Come one, come all...

[Gob]

She is as renowned for her outspoken views as she is for her cooking.

So when celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson Wright decided to write about her day out in a multi-cultural part of Leicester, she didn't mince her words. The former star of the BBC's Two Fat Ladies claimed a visit to the city, which has a large Muslim population, was 'the most frightening experience of her life'. Describing parts of Leicester as a 'ghetto', she said seeing so many men in Islamic clothing and women in a burkas left her feeling 'in the middle of my own country, a complete outcast and pariah'. Yesterday her comments provoked fury from Muslim groups and local leaders. But Miss Dickson Wright remained defiant, saying: 'I'm surprised any of the people who might object could read what I wrote as it is written in English.'

The 65-year-old, a former barrister who grew up in north London, dedicates a chapter in a new cookery book, Clarissa's England: A Gamely Gallop Through the English Counties, to each county, discussing their culinary, cultural and historical merits.

She describes how she accidentally stumbled upon Leicester's city centre, where one in ten of the population is Muslim, after coming off a ring road to escape a traffic jam and getting lost. She wrote: 'I found myself in an area where all the men were wearing Islamic clothing and all the women were wearing burkas and walking slightly behind them. 'None of the men would talk to me when I tried to find out where I was and how to get out of there because I was an English female and they don't talk to females they don't know, while if the women could speak English they weren't about to show it by having a word with me.

'I have many good acquaintances and even some friends among the Muslim community, yet here I was, in the heart of a city in the middle of my own country, a complete outcast and pariah.'
She said the positive side was the 'very good selection of Asian restaurants' and added: 'If multiculturalism works, which I have always been rather dubious of, surely it must be multicultural and not monocultural.

'I can only hope that in generations to come there will be a merging of the cultures and not the exclusion zone that is the ghetto.' Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the chef's description was 'hurtful'.

[Gob]

Entitlement much?

A mother-of-six who was forced out of a £2million home in one of London's most expensive areas after the government introduced a cap on housing benefit is demanding the council rehouse her in the same neighbourhood so her children can attend an elite school.

Stephanie Demouh, originally from Togo, in west Africa, was entitled to the handouts because she claimed she was a single mother. She was allocated a four-bedroom house in Belgravia, near Sloane Square, where she has been living for about three years with her children. It is not known how much exactly Ms Demouh's rent was each month and whether it was all funded from the housing benefit she received which totalled £1,200 a week. [$1813.53 US pw.]

However, after the government housing benefit was capped at £400-a-week she was forced to move into temporary accommodation 10 miles away in Edgware by Westminster City Council on December 29.

The mother, who is studying accountancy at Westminster University, wrote to councillors to complain and believes she should be rehoused by the council in the exclusive neighbourhood, where the average four-bedroom property is worth about £6million, so her four children can attend a top Church of England school.

She hopes her fifth child will start in September. Ms Demouh says her children are now always tired because of the distance they have to travel on the bus to school.

She told The Sunday Times: 'My children are suffering because they are overtired all the time. 'I can't change my place of study. If you have to attend a nine o'clock lecture, you can't be at both places together.'

According to records single mum Demouh married in 2001 but she was the only adult living in the house with her children. Companies House records shows that her husband owns an online clothes store called Ambro & Phany. She is listed as the company's secretary.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2NqC39VLR

[oldr_n_wsr]

At least she is trying to get the best for her kids.

[Gob]

Valentine Harverye, a Zimbabwean national, was jailed for five and a half years for grievous bodily harm after he “mutilated” and “humiliated” his 34 year-old victim, whom he scarred for life.

The Home Office tried to deport him under rules which say that any foreigner jailed for more than 12 months should be subject to automatic deportation but the 22 year-old brought a human rights appeal, and won.

Immigration judges ruled that Harverye could face “ill-treatment” if he was sent back to Zimbabwe, which would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Government is proposing to change the law so that foreign criminals cannot overturn deportation by deploying some human rights arguments - but Article 3 will not be curtailed, meaning that Harverye would almost certainly win his case even under the new rules.

It emerged in Harverye’s case that his brother, Matthew, also overturned a deportation bid on human rights grounds last year after being convicted of common assault.

[Gob]

The Home Office and the justice system are facing new questions about their handling of a paedophile failed asylum seeker, who is poised to receive a large compensation cheque from the taxpayer.

Jumaa Kater Saleh, who sexually abused a 13-year-old schoolgirl, was told by senior judges that he is entitled to a pay-out for the way the Home Office treated him.

An investigation by The Telegraph today raises significant questions about Saleh’s case, and exposes how he has repeatedly played the system to stay in this country.

Inquiries by this newspaper have found how:

• Saleh, 25, has already cost the taxpayer at least £350,000 since he came to Britain hidden in the back of a lorry in 2004;

• An expert hired by Saleh’s own legal team has raised doubts over a previous ruling which allowed the Sudanese paedophile to stay here indefinitely;

• At least nine judges have been involved in cases brought against and by Saleh, who used legal aid, and who was told by one: “By your conduct, this country becomes less safe.”

Saleh’s case was put into the spotlight last week when three judges, led by the Master of the Rolls, the second most senior member of the English judiciary, ruled that he must be paid compensation for having his human rights breached by being detained after his prison sentence expired, as the Home Office tried to deport him.

His payout has not yet been agreed but he could receive tens of thousands of pounds based on previous, similar cases.

The father of Saleh’s victim, who can only be identified as “A” for legal reasons, last night criticised the judges’ “crazy” decision. He said his daughter would always be “scarred” by her ordeal, adding: “My daughter has received nothing for what she went through, yet he stands to get thousands.

“He was a paedophile preying on young girls, yet he was only locked up for two years. What does he have to be compensated for?

“Why should someone who has committed this sort of crime be allowed to receive any sort of compensation? The worst of it is that as taxpayers, me and her mother are paying for him to go through the court system and then we’ll end up contributing through our taxes to any compensation he gets – the man who did this to our girl.”

At least nine judges have been involved in dealing with Saleh’s case during at least five separate hearings in courts and tribunals, including two that went to the Court of Appeal.

Costs in Saleh’s case have included a trial estimated to have cost more than £100,000; £20,000 in asylum support costs and more than £200,000 to keep him detained, firstly in jail and then in an immigration centre.

The judge in his criminal trial said the total cost of interpreters alone was £25,000.

Saleh was in a gang of five men who entrapped three disturbed and vulnerable girls, aged 13 and 14, in Kent in 2007. The men were each convicted of sexual activity with a child in 2008. Saleh was sentenced to four years at a young offenders’ institution.

At Maidstone Crown Court, Judge Martin Joy said: “No doubt, you came to this country because you regarded it as a safe country. However, by your conduct, this country becomes less safe.”

Saleh was subject to “automatic deportation” under border laws, but he appealed against deportation. In 2011, an immigration tribunal decided it would breach the European Convention of Human Rights to deport him, as he would face persecution if he returned to Sudan.

New information uncovered by The Telegraph has cast doubt on the tribunal’s conclusions. Peter Verney, a Sudan expert, was hired by Saleh’s lawyers and gave evidence on Saleh’s membership of the persecuted Zaghawa clan. But last week he said he had significant doubts about the case.

A spokesman for the Home Office said it was “looking at all options including appealing” and that it was “extremely disappointed with the court’s decision”.

A Home Office spokesman said: “We are looking at all options including appealing. We are extremely disappointed with the court’s decision. We believe it is right that dangerous individuals are kept in detention, wherever possible, in order to protect the public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... eport.html

[Lord Jim]

previous, similar cases.

[Gob]

A violent foreign criminal has been allowed to remain in Britain – while a failed asylum seeker from the same country has been sent back home in an ‘utterly perverse’ human rights judgment that appears to show that crime does pay.

The Congolese thug has served time for robbery in the UK and once attacked a policeman, but has been spared deportation after a court ruled he would face being locked up if he returned to his native country.

A senior judge overturned the Home Office’s attempts to boot him out because of the risk that he would suffer torture or ill-treatment, contrary to human rights laws, in the ‘severe’ prisons of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

The unnamed man, who is 26, may now even be granted asylum in the UK.

But a fellow countryman who was seeking refugee status in Britain, but had committed no crime, was told he could be safely deported because he did not have a criminal record, and so would not face detention from the authorities.

Last night it was feared the High Court ruling will lead to many more offenders born in the war-torn African state being allowed to remain in the UK after serving jail terms, despite Ministers’ repeated attempts to crack down on dubious human rights claims.

Dominic Raab, Conservative MP for Esher and Walton, who is a former Foreign Office lawyer, said: ‘This utterly perverse ruling allows yet another spurious human rights claim to scupper the deportation system.

'It will have a far-reaching impact for public protection and border control. We urgently need to change the law.’

[Lord Jim]

Gee, I thought the problem was that committing serious crimes was no barrier to being granted asylum in the UK...

But apparently it's not just "no barrier"; it's an affirmative requirement....

What I suspect may be happening here, is that laws and regulations that were originally put in place for the purpose of providing sanctuary to people who might face criminal prosecution for political crimes in their authoritarian home countries, are now being grossly misapplied by some jurists to cases involving heinous actual criminal acts, like pedophilia, murder, etc.... I repeat:

[Sue U]

Of course, the story is skewed and sensationalized because Daily Mail; why bother to educate when you can just gin up some outrage? After all, that's what keeps the readers coming back.

But way down at the end of the story, the writer hints at the actual explanation for the disparate treatment:

The judge considered reports by human rights groups and charities, concluding that only failed asylum seekers ‘perceived to be opponents of the DRC government’ would face ill-treatment.

By contrast, criminal returnees will be ‘detained for an indeterminate period’ in a prison or detention facility near the capital, Kinshasa, where they would face violence and rape.

He ruled ‘with considerable regret’ that the Congolese criminal must be allowed to stay in Britain as he would face human rights breaches at home.

So in true Daily Fail readership form, Jim simply assumes that there has been some sort of perversion of the system, and erroneously concludes that "laws and regulations that were originally put in place for the purpose of providing sanctuary to people who might face criminal prosecution for political crimes in their authoritarian home countries, are now being grossly misapplied by some jurists to cases involving heinous actual criminal acts." In fact, however, the UK law was evidently designed to shield people from deportation to countries where they are likely to be victims of human rights abuses, regardless of whether the reason for such retribution is perceived as "political" or "criminal." Had the non-criminal asylum seeker in this case been identified as an opponent of the DRC government, he would likely have been granted a reprieve from deportation as well. But on an assessment of the actual facts, there was apparently no basis to conclude that he was likely to be imprisoned or subjected to extrajudicial punishment if he were returned home. Had he been permitted to stay, the Mail would have written a story about how an illegal Congolese immigrant was outrageously sucking up all kinds of UK benefits when there was absolutely no reason not to send him packing.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The judge considered reports by human rights groups and charities, concluding that only failed asylum seekers ‘perceived to be opponents of the DRC government’ would face ill-treatment.

By contrast, criminal returnees will be ‘detained for an indeterminate period’ in a prison or detention facility near the capital, Kinshasa, where they would face violence and rape.

He ruled ‘with considerable regret’ that the Congolese criminal must be allowed to stay in Britain as he would face human rights breaches at home

a. The DRC government is not one of laws. By definition, persons seeking asylum outside the DRC are already 'perceived to be opponents of the DRC government' and upon their return will face ill-treatment. So pal B - a non-criminal evidently - is being sent back to almost certain doom for er... no crimes at all

b. The DRC however apparently does commit the awful human rights violation of er... putting criminals in jail. But the judge doesn't like them for doing that Yes, as in any prison, there's a chance that horrible bastard A will face violence and rape (or commit it - who's to say?).

c. Oh what a shame.

First rule - protect your own family first. Second rule - tell Brussels to pound salt

[Sue U]

a. The DRC government is not one of laws.

Well, it's got laws; it's just that no one seems terribly interested in following or enforcing them.

By definition, persons seeking asylum outside the DRC are already 'perceived to be opponents of the DRC government' and upon their return will face ill-treatment. So pal B - a non-criminal evidently - is being sent back to almost certain doom for er... no crimes at all

Except for the fact that after an assessment of the actual evidence the UK court found exactly the opposite to be the case, your conclusion is spot on.

b. The DRC however apparently does commit the awful human rights violation of er... putting criminals in jail.

As does the UK. Where the first gentleman described has already served his term.

Yes, as in any prison, there's a chance that horrible bastard A will face violence and rape (or commit it - who's to say?).

Yes, who is to say, har har har? Because clearly his involvement in a robbery in the UK means he's a prison rapist. And because clearly no prison can be managed to minimize the likelihood of rape or other violence, it's just something prisoners should routinely expect. But on what basis do you conclude that Monsiuer A is a "horrible bastard" deserving of indeterminate detention and violence in a Congolese prison?

c. Oh what a shame.

If you truly believed it to be a "shame," then you would favor allowing all Congolese immigrants to remain in Britain without threat of deportation.

First rule - protect your own family first.

Whose family needs protecting here? What does this even mean?

Second rule - tell Brussels to pound salt

Well yes, sprinkle pounded salt and a bit of olive oil on the Brussels sprouts and then pop them under the broiler for a few minutes -- delicious. But I fail to see how this is relevant to a UK deportation decision.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Family = the people of GB. That's who should get priority. Export the criminal back to where he belongs - the DRC. He'll probably get a gov't job.

Brussels = the seat of all liberal f-wit thinking which dictate that every devious swine bastard gets extras while decent hardworking people get the shaft.

Horrible bastard = DRC criminal coming to the UK to prey on liberal f-wits

and so on

All foreign criminals should be sent back to where they came from - end of story.

Of course, I could be wrong

[Gob]

You're not.

[Lord Jim]

What Maggie said...

And if the philosophical platform upon which this policy is based is that Western countries should be responsible for providing asylum to common criminals from Third World countries because the prison accommodations in those countries aren't up to Michelin standards, I will repeat again what I said earlier:

[Sean]

I have to agree. It should be made clear to all asylum seekers that any conviction in the UK for a serious offence will lead to automatic deportation on their release. No appeal.

[Gob]

A Somalian grandmother was allowed to come to Britain to live in a council house with her daughter who is an unemployed single mother-of-three living on benefits.

Halima Jimale, 68, was reunited with her daughter Fadumo Mohamed, 43, who claims £310 a week in handouts despite fears that she would also be a drain on taxpayers' money.

A relative promised to give the pensioner £100 a week so she didn't have to rely on benefits as well - but the tribunal heard he had just £1.15 in his bank account.

But despite this, judges in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber Upper Tribunal gave Ms Jimale permission to come to Britain.

They ruled that fellow Somalian Abdulkadir Elmi, 46, who is a security guard earning £22,400 a year would do his best to support the family.

The tribunal, sitting in London, heard that Ms Jimale will live rent free in her daughter's council house with her three grandchildren.

As Mrs Mohamed was already living in a council house, the court ruled it would not cost the state any more to have her mother brought to Britain as well.

Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey heard that the single mother receives £188 a month in child benefit for her three children, £101 income support and £165 per week in tax credits.

Despite Mr Elmi's lack of money they found 'there is a clear bond of mutual loyalty and support' in Somalian family culture and he could be depended on to provide money to the pensioner.

If the security guard stops handing over £100 per week to the family, Ms Jimale will be forced to rely on state handouts.

The tribunal was told that Mr Elmi had just £1.15 in his account because he had been sending money to his parents in Somalia. However, he had recently stopped as they had got jobs.

The Home Office argued that Ms Jimale shouldn't be allowed into the country because there was no evidence that the distant relative would actually hand over any money.

A spokesman for the Home Office said: 'We are disappointed with the judgment in this case, however we can only challenge decisions if an error of law is detected. In this case there were no grounds for further appeal.

'We are clear that those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution are welcome - but family life must not be established here at the UK taxpayer's expense.'

[Gob]

So another judge tosses his wig in the ring for the title of "British National Party Membership Recruiter Of the Year"....

It appears the competition is going to be particularly fierce....

I wonder why so many are vying for the distinction... Do they throw a particularly nice award dinner?

Here's another candidate..

An Islamic teacher who sexually abused a young girl as he taught her the Koran has been spared prison after a court was told he is on benefits and his wife speaks 'very little English'.

Suleman Maknojioa, 40, repeatedly rubbed the 11-year-old’s leg and even reached underneath the long folds of her prayer headscarf to squeeze her chest whilst giving her and her two brothers private tuition in Arabic.
Maknojioa was said to have 'favoured' the girl and believed the touching was 'appropriate' and given to reassure her.

But the confused girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, found herself becoming frightened whenever lessons were due for fear of what the tutor would do to her. He was reported to police after the child’s mother overheard her two sons, aged 13 and seven, talking about the incidents in the kitchen.

On the day he was arrested, father of six Maknojioa, a highly-respected Hafiz, was due to teach 30 children at a mosque near his home in Blackburn, Lancashire. He was later convicted of five counts of sexual activity with a child but on Monday he was handed a 40 week custodial sentence suspended for two years after the court heard that he was now on a benefits with a family reliant on him.

Preston Crown Court was told Maknojioa had been engaged by the children’s parents in 2012 to teach their children about the Islamic faith, with lessons taking place up to three times a week at their home in Lancashire.


Passing sentence Judge Michael Byrne told Maknojioa:

'The parents invited you into the sanctity of their own home for the purpose of religious education. They trusted you and left you alone with their children. 'I have read a letter from the girl in which she sets out her initial confusion at conduct of this sort from one who was not only in a position of authority over her but who she and her brother were expected to trust because their parents trusted him.

'Her brothers found themselves in a difficult situation and the older brother felt he wasn’t able to protect his sister. She was of a tender age, young, vulnerable and impressionable. 'There could be no greater recognition of trust than between a minister of religion and pupils whose care is entrusted to him by parents. You breached that trust deliberately and repeatedly.

'Consequently you have been removed from any employment you have known. You are no longer teaching, you are suffering ill-health and are due to undergo surgical intervention. 'I bear in mind your own family circumstances. I accept you are a very good father to your six children, your wife speaks little English and administration falls upon you. 'I bear in mind that social services conducted their own assessment and found that you do not pose a risk. You are now unemployed living on state benefits. 'I have come to the conclusion that this repeated offending from a person in a position of trust merits a term of imprisonment that crosses the custodial threshold. But I’m satisfied that the sentence of imprisonment in this case for the reasons I have referred to may be suspended.'

[Jarlaxle]

Incredible. They're worse than even the idiots in this area!

Do judges there also buy their positions?

[Gob]

The suspended sentence handed to a Koran teacher who sexually abused an 11-year-old girl will be reviewed by the Attorney General after protests from Muslim women's groups.

Suleman Maknojioa from Blackburn was given a 40-week suspended sentence for abusing the girl, after his defence argued that his wife couldn't speak English and the household was dependent on him.

But that decision will now be looked at again after dozens of people complained to the Attorney General's office. The Crown Prosecution Service could then send the case to the court of appeal to be reconsidered.
After the sentence was handed down on Monday friend of the victim's family immediately dubbed is a 'total disgrace’.

‘What type of message does this send out to paedophiles? He should be behind bars for this type of abuse. We are all horrified,' said the friend, who asked not to be named.

Now a spokesman for the Attorney General's office has said that following an outpouring of complaints about Maknojia's sentence officials would look again at the decision.

'We received around 50 requests to review the sentence of Suleman Maknojioa,' the spokesman said.

'The CPS will look at the case and sentencing remarks of the judge and decide if it should be referred to the court of appeal.'
The protests were spearheaded by the Muslim Women's Network UK who wrote a letter to the Attorney General expressing their outrage at the decision and calling for it to be reviewed.

Shaista Gohir, chairman of the network, said she welcomed the decision.

She said: 'Such unduly lenient sentences damage the public confidence. Victims of sexual abuse within the Muslim community find it very difficult to speak out, especially if the perpetrator is a religious teacher as they are held in such high esteem.

'What we often find what happens is that there is a tendency to blame the victim. This was the case in Blackburn and his lenient sentence fed into that.

'There needs to be stiffer sentences in cases of sexual abuse to send out a message that abuse will not be tolerated.

'Often the community can be part of the problem because we prioritise the honour of the community over the welfare of the victim.

'We need to be the first to speak out.'

[rubato]

Oh Koran I thought it said Korean! Totally different thing.


yrs,
rubato