, who lives with his British wife and six-month-old daughter in northwest London and has not committed any crime since his conviction, said the thought of being ripped from his family and returning to a country he has not been to for 20 years terrified him. Mr Davis’s solicitor made representations for him to remain in the UK this week on the basis of family ties but it was ruled on Friday that he did not have a “genuine and subsisting” relationship with his wife or child and that it would “not be unduly harsh” for them to be without him. If these facts are anywhere close to accurate, it's absolutely astonishing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Jesus Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted February 11, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Jesus Christ Sent back to the West Bank apparently. Repeatedly refused to apologise to Schofield about his stance on Judaism. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Mr Davis’s solicitor made representations for him to remain in the UK this week on the basis of family ties but it was ruled on Friday that he did not have a “genuine and subsisting” relationship with his wife or child and that it would “not be unduly harsh” for them to be without him. There's gotta be more to it than meets the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Genie said: There's gotta be more to it than meets the eye. The problem with this sort of situation is the home office are never going to come out and start responding with details of the case, but the fact his only conviction resulted in just a 2 month sentence, and wasn't even lawful, suggests the priority of the home office is to just kick out as many as they can, whilst putting a very different spin on them all being rapists and murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Davkaus said: The problem with this sort of situation is the home office are never going to come out and start responding with details of the case, but the fact his only conviction resulted in just a 2 month sentence, and wasn't even lawful, suggests the priority of the home office is to just kick out as many as they can, whilst putting a very different spin on them all being rapists and murderers. It was lawful at the time. It opens another can of worms to go back and revisit sentences where changes have changed since. It does seem completely unnecessary though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Just now, Genie said: It was lawful at the time. It opens another can of worms to go back and revisit sentences where changes have changed since. It does seem completely unnecessary though. It's not particularly difficult to remove a certain type of crime from someone's criminal record (Canada has done this, and some American states are beginning to do this, for non-violent marijuana offenses, for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 (edited) For another perspective on it, lets turn to No 10. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling Quote After a court judgment forced the government to remove more than half the passengers on the flight, the prime minister’s press secretary said reaction to the case showed that “certain parts of Westminster still haven’t learned the lessons of the 2019 election”. What do you reckon the lessons of the 2019 election were? Answers on the back of a Kingston postcard. You can't even deport foreigners without them having to legal advice without the Westminster elite and courts getting on your back. It's political correctness gone mad. Edited February 11, 2020 by Davkaus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Does anybody know what flight the child molester Rolf Harris is due out on? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 22 minutes ago, Davkaus said: The problem with this sort of situation is the home office are never going to come out and start responding with details of the case, but the fact his only conviction resulted in just a 2 month sentence, and wasn't even lawful, suggests the priority of the home office is to just kick out as many as they can, whilst putting a very different spin on them all being rapists and murderers. The article says he served 2 months, that isn’t the same as being sentenced to 2 months. He also doesn’t mention if he served any time on remand before his conviction. You are right that the home office are not going to respond with details of his case...but there is nothing stopping Mr Davis being more forthcoming with the details of his conviction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Fair point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted February 11, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Genie said: 2 hours ago, Davkaus said: Mr Davis’s solicitor made representations for him to remain in the UK this week on the basis of family ties but it was ruled on Friday that he did not have a “genuine and subsisting” relationship with his wife or child and that it would “not be unduly harsh” for them to be without him. There's gotta be more to it than meets the eye. Not necessarily... To quote his wife - Quote The 27-year-old, who is currently on maternity leave but works as a complaints handler at an energy company, said: “I had been hoping to go back to work so he could look after the baby. I won’t be able to. That’s not something I wanted because I don’t want to sit down and rely on benefits. I’ve always worked. I’ve never been on benefits in my life. “Reshawn is a great dad. He’s been here all the time with her. She loved him. He does a lot – feeds her, changes her, plays with her. A child needs their dad. I don’t know what’s going to happen now.” And the man himself - Quote “I look at my daughter’s pictures now every night before I go to bed. Since she was born I never had never spent a night without her until I was locked in here. I still reach for her when I wake up. I’m not one of those to leave my wife to do it by herself. I want to be there for them both. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/deportation-uk-jamaica-charter-flight-home-office-detention-reshawn-davis-a9324496.html Smacks of just wanting to get people deported so they can deliver on being "tough on crime". I haven't found out the details of his crime, but whatever it is, it's hard to make a case for him to be deported. To all intents and purposes, he's entitled to live here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 30 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Smacks of just wanting to get people deported so they can deliver on being "tough on crime". I haven't found out the details of his crime, but whatever it is, it's hard to make a case for him to be deported. To all intents and purposes, he's entitled to live here. He wasn't on the flight ... best I can see is his crime was robbery .. seems rather bizarre to be deported for that when he's been out of jail for the past 10 years 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 None of us know the full details of his conviction but people seem to be very quick to downplay it. Let’s remember that he wasn’t convicted of theft or burglary, but robbery. By legal definition that involves the use of (or threat of) force or violence against another person and carries a maximum of a life sentence. It is not back pocketing a pack of Love Hearts from the corner shop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 12 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said: None of us know the full details of his conviction but people seem to be very quick to downplay it. Let’s remember that he wasn’t convicted of theft or burglary, but robbery. By legal definition that involves the use of (or threat of) force or violence against another person and carries a maximum of a life sentence. It is not back pocketing a pack of Love Hearts from the corner shop! The fact he was out in months, even assuming he spent a while inside waiting for trial seems to suggest his involvement was fairly minimal. I'm surprised to be unable to find any historical articles about his conviction, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 (edited) My opinion, for what it's worth, is that deportation should have to be immediate, either on conviction or on release. To imprison someone, have them serve their time, release them and let them rebuild their life in the UK, only to deport them years later is remarkably cruel. Edited February 11, 2020 by Davkaus 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 It’s important to be seen to be taking back control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 5 hours ago, Davkaus said: After a court judgment forced the government to remove more than half the passengers on the flight, the prime minister’s press secretary said reaction to the case showed that “certain parts of Westminster still haven’t learned the lessons of the 2019 election”. A quote like that deserves to be attributed. Robert Oxley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 And the real reason behind the whole shebang - it's a great opening for the government's intended war on the courts and judicial review: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Xann said: A quote like that deserves to be attributed. Robert Oxley. I'm still trying to figure out, in the context of these deportations, what the lessons of the 2019 election were, because the only conclusion I can draw is that he thinks the election was all about "kicking out the foreigners", but that can't be right, can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts