Plan B Forum

you know it's becoming a problem!

More than 5,000 foreign criminals awaiting deportation remain in the UK, an official report has said.

The number who are not deported or cannot be deported at the end of their sentence is increasing, the independent inspector of the UK Border Agency said.

John Vine said the majority of successful appeals against deportation were made on human rights grounds.

The Home Office said it was deporting foreign criminals more quickly and changing immigration rules.

Mr Vine's report found "significant disparity" between the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and the courts' interpretation of whether a foreign prisoner should be able to remain in the UK on human rights grounds.

A total of 425 cases had been overturned, "the overwhelming majority on human rights grounds", compared with just 151 cases in which the offenders had been granted permission to stay in the first instance, it found.


Mr Vine said action had to be taken to reduce the number of deportation decisions overturned because they fell foul of the Human Rights Act.

"More must be done to actively manage these cases - they represent a growing cost to the taxpayer and cannot be ignored."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15467480

Just reclassify them all as harmless little old ladies, and there should be no problem having the bureaucrats expedite their expulsion...

Exactly Jim, a world gone mad...

How are "criminals" defined?

yrs,
rubato

People who commit crimes maybe?

You really ought to invest in a dictionary Daddy Rubato...

Sean wrote:People who commit crimes maybe?

You really ought to invest in a dictionary Daddy Rubato...

Could you be more specific?

Speeding is a crime. Robbing banks is also a crime. But an intelligent person might make a distinction between the two.

Not you, apparently, but an intelligent person.

yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote: Speeding is a crime. Robbing banks is also a crime. But an intelligent person might make a distinction between the two.

Not you, apparently, but an intelligent person.

Do you think that the getaway driver will keep to the speed limit then Daddy Rubato?

You really ought to invest in a dictionary Daddy Rubato...

I wouldn't recommend that; waste of money really....

Basic reading comprehension skills being pretty much a prerequisite for deriving any value from a dictionary....

Sean wrote:

rubato wrote: Speeding is a crime. Robbing banks is also a crime. But an intelligent person might make a distinction between the two.

Not you, apparently, but an intelligent person.

Do you think that the getaway driver will keep to the speed limit then Daddy Rubato?

So, you are Not able to answer the question then. And not honest enough to say so.



yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote: So, you are Not able to answer the question then. And not honest enough to say so.

Okay Daddy Rubato, I'll play...

Speeding is a crime. Robbing banks is also a crime.

Well done! You have correctly identified two different crimes... but both crimes nonetheless.

But an intelligent person might make a distinction between the two.

So you're saying that it takes an intelligent person to be able to tell the difference between somebody driving very fast and somebody stealing a lot of money from a bank (presumably not whilst driving very fast). Again, well done!

Now... did you actually have a point?

Only on his head...

"5,000 foreign criminals" does not say if they are 5,000 arsonists or 5,000 shoplifters.

Any intelligent person would want to know what the offenses were before saying that they should all be deported or that failing to deport them is something to hyperventilate about.

I hate to deflate your unreasoning hysteria like this but ....

Oh, not really.

yrs,
rubato

daddy Rubato? someone knock up a wife?

For our purposes: criminals = convicted felons.

Clear enough?

rubato wrote:"5,000 foreign criminals" does not say if they are 5,000 arsonists or 5,000 shoplifters.

Any intelligent person would want to know what the offenses were before saying that they should all be deported or that failing to deport them is something to hyperventilate about.

With some nuances, someone receiving a custodial sentence of at least 12 months is subject to deportation. That makes it highly unlikely that someone would be deported for a single minor offense, but it can be decided for the "public good" to to deport someone with a cumulative time in custody of at least 12 months in the past 5 years.

According to the report of the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency:
Fraud and forgery 27%
Drugs 23%
Violence against the person 22%
Robbery 10%

So a majority were for non-violent offenses and a huge majority were crimes whose motive was profit and not a desire to do harm to others. I point this out, because the stereotypical "why hasn't this guy been deported" story in the British press depicts someone convicted of multiple violent offenses resulting in the serious injury, rape or death of victims.

Saying that 5,000 foreign criminals are still in the UK awaiting deportation, without explaining the reason, is going to invite a lot of speculative conclusions. The report said that the primary reason for delaying deportation is an inability to secure travel documents for the deportees in a timely manner. These have to be issued by the country of origin, so perhaps it's just me, but a request for travel documents to repatriate a convicted criminal is not something that is ever going to make it the to the top of my to-do list if I work in an embassy or high commission.

Ah yes, and then there's all of those successful appeals on the basis of dubious "human rights" claims. Contrary to the Home Office's "interpretation" of Section 8 of the ECHR, it is not just about being able to keep families together and allowing mass murdering foreigners to continue their studies at at British uni. Particularly relevant to deportation, Section 8 creates a positive obligation to ensure that judicial and adminstrative proceedings be conducted fairly. The report highlighted several cases where deportees were not provided with the reasons for the decision against them and/or where deportees were told to submit reasons why they should not be deported by a certain date, only to be notified that a decision was rendered in advance of that date. These are gross breaches of process, and one likely reason they occurred was that the case for deportation was weak and UKBP wanted to issue the deportation order without allowing the deportee to present his/her case and/or be able to recognize the weakness of the case against him/her.

Scooter wrote:

rubato wrote:"5,000 foreign criminals" does not say if they are 5,000 arsonists or 5,000 shoplifters.

Any intelligent person would want to know what the offenses were before saying that they should all be deported or that failing to deport them is something to hyperventilate about.

With some nuances, someone receiving a custodial sentence of at least 12 months is subject to deportation. That makes it highly unlikely that someone would be deported for a single minor offense, but it can be decided for the "public good" to to deport someone with a cumulative time in custody of at least 12 months in the past 5 years.

According to the report of the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency:
Fraud and forgery 27%
Drugs 23%
Violence against the person 22%
Robbery 10%
... "

So there is 18% of "miscellaneous"?

And the last time I checked when you deported someone the country you deported them to has to accept them. Which is a serious difficulty.

This story just failed the 'sniff test' for hysteria inducement.

yrs,
rubato

The rest of the crimes were of single digit proportions. You can see the entire list in the report.

The country where the deported person is a citizen is obligated to accept them under the right of return of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How this plays out in practice (as in the issue of travel documents which the report pointed out) is what will determine the time it takes to deport someone.

quaddriver wrote:daddy Rubato? someone knock up a wife?

Rubato adopted me.

He's the bestest!

The full report is fairly bureaucratic and reassuringly reasonable-sounding.


Why the distortion in the posted article? Is the BBC being infested with Rupert Murdoch's castoffs? Or is it the broad appeal of the "let's fear and hate the foreigners, they're not like us!" demographic?


yrs,
rubato

Rubato adopted me.

He's the bestest!