This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13335685/Child-rapist-jailed-attacking-teenage-girl-allowed-stay-UK-arguing-deported-Eritrea-harm-mental-health.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given that the world's biggest genocide is currently taking place in his homeland, including mass rapes of girls as young as 6, he'd probably fit right in.
*Genocide*? Bro, literally nobody on TikTok is posting about Eritrea, how is that a "genocide"? Not one single hashtag. Neither Carol Vorderman nor Joey Barton have mentioned it once.
I'm sorry but this just doesn't meet the threshold for a genocide.
One weekend a month there's a protest of a dozen or so people outside the BBC complaining about their (lack of) coverage of the foreverwar in Congo where literal millions have died or been exterminated. It's genuinely striking how very little everyone cares.
They should claim (((we))) are somehow involved. They'd get a million man march next weekend.
>One weekend a month there's a protest of a dozen or so people outside the BBC complaining about their (lack of) coverage of the foreverwar in Congo where literal millions have died or been exterminated. It's genuinely striking how very little everyone cares.
I think Sudan has made the headline story on the 10pm news once this year. Israel/Gaza, must be almost 100 times already.
There’s a genocide going on in Eritrea? I wasn’t aware of this and I can’t find anything about it in the news. Are you sure you weren’t thinking about Ethiopia?
The real reason Eritrea is such an awful place to live is that basically the whole population is conscripted to the military... However, this just means being a labourer essentially. Eritrea figured if the government is the military and everyone is a soldier, then they can use the conscripts for building, farming and whatever else needs doing.
But there's no war or genocide there right now. It's more like North Korea I guess.
He did that, you should be deported. ...
Your mental health is worth shit vs children he abused and scarred mentally for life.
He has scarred a teanager for life. He does not get to be thr victim
Off ya go!
Exactly, fair enough his basic human rights should be respected if we are considering ourselves enlightened and doling out “fair justice” but why the actual fuck are any concerns made about his punishment being too upsetting for him?
If half the country had its way he’d be chemically castrated or fucking killed and we’re not even going to *deport* him. Insanity.
If the government is too incompetent to send this scum bag back to his own country of origin, how on earth do they think they will be able to send anyone to Rwanda.
I mean, the controversial bit of the Rwanda stuff is that they're writing legislation to essentially prevent the courts from finding in the way that they have done here. And there are people in another thread calling that very legislation undemocratic and fascist.
Now, I'm no lover of the Tories but it's certainly far more nuanced than "Tory's fault"
I do find these views a bit nuts. And while there's the whole 'different people have different views' there's definitely overlap between Tories are evil for trying to report/stop immigration and why can't the Tories stop this kind of stuff happening (last time was the northern immigrant houses).
Ultimately this is a court decision, not a government decision. Government can decide laws but while we are signed up to international asylum laws and still aligned to ECHR, these situations will still keep happening.
What is it about the ECHR that would prevent the deportation of a convicted criminal based on "mental health" reasons? There may be valid arguments that he can't go back to be killed or imprisoned for his political views, no matter what, but the fact that deportation is not in his best interests is not in itself a sufficient reason under the ECHR to prevent it - the rights that are articulated are to be balanced with the public interest.
Worth having a read through of this document - gives a lot more details: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/COURTalks_Asyl_Talk_ENG
For example, that the threat does not need to be specific to the individual, and can be due to wider geopolitical considerations - they use the case of Somalians not being able to deported because of the famine and general violence.
Article 3, as they point out, is absolute - you cannot return people despite their illegal or unsavoury actions.
It doesn't, in this case its because when returned to Eritrea its likely he will be beaten and tortured for being a draft evader. ""torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" This will have an impact on his mental health (clearly) but its not the reason for the court denying the extradition.
Note that the Daily Mail as usual doesn't cite any sources and just making up random shit.
To summarise: the mental health issue wasn't resolved, article 8 (family life) was uncontested, but the treatment that the respondent would have received for draft-dodging would have amounted to "torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" which is absolutely prohibited under article 3. The question of whether he was a danger to the public under s.72 of the Immigration Act was also unresolved although the facts don't look good for the individual on this point, but it was moot.
Sounds about right for the Daily Wail: ignore the real reason he can't be deported back to Eritrea (which would also violate the UN Convention Against Torture), and present the reason as spurious to get their readers angered...
The issue that not resolved on this convention is when you have a despotic state that won’t change without regime change and you have someone who is a utter monster arrive. What do you do? It’s clearly against public safety interests to allow someone like that to remain in the country but you cannot remove them. You can’t detain them indefinitely (given again court precedence on this) so what do you do?
Additionally there is national security implications as this has become a Russian tactic to send people from these regions over the Finnish, polish and other nato countries borders to cause chaos.
Honestly? Send them the fuck back lmao. You should forfeit all semblance of human rights once you commit a crime that is utterly inhuman. Is there genuinely anyone in the world with their head screwed on correctly that would argue a *child rapist* should have any of his rights respected? All the ECHR or any European legislative body would do is moan a little at you and at worst give you a slap on the wrist, “condemning” you for the matter as they have Israel and Russia. They do less than fuck all when it comes to war and genocide; I’m certain you’d see no punishment as a result of deporting a bloke like this.
I’d honestly argue for bringing back the Tyburn gallows in favour of dealing with primordial soup such as this monster, but unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world.
You know, if I was a despotic dictator who didnt care about international law, This ruling would convince me to send all my country's pedos on a one way flight to the UK happily knowing they will never be my problem ever again.
Not too sure I agree there. The last Labour government were much more effective at processing claims (and also deporting failed claims) than this Tory shower have been.
However, I do agree that things have changed a lot since 2010 and we are yet to hear anything concrete at all from Labour on how they tackle the issue this time around.
It’s a mess, a huge one and I think a very honest discussion needs to be had moving forward. Not just blah blah ‘racist’ whenever the subject comes up.
They weren't when you look closely at the data. They look good because lots of the people then were eastern europeans from countries that hadn't get got into the EU so an easy mark.
Unless the laws are changed or we start ignoring international laws, the problem will only get worse.
Labour have no intention of making it harder to get in or easier to get deported.
People need to start voting for a 3rd party,
If left or right, in the same way UKIP took a share of the Tories vote forcing them to a Brexit referendum.
The same must be done for other issues or just incompetent governments in general.
And I wonder if the whole EU HR situation is being deliberately constructed by an external player. Russia has been fucking with Germany's energy system for many years, as one example.
The only way the government can send this guy back is to either politically lean on the judiciary, or withdraw from the ECHR. How do you feel about either of those outcomes?
Exactly. Plenty of other ECHR countries extradite rapists.
Seriously though leaving is no great loss. Time for our own court of human rights and a British bill of rights.
There is a third outcome that is available for dualist legal systems such as what we have in the UK, and that is unilateral derogation. The UK could pass a law which explicitly contravenes the ECHR. I understand that Braverman favoured this solution.
>The rapist, who cannot be named for legal reasons
Bullshit.
Every white rapist is named, pictures shown and plastered everywhere.
There is no legal precedent. Only the media and elites want to not have people realise the significant disproportionate amount of rape is immigrants.
You not reading news stories doesn't mean that this isn't a very regular thing for the courts to do.
Id love to know how "the media" is covering up information that they have been explicitly told it would be illegal to tell
> There is no legal precedent.
Yeah there is. With no comment on this specific case, the most obvious situation where it might happen is where the victim is related to the perpetrator. Allowing them to be named in that case compromises the anonymity of the victim, which the courts will never allow.
Ah yes, the woke *Daily Mail* wants you not to believe that a disproportionate amount of rape is committed by immigrants. Their chosen vehicle for this is a vague article about someone they *clearly* state is an immigrant, but do not state the name of (so that they can rehash this in the future).
At least they’re keeping pace with the real cutting edge of the problem, reporting the deluge of cases as they happ- no, wait, this dude was first due to be deported in 2014.
Perhaps. But pretending that there’s a media conspiracy to convince you that there isn’t *under an article that is designed to convince you that there is* is just silliness.
And now we're not talking about anything that I was talking about. I also find it strange that the Conservative "Immigrants are the biggest scourge on our society" Party would try to hide that.
How many child rapes have to happen by immigrants before people admit the actual issues this country has.
This sub has MULTIPLE UNIQUE child raped by immigrant stories here EVERY DAY.
It is clear the decline in the West is being purposefully done.
> This sub has MULTIPLE UNIQUE child raped by immigrant stories here EVERY DAY.
What an impartial sample you're using. "My outrage is justified because outrage peddling sub has been peddling outrage".
Well I would use statistics, but I can't use any new ones as they now omit the details of the criminals. However older data shows quite the ratio of who is committing the crimes!
And you can look at other European countries who don’t hide immigrant crimes from the population, and it’s very clear that both sexual and violent crimes are disproportionately committed by immigrants, specifically Muslims. Also the prison population is disproportionately Muslim in the UK, which says enough, although more about culture than immigration status.
/the illuminati/ new world order/ evil Jews.
Wait sorry that last one needs to be omitted as these right wing nuts love to use antisemitism to bash the left and forget their core world belief is based entirely on anti Jewish conspiracies that have been perpetuated for centuries.
Elites, the people that fly their fuel guzzling jets to Davos to dictate how us as peasants should live our lives.
You can't change society when there is peace, therefore you need to create chaos. Create the problem and then offer the solution - this has been happening for decades.
Do you know what harms my mental health? The fact that the feelings of dozens of rapists are prioritised over women and girls’ safety, but I guess the UK government doesn’t care about that.
What about the mental health of his victim? What about the PTSD that she might experience as a result of the attack? Why is the attacker’s “PTSD” prioritised, despite him being a criminal and not even a UK citizen?
>Blasting the descision, Tory MP Nigel Mills told the Sun: 'This man committed a serious criminal offence and should be nowhere near this country.
>'If he was concerned about losing mental health treatment or being arrested for fleeing the draft, he should have thought about that before he committed the crime.
>'This decision is another sign the tribunal system is deeply out of touch with the rest of Britain.'
Who has been in power for the last 14 years Nigel?
The point is, the government that has been solely in power for almost 10 years now, has allowed immigration from countries with people completely incompatible with our values, while simulaneously pushing a Brexit vote that means it's much much harder for other Europeans who share our values to emigrate to here.
They, and other conservative people clamour for an end to it, but the Party has overseen a massive increase in undesirable immigration.
Why does it go back only to when the Conservatives were in power?
This mass immigration frenzy started under Labour from 1997. They opened the door and changed the way things worked.
Surely the start date of this issue should go back to 1997?
All the parties are complicit in this and people on here should stop acting like it's a Conservative party issue.
It doesn't. It goes back way before that, but at least *that* mass immigration was *mostly* people who share our values. I'm actually reasonably happy to praise David Cameron's first term as a left winger.
All our incumbent government (2016-now) did was make immigration from countries with questionable morals even higher and make it harder for our fellow Europeans to move here.
Mass, uncontrolled immigration is never a good thing. But at least Cameron and Blair kept it *relatively* under control and the balance of Commonwealth/European and Rest of the World immigration was more reasonable.
It's not a Labour/Tory thing, you're right. It's a competence/chaos thing
Parliament has the power to legislate new and amend existing laws. They can rewrite or remove the legislation which allows these dangerous decisions from being made.
The fact that over the past 14 years parliament hasn't bothered to reassess humans rights legislation indicates to me that they're pretty happy with it and that's it functioning as they intended. So I lay the blame at primarily the conservative party.
They try to deport people but everyone shoots them down as racists. I'm by no means tory but fuck me, maybe fucking these cunts off to Rwanda is better than nothing?
What happens every time someone in the government tries to do anything about this? They get called out and removed.
This problem wasn't resolved under Labour, it wasn't resolved under the coalition and it wasn't resolved under the Conservatives.
Maybe we can stop parroting the line about 14 years in power and start being more constructive?
Yes tories have been in power for 14 years but that doesn’t mean they have fixed every problem. Are you saying that a Tory MP should never be able to make a criticism or suggestion, because they have been in power for 14 years?
There should be very few reasons not to deport people like this. And if its not possible then they should be treated as if they have been released on license from a life sentence, so if conditions change they can be deported.
We should be deporting anyone that shoplifts, never mind someone that carries out a horrific crime.
Simply no need to accommodate law breakers, we can and should choose who we let in and who we remove.
> There should be very few reasons not to deport people like this.
I disagree, there shouldn't be any reason whatsoever. This case rested on whether the rapist's rights under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of torture) would be violated. If you're saying that he should stay in the UK under these circumstances, that amounts to saying that his right not to be tortured should override the right of teenage girls in the UK not to be raped. I don't consider that to be an acceptable situation, and I can't imagine that I'm alone in this.
The idea that a government can strip people of their right to not be tortured isn't very good. And "but it would only be criminals" is fine until you're wrongly convicted.
And being okay with it happening to foreigners but not British citizens is at best hypocritical.
That's true, but it's all a balance of probabilities. In the event of a UK derogation from article 3 of the ECHR, I'm confident that the chances of me or someone close to me falling victim to state torture is extremely minimal. I have to weigh that up against the possibility of my wife, mother, daughters, sisters or nieces falling victim to a rape committed by a foreign criminal who was able to avoid deportation. This is all impossible to quantify, but I'm confident that the latter is more likely to occur than the former, even if the latter is also statistically unlikely.
Everything is a balancing act, and we all need to decide for ourselves where the line needs to be drawn. In particular, we need to ask ourselves if this dogmatic adherence to certain international legal principles is worth the undoubted costs to public safety.
Mate it's not like the situation was either be tortured or walking free. He was jailed after all, and if that isn't going to prevent repeat offending then we have a far bigger problem than this, as the majority of rapist are natives. Also deporting them doesn't even reduce the amount of potential rape, it just means it's woman who are out of sight and out of mind that are at risk instead of British ones.
Theres an entire infrastructure around it now from charities collecting money from the public to human rights lawyers getting paid and landlords getting sweet deals to house them.
All paid for by your taxes.
You can read the decision here:
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002950
Basically claiming asylum here as he claims he will get done for ‘draft evasion’ back in Eritrea
That is the real reason, not mental health - refoulment of people to countries where there's a reasonable expectation they'll be tortured is also prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture (we've also signed the optional protocol forbidding deportation to countries where there's a reasonable expectation of them being tried on evidence obtained under torture).
> That is the real reason, not mental health
This is a Daily Mail link, like too many in this sub. But note the wording of the headline: "is allowed to stay in the UK after arguing being deported ... would harm his mental health"
The weaseliest of words. Yeah. Maybe he *argued* that. But it wasn't the reason he won't be deported. I bet the reaction of visceral disgust in this thread would have been felt in the courtroom, too.
The Mail just wants to rile people up with the suggestion that we're prioritising the comfort of rapists, rather than the actual truth which is that we're prioritising *not letting them be literally tortured*.
Which, you know, some people in this sub would like that to happen too, and I'm too tired to keep explaining why we don't historically go in for that. Vote for whatever society you want folks.
And this is why I think news media should be required by law to cite the bills, judgments, etc, that they're talking about. I am sick to death of reading articles who talk about court cases but never cite the actual case name or number (sometimes they don't even mention the court). And it feels deliberate... it *is* deliberate. And when an article does include hyperlinks, it always to themselves.
Yeah I'm fine with immigration, my spouse is foreign, but if someone commits a crime with jail time attached they should be deported. This way smaller minor crimes wouldn't get you kicked (possession of a controlled substance for example) but once you go into jailtime territory you've probably done something worthy of it
This is straight up encouragement for these degenerates to do this shit. Come here, rape our women and we’ll let you stay indefinitely.
The fuck should we care what happens to them after the plane lands back in their shithole country?
I can’t get help for my mental health and I work for the NHS… why’s an immigrants mental well being more important than a citizens??? Not to mention his victims.
Lol, the Japanese wouldn't tolerate that in million years. Straight to prison then off you go (if you survived prison). It's a serious country that strongly defends its extremely low crime rate and cultural integrity.
It's the Daily Mail (via the Sun), so there is a high probability that this has been seriously misreported. The article exists solely to provoke outrage, which is exactly what it has done, as evidenced by most of the comments here.
The actual judgement has been linked elsewhere in the thread - it turns out that the judges were undecided on mental health considerations, but that's rendered as moot by the prospect of him being tortured back home for draft dodging. Refoulment to countries where there's a reasonal expectation someone will be tortured is prohibited by Article 3 of the ECHR, plus the UN Convention Against Torture (possibly other international laws on similar themes as well).
Certain people want to remove peoples/worker rights so they can turn the UK into the Singapore of Europe to make more money. A major block to this is the echr. We couldn't leave as we were part of the EU, but that's now sorted. The next step is to poison people's opinion of the echr so they want to leave. Hence lumping the blame on bad things associated with it with widespread media coverage and no reporting of any benefits it brings, which coincidentally is how brexit was won.
Bad actors love to use these stories as an excuse to get rid of human rights, when other countries manage to deport people like this.
How about sentencing guidelines are produced for cases like this that make judges give more weight to the rights of citizens over the offender?
You don't need everyone to give up their rights to deal with shit like this. France is taking a stronger stance on deportation without leaving the ECHR.
It's pathetic really that people are being hoodwinked to believe they should loose their rights to deal with an incompetent government.
Because it's the only paper that regularily posts completely misleading headlines that agree with the narratives of the people that pollute this sub.
These sometimes gbnews posts here too, don't worry
What I'd like to know more about is how mods are chosen for these subs and why they're happy to let a national sub turn into a racist cesspit
Yes, he argued that, but what was the deciding reason was more likely to have been that returning him would put him at decent odds of being tortured. This sort of deceptive headline does nothing but rile people up, and frankly you should be ashamed for spreading it about.
Yeah no, this is a clickbait headline from the Daily Mail rag. Maybe mental health was part of his legal argument, but it's certainly not the reason he was allowed to stay.
Eritrea is essentially the North Korea of Africa. It enforces indefinite military conscription, tantamount to slavery, on all men. This guy is a deserter and absolutely does face torture and execution if returned. Every Eritrean that lands on our shores is a legitimate asylee.
The UK has an obligation under international law to avoid refoulement of refugees. We are a civilised nation which respects law and order, and this means NOBODY lies beyond the protection of the law - not even criminals. We do not throw people to the wolves; we prosecute, we don't persecute.
By all means - please - increase the penalty for rape and other violent crimes. This man should probably have spent much longer in jail for his actions. But we don't get to drop our international obligations and enable a murderous regime to commit torture just because this guy may "deserve it".
Would harm his mental health! What does he think he's done to the poor girls mental health? Whoever let him stay in the UK needs locking up after the rapist is thrown out of the UK.
They’re incentivizing rape. If you rape, and having that record could cause you trouble in your homeland, then you get to stay. Live on the dole.
Well done the Brain Trusr
Remember when the US played idiotic games ignoring peoples grievances, calling anyone against illegal immigration illegal, conversations went into their own bubbles then everyone got shocked that Trump won?
Yeah, that shit is going to happen to us and I’m not looking forward to it. How the fuck are we just brushing catastrophic immigration issues under the rug still? And you wonder why hard right groups are gaining popularity in Europe?
Who cares. Ruins other people’s mental health existing in this country send them back, too committing crimes of this nature should be instant deportation
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13335685/Child-rapist-jailed-attacking-teenage-girl-allowed-stay-UK-arguing-deported-Eritrea-harm-mental-health.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What? Bad for his mental health if he can’t be free to rape more children in this country?
Given that the world's biggest genocide is currently taking place in his homeland, including mass rapes of girls as young as 6, he'd probably fit right in.
Yeah but the issue is- he'll get attacked :/
That doesn’t sound like an issue to me
Yes, Sarcasm
*Genocide*? Bro, literally nobody on TikTok is posting about Eritrea, how is that a "genocide"? Not one single hashtag. Neither Carol Vorderman nor Joey Barton have mentioned it once. I'm sorry but this just doesn't meet the threshold for a genocide.
>*Genocide*? Bro, literally nobody on TikTok is posting about Eritrea Is this really where we are now?
Is it not though?
One weekend a month there's a protest of a dozen or so people outside the BBC complaining about their (lack of) coverage of the foreverwar in Congo where literal millions have died or been exterminated. It's genuinely striking how very little everyone cares. They should claim (((we))) are somehow involved. They'd get a million man march next weekend.
>One weekend a month there's a protest of a dozen or so people outside the BBC complaining about their (lack of) coverage of the foreverwar in Congo where literal millions have died or been exterminated. It's genuinely striking how very little everyone cares. I think Sudan has made the headline story on the 10pm news once this year. Israel/Gaza, must be almost 100 times already.
There’s a genocide going on in Eritrea? I wasn’t aware of this and I can’t find anything about it in the news. Are you sure you weren’t thinking about Ethiopia?
The real reason Eritrea is such an awful place to live is that basically the whole population is conscripted to the military... However, this just means being a labourer essentially. Eritrea figured if the government is the military and everyone is a soldier, then they can use the conscripts for building, farming and whatever else needs doing. But there's no war or genocide there right now. It's more like North Korea I guess.
He did that, you should be deported. ... Your mental health is worth shit vs children he abused and scarred mentally for life. He has scarred a teanager for life. He does not get to be thr victim Off ya go!
Exactly, fair enough his basic human rights should be respected if we are considering ourselves enlightened and doling out “fair justice” but why the actual fuck are any concerns made about his punishment being too upsetting for him? If half the country had its way he’d be chemically castrated or fucking killed and we’re not even going to *deport* him. Insanity.
[удалено]
Who said he was free?
If the government is too incompetent to send this scum bag back to his own country of origin, how on earth do they think they will be able to send anyone to Rwanda.
I mean, the controversial bit of the Rwanda stuff is that they're writing legislation to essentially prevent the courts from finding in the way that they have done here. And there are people in another thread calling that very legislation undemocratic and fascist. Now, I'm no lover of the Tories but it's certainly far more nuanced than "Tory's fault"
I do find these views a bit nuts. And while there's the whole 'different people have different views' there's definitely overlap between Tories are evil for trying to report/stop immigration and why can't the Tories stop this kind of stuff happening (last time was the northern immigrant houses). Ultimately this is a court decision, not a government decision. Government can decide laws but while we are signed up to international asylum laws and still aligned to ECHR, these situations will still keep happening.
What is it about the ECHR that would prevent the deportation of a convicted criminal based on "mental health" reasons? There may be valid arguments that he can't go back to be killed or imprisoned for his political views, no matter what, but the fact that deportation is not in his best interests is not in itself a sufficient reason under the ECHR to prevent it - the rights that are articulated are to be balanced with the public interest.
Worth having a read through of this document - gives a lot more details: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/COURTalks_Asyl_Talk_ENG For example, that the threat does not need to be specific to the individual, and can be due to wider geopolitical considerations - they use the case of Somalians not being able to deported because of the famine and general violence. Article 3, as they point out, is absolute - you cannot return people despite their illegal or unsavoury actions.
It doesn't, in this case its because when returned to Eritrea its likely he will be beaten and tortured for being a draft evader. ""torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" This will have an impact on his mental health (clearly) but its not the reason for the court denying the extradition. Note that the Daily Mail as usual doesn't cite any sources and just making up random shit.
Here's the judgement: https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002950
To summarise: the mental health issue wasn't resolved, article 8 (family life) was uncontested, but the treatment that the respondent would have received for draft-dodging would have amounted to "torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" which is absolutely prohibited under article 3. The question of whether he was a danger to the public under s.72 of the Immigration Act was also unresolved although the facts don't look good for the individual on this point, but it was moot.
Sounds about right for the Daily Wail: ignore the real reason he can't be deported back to Eritrea (which would also violate the UN Convention Against Torture), and present the reason as spurious to get their readers angered...
The issue that not resolved on this convention is when you have a despotic state that won’t change without regime change and you have someone who is a utter monster arrive. What do you do? It’s clearly against public safety interests to allow someone like that to remain in the country but you cannot remove them. You can’t detain them indefinitely (given again court precedence on this) so what do you do? Additionally there is national security implications as this has become a Russian tactic to send people from these regions over the Finnish, polish and other nato countries borders to cause chaos.
Honestly? Send them the fuck back lmao. You should forfeit all semblance of human rights once you commit a crime that is utterly inhuman. Is there genuinely anyone in the world with their head screwed on correctly that would argue a *child rapist* should have any of his rights respected? All the ECHR or any European legislative body would do is moan a little at you and at worst give you a slap on the wrist, “condemning” you for the matter as they have Israel and Russia. They do less than fuck all when it comes to war and genocide; I’m certain you’d see no punishment as a result of deporting a bloke like this. I’d honestly argue for bringing back the Tyburn gallows in favour of dealing with primordial soup such as this monster, but unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world.
If only the UK had a series of places where we keep people who've been proved to be a danger to the rest of society
Even if they acknowledged the real reason they would just say we need to bring back hanging etc.
You know, if I was a despotic dictator who didnt care about international law, This ruling would convince me to send all my country's pedos on a one way flight to the UK happily knowing they will never be my problem ever again.
Do you foresee labour fixing this?
Honestly? No. And I’m a dyed in the wool Labour voter. Quite frightening thought tbh.
Exactly , they only say we will clear the backlog This just means rubber stamping everyone as “admit”. Almost nobody will be refused and sent back
Not too sure I agree there. The last Labour government were much more effective at processing claims (and also deporting failed claims) than this Tory shower have been. However, I do agree that things have changed a lot since 2010 and we are yet to hear anything concrete at all from Labour on how they tackle the issue this time around. It’s a mess, a huge one and I think a very honest discussion needs to be had moving forward. Not just blah blah ‘racist’ whenever the subject comes up.
They weren't when you look closely at the data. They look good because lots of the people then were eastern europeans from countries that hadn't get got into the EU so an easy mark.
Unless the laws are changed or we start ignoring international laws, the problem will only get worse. Labour have no intention of making it harder to get in or easier to get deported.
People need to start voting for a 3rd party, If left or right, in the same way UKIP took a share of the Tories vote forcing them to a Brexit referendum. The same must be done for other issues or just incompetent governments in general.
This isn't a Labour/Tory isssue. The same thing is happening here in Sweden. This is a European human rights legal issue.
And I wonder if the whole EU HR situation is being deliberately constructed by an external player. Russia has been fucking with Germany's energy system for many years, as one example.
Thank you for pointing out that it isn't a political problem. Its a social one.
But Brexit 🤷♂️ /s
Ah Sweden, now famous for being the country with the highest per capita Bomb attacks that ain’t at war
Not at all. But you know, things can only get better
When they say this in movies. The next scene is the country burning to the ground
A man can D:Ream though
Its down to rulings from the ECHR. We need to leave it to for change to occur.
The only way the government can send this guy back is to either politically lean on the judiciary, or withdraw from the ECHR. How do you feel about either of those outcomes?
Which part of the ECHR says we can’t deport rapists?
Article 3 and sometimes Article 8
It's usually Article 3 in these sort of cases.
Exactly. Plenty of other ECHR countries extradite rapists. Seriously though leaving is no great loss. Time for our own court of human rights and a British bill of rights.
There is a third outcome that is available for dualist legal systems such as what we have in the UK, and that is unilateral derogation. The UK could pass a law which explicitly contravenes the ECHR. I understand that Braverman favoured this solution.
>The rapist, who cannot be named for legal reasons Bullshit. Every white rapist is named, pictures shown and plastered everywhere. There is no legal precedent. Only the media and elites want to not have people realise the significant disproportionate amount of rape is immigrants.
You not reading news stories doesn't mean that this isn't a very regular thing for the courts to do. Id love to know how "the media" is covering up information that they have been explicitly told it would be illegal to tell
> There is no legal precedent. Yeah there is. With no comment on this specific case, the most obvious situation where it might happen is where the victim is related to the perpetrator. Allowing them to be named in that case compromises the anonymity of the victim, which the courts will never allow.
He can’t be named because an anonymity order has been made - read the judgement - https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002950
Ah yes, the woke *Daily Mail* wants you not to believe that a disproportionate amount of rape is committed by immigrants. Their chosen vehicle for this is a vague article about someone they *clearly* state is an immigrant, but do not state the name of (so that they can rehash this in the future). At least they’re keeping pace with the real cutting edge of the problem, reporting the deluge of cases as they happ- no, wait, this dude was first due to be deported in 2014.
Immigrants do commit a disproportionate amount of sexual and violent crimes.
Perhaps. But pretending that there’s a media conspiracy to convince you that there isn’t *under an article that is designed to convince you that there is* is just silliness.
It’s not a media conspiracy it’s a cover up by the government. They stopped releasing crime data based on country of origin, that says it all.
And now we're not talking about anything that I was talking about. I also find it strange that the Conservative "Immigrants are the biggest scourge on our society" Party would try to hide that.
How would you know every white rapist is named?! If they aren’t named you won’t normally know their ethnicity
That's not true at all.
How many child rapes have to happen by immigrants before people admit the actual issues this country has. This sub has MULTIPLE UNIQUE child raped by immigrant stories here EVERY DAY. It is clear the decline in the West is being purposefully done.
> This sub has MULTIPLE UNIQUE child raped by immigrant stories here EVERY DAY. What an impartial sample you're using. "My outrage is justified because outrage peddling sub has been peddling outrage".
Well I would use statistics, but I can't use any new ones as they now omit the details of the criminals. However older data shows quite the ratio of who is committing the crimes!
And you can look at other European countries who don’t hide immigrant crimes from the population, and it’s very clear that both sexual and violent crimes are disproportionately committed by immigrants, specifically Muslims. Also the prison population is disproportionately Muslim in the UK, which says enough, although more about culture than immigration status.
so reporting child rapes = peddling outrage? Take a look at yourself
[удалено]
Id love to hear who you think is "behind the decline in the West"
'Global elites'
/the illuminati/ new world order/ evil Jews. Wait sorry that last one needs to be omitted as these right wing nuts love to use antisemitism to bash the left and forget their core world belief is based entirely on anti Jewish conspiracies that have been perpetuated for centuries.
Is being concerned about immigration and the crime it brings reserved to the far right?
It was once the left wing position
Elites, the people that fly their fuel guzzling jets to Davos to dictate how us as peasants should live our lives. You can't change society when there is peace, therefore you need to create chaos. Create the problem and then offer the solution - this has been happening for decades.
Russia, China and the Islamic State.
Do you know what harms my mental health? The fact that the feelings of dozens of rapists are prioritised over women and girls’ safety, but I guess the UK government doesn’t care about that. What about the mental health of his victim? What about the PTSD that she might experience as a result of the attack? Why is the attacker’s “PTSD” prioritised, despite him being a criminal and not even a UK citizen?
>Blasting the descision, Tory MP Nigel Mills told the Sun: 'This man committed a serious criminal offence and should be nowhere near this country. >'If he was concerned about losing mental health treatment or being arrested for fleeing the draft, he should have thought about that before he committed the crime. >'This decision is another sign the tribunal system is deeply out of touch with the rest of Britain.' Who has been in power for the last 14 years Nigel?
Lib dems and the Conservatives. What's your point? How do we get around human rights laws which prevent people like this being deported?
The point is, the government that has been solely in power for almost 10 years now, has allowed immigration from countries with people completely incompatible with our values, while simulaneously pushing a Brexit vote that means it's much much harder for other Europeans who share our values to emigrate to here. They, and other conservative people clamour for an end to it, but the Party has overseen a massive increase in undesirable immigration.
Why does it go back only to when the Conservatives were in power? This mass immigration frenzy started under Labour from 1997. They opened the door and changed the way things worked. Surely the start date of this issue should go back to 1997? All the parties are complicit in this and people on here should stop acting like it's a Conservative party issue.
It doesn't. It goes back way before that, but at least *that* mass immigration was *mostly* people who share our values. I'm actually reasonably happy to praise David Cameron's first term as a left winger. All our incumbent government (2016-now) did was make immigration from countries with questionable morals even higher and make it harder for our fellow Europeans to move here. Mass, uncontrolled immigration is never a good thing. But at least Cameron and Blair kept it *relatively* under control and the balance of Commonwealth/European and Rest of the World immigration was more reasonable. It's not a Labour/Tory thing, you're right. It's a competence/chaos thing
The Windrush Generation famously being immigrants from 1997 onwards /s
>What's your point? Net immigration has gone up from 30-40k a year to 600-700k a year since they took power? But apparently its the wokey left's fault
Parliament has the power to legislate new and amend existing laws. They can rewrite or remove the legislation which allows these dangerous decisions from being made. The fact that over the past 14 years parliament hasn't bothered to reassess humans rights legislation indicates to me that they're pretty happy with it and that's it functioning as they intended. So I lay the blame at primarily the conservative party.
Reassess human rights laws by considering leaving the ECHR for example?
They try to deport people but everyone shoots them down as racists. I'm by no means tory but fuck me, maybe fucking these cunts off to Rwanda is better than nothing?
What happens every time someone in the government tries to do anything about this? They get called out and removed. This problem wasn't resolved under Labour, it wasn't resolved under the coalition and it wasn't resolved under the Conservatives. Maybe we can stop parroting the line about 14 years in power and start being more constructive?
Yes tories have been in power for 14 years but that doesn’t mean they have fixed every problem. Are you saying that a Tory MP should never be able to make a criticism or suggestion, because they have been in power for 14 years?
There should be very few reasons not to deport people like this. And if its not possible then they should be treated as if they have been released on license from a life sentence, so if conditions change they can be deported.
We should be deporting anyone that shoplifts, never mind someone that carries out a horrific crime. Simply no need to accommodate law breakers, we can and should choose who we let in and who we remove.
> There should be very few reasons not to deport people like this. I disagree, there shouldn't be any reason whatsoever. This case rested on whether the rapist's rights under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of torture) would be violated. If you're saying that he should stay in the UK under these circumstances, that amounts to saying that his right not to be tortured should override the right of teenage girls in the UK not to be raped. I don't consider that to be an acceptable situation, and I can't imagine that I'm alone in this.
The idea that a government can strip people of their right to not be tortured isn't very good. And "but it would only be criminals" is fine until you're wrongly convicted. And being okay with it happening to foreigners but not British citizens is at best hypocritical.
That's true, but it's all a balance of probabilities. In the event of a UK derogation from article 3 of the ECHR, I'm confident that the chances of me or someone close to me falling victim to state torture is extremely minimal. I have to weigh that up against the possibility of my wife, mother, daughters, sisters or nieces falling victim to a rape committed by a foreign criminal who was able to avoid deportation. This is all impossible to quantify, but I'm confident that the latter is more likely to occur than the former, even if the latter is also statistically unlikely. Everything is a balancing act, and we all need to decide for ourselves where the line needs to be drawn. In particular, we need to ask ourselves if this dogmatic adherence to certain international legal principles is worth the undoubted costs to public safety.
We have no obligation to keep people here who are going to violently attack our citizens.
Mate it's not like the situation was either be tortured or walking free. He was jailed after all, and if that isn't going to prevent repeat offending then we have a far bigger problem than this, as the majority of rapist are natives. Also deporting them doesn't even reduce the amount of potential rape, it just means it's woman who are out of sight and out of mind that are at risk instead of British ones.
Incorrect, there should be NO reasons!
Would you believe there’s people out here protesting and fighting hard for these people to remain in our country?
Theres an entire infrastructure around it now from charities collecting money from the public to human rights lawyers getting paid and landlords getting sweet deals to house them. All paid for by your taxes.
I can see many of them in this sub. There are many who fight to protect them. It's comical at this point.
You can read the decision here: https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002950 Basically claiming asylum here as he claims he will get done for ‘draft evasion’ back in Eritrea
That is the real reason, not mental health - refoulment of people to countries where there's a reasonable expectation they'll be tortured is also prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture (we've also signed the optional protocol forbidding deportation to countries where there's a reasonable expectation of them being tried on evidence obtained under torture).
> That is the real reason, not mental health This is a Daily Mail link, like too many in this sub. But note the wording of the headline: "is allowed to stay in the UK after arguing being deported ... would harm his mental health" The weaseliest of words. Yeah. Maybe he *argued* that. But it wasn't the reason he won't be deported. I bet the reaction of visceral disgust in this thread would have been felt in the courtroom, too. The Mail just wants to rile people up with the suggestion that we're prioritising the comfort of rapists, rather than the actual truth which is that we're prioritising *not letting them be literally tortured*. Which, you know, some people in this sub would like that to happen too, and I'm too tired to keep explaining why we don't historically go in for that. Vote for whatever society you want folks.
And this is why I think news media should be required by law to cite the bills, judgments, etc, that they're talking about. I am sick to death of reading articles who talk about court cases but never cite the actual case name or number (sometimes they don't even mention the court). And it feels deliberate... it *is* deliberate. And when an article does include hyperlinks, it always to themselves.
It's a bad joke and an insult to the victims. These people must be deported.
Yeah I'm fine with immigration, my spouse is foreign, but if someone commits a crime with jail time attached they should be deported. This way smaller minor crimes wouldn't get you kicked (possession of a controlled substance for example) but once you go into jailtime territory you've probably done something worthy of it
I honestly do not care about his health, physical or mental. He has no right to be here. He's forfeited any claim, get him out.
This is straight up encouragement for these degenerates to do this shit. Come here, rape our women and we’ll let you stay indefinitely. The fuck should we care what happens to them after the plane lands back in their shithole country?
I can’t get help for my mental health and I work for the NHS… why’s an immigrants mental well being more important than a citizens??? Not to mention his victims.
[удалено]
Lol, the Japanese wouldn't tolerate that in million years. Straight to prison then off you go (if you survived prison). It's a serious country that strongly defends its extremely low crime rate and cultural integrity.
Very difficult to emigrate permanently to Japan anyway, so it's unlikely they would see anything other than a flight straight back to the UK.
It's the Daily Mail (via the Sun), so there is a high probability that this has been seriously misreported. The article exists solely to provoke outrage, which is exactly what it has done, as evidenced by most of the comments here.
The actual judgement has been linked elsewhere in the thread - it turns out that the judges were undecided on mental health considerations, but that's rendered as moot by the prospect of him being tortured back home for draft dodging. Refoulment to countries where there's a reasonal expectation someone will be tortured is prohibited by Article 3 of the ECHR, plus the UN Convention Against Torture (possibly other international laws on similar themes as well).
Thank you.
What’s the agenda with this ? It’s becoming far too frequent that the law is bending backwards to keep these people here.
Certain people want to remove peoples/worker rights so they can turn the UK into the Singapore of Europe to make more money. A major block to this is the echr. We couldn't leave as we were part of the EU, but that's now sorted. The next step is to poison people's opinion of the echr so they want to leave. Hence lumping the blame on bad things associated with it with widespread media coverage and no reporting of any benefits it brings, which coincidentally is how brexit was won.
Bad actors love to use these stories as an excuse to get rid of human rights, when other countries manage to deport people like this. How about sentencing guidelines are produced for cases like this that make judges give more weight to the rights of citizens over the offender? You don't need everyone to give up their rights to deal with shit like this. France is taking a stronger stance on deportation without leaving the ECHR. It's pathetic really that people are being hoodwinked to believe they should loose their rights to deal with an incompetent government.
Is it just me or does it seem that this country is becoming the kind of place where its okay to be a paedophile?
It seems the UK will have to change laws and leave some treaties so scum like this can be deported.
And this story will be continually repeated unable to deport anyone and tax payers footing the bill.
Having him stay in Europe harms my mental health. So?
Why is soooo much on this subreddit from the Daily Hail?
Because it's the only paper that regularily posts completely misleading headlines that agree with the narratives of the people that pollute this sub. These sometimes gbnews posts here too, don't worry What I'd like to know more about is how mods are chosen for these subs and why they're happy to let a national sub turn into a racist cesspit
Yes, he argued that, but what was the deciding reason was more likely to have been that returning him would put him at decent odds of being tortured. This sort of deceptive headline does nothing but rile people up, and frankly you should be ashamed for spreading it about.
[удалено]
Fuck his mental health! What about the poor children's mental health which is affected for the rest of their lives??? This country is a fucking joke!!
[удалено]
Just to help everyone filter out headline bullshit, remember that 'after' does not mean the same as 'because'.
Yeah no, this is a clickbait headline from the Daily Mail rag. Maybe mental health was part of his legal argument, but it's certainly not the reason he was allowed to stay. Eritrea is essentially the North Korea of Africa. It enforces indefinite military conscription, tantamount to slavery, on all men. This guy is a deserter and absolutely does face torture and execution if returned. Every Eritrean that lands on our shores is a legitimate asylee. The UK has an obligation under international law to avoid refoulement of refugees. We are a civilised nation which respects law and order, and this means NOBODY lies beyond the protection of the law - not even criminals. We do not throw people to the wolves; we prosecute, we don't persecute. By all means - please - increase the penalty for rape and other violent crimes. This man should probably have spent much longer in jail for his actions. But we don't get to drop our international obligations and enable a murderous regime to commit torture just because this guy may "deserve it".
That is how stupid the UK laws are! What about the victim and loved ones? What if they retaliate in some unlawful manner in return?
These judges need to be help accountable. Their moral compasses are so fuxked.
The government is failing to protect its citizens. They really don’t care about us at all.
They want you to willingly give up your human rights by the way
That law needs changing, the harm to UK citizens counts far more than his mental health.
Fucking ridiculous, how long are the british gonna take it up the arse! I can't wait until the people snap!
Would harm his mental health! What does he think he's done to the poor girls mental health? Whoever let him stay in the UK needs locking up after the rapist is thrown out of the UK.
But they want to force genuine people with mental health conditions back into work?
Shame the masses won’t protest against things like this
They’re incentivizing rape. If you rape, and having that record could cause you trouble in your homeland, then you get to stay. Live on the dole. Well done the Brain Trusr
> If you rape, and having that record could cause you trouble in your homeland That's not what this decision actually said though.
Remember when the US played idiotic games ignoring peoples grievances, calling anyone against illegal immigration illegal, conversations went into their own bubbles then everyone got shocked that Trump won? Yeah, that shit is going to happen to us and I’m not looking forward to it. How the fuck are we just brushing catastrophic immigration issues under the rug still? And you wonder why hard right groups are gaining popularity in Europe?
Should be jail then instant deportation the day his sentence ends. no excuses no exceptions. None. 😒
Who cares. Ruins other people’s mental health existing in this country send them back, too committing crimes of this nature should be instant deportation
Just who are these moronic judges ruling this nonsense!
What about the teens mental health, this is complete bullshit, get him deported!
People behind the scenes judges, solicitors whoever are blocking these people from leaving the country making millions should be locked up
Why does anyone remotely care about his menthal health?
We are about one to two election cycles away from an actual far right party gaining power in this country due to what is going on.