PDA

View Full Version : Hit-And-Run Asylum Seeker to remain in UK


ggctuk
16-12-10, 13:46
Source (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Hit-And-Run-Asylum-Seeker-Aso-Mohammed-Ibrahim-Wins-Leave-To-Stay-In-UK/Article/201012315856653?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15856653_Hit-And-Run_Asylum_Seeker_Aso_Mohammed_Ibrahim_Wins_Leave_ To_Stay_In_UK)

Personally, I find this utterly disgusting. That poor father lost his daughter because of this man but he gets away with it, as per normal, but this guy is allowed to stay because of his right to a family life. What about the father's, whose right to family life this man cruelly snatched away from him? And his 'punishment'? Four months inside and leave to remain in the UK.

What do you think?

xXhayleyroxXx
16-12-10, 13:50
That is vile. Get that murderous, stupid piece of **** out our country.

Andyroo
16-12-10, 13:52
:mad::mad: Wtf. Disgusting. :mad::mad:

dizzydoil
16-12-10, 13:58
Four, unbelieveably short, months- for killing this beautiful little girl with a car he was already disqualified from.. and he is allowed to stay in the country?

I don't know whether to be shocked & disgusted by the fact he only got four months for killing a child- or the fact he's allowed to ****ing stay in the country. I can not express how I feel about this with words. It's unbelieveable, to say the least.

I feel sick.

interstellardave
16-12-10, 13:59
No, no no... you can't deport this man. He should be allowed to stay in the UK... IN PRISON. For life would do...

ggctuk
16-12-10, 14:02
No, no no... you can't deport this man. He should be allowed to stay in the UK... IN PRISON. For life would do...

My thoughts exactly. Or, bring back the death penalty.

Cochrane
16-12-10, 14:18
You can really feel the christmas spirit. It's snowing outside, the forum has finally activated the christmas smileys, and there's a new "Let's all hate foreigners!" thread. Makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it?

I'd go into more detail, but I think you already know what I am about to say, and/or won't care anyway.

ggctuk
16-12-10, 14:20
I don't hate foreigners. I'd feel disgusted in exactly the same way if it were an Englishman who had done this. There is just no excuse. The sooner the human rights act is abolished and replaced, the better.

Quite frankly, I believe suggesting that race has something to do with it when it is not worded in such a way is racist. You can't even say the word 'foreigner' these days without somebody calling you racist.

Anyway, I've said my piece now.

dizzydoil
16-12-10, 14:22
What does someones race have to do with this? Seriously. It's about justice, or lack of- nothing more, nothing less.

digitizedboy
16-12-10, 14:22
For me, it's nothing to do with nationality. The guy's a ****, and no real justice has been carried out. Poor girl, where was her human rights? :(

interstellardave
16-12-10, 14:26
You can really feel the christmas spirit. It's snowing outside, the forum has finally activated the christmas smileys, and there's a new "Let's all hate foreigners!" thread. Makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it?

I'd go into more detail, but I think you already know what I am about to say, and/or won't care anyway.

No-one, except you, has extended this beyond this one man and this one instance. Unless I'm missing something...

Cochrane
16-12-10, 14:27
Okay, then what is the part you object to: The four months in jail sentence, or the lack of deportation? Because the article linked to, the first post and the thread title all imply the latter.

Edit to add:
No-one, except you, has extended this beyond this one man and this one instance. Unless I'm missing something...
Threads like this appear from time to time, and the response is always the same. It annoys me a tiny bit to see how many people think human rights are there just to annoy "normal, decent" people.

ggctuk
16-12-10, 14:31
Okay, then what is the part you object to: The four months in jail sentence, or the lack of deportation? Because the article linked to, the first post and the thread title all imply the latter.

I simply quoted the original headline title from the Sky News website.

Stating the obvious, here, but our laws say quite clearly that if you are an asylum seeker, and you break the law, you will serve whatever sentence you are given and then return to your country of origin.

To answer your question: I object to both parts. Is that not allowed? Am I to be called racist for thinking that?

Spong
16-12-10, 15:15
Stating the obvious, here, but our laws say quite clearly that if you are an asylum seeker, and you break the law, you will serve whatever sentence you are given and then return to your country of origin.

Clearly, that's not true, you already posted the evidence in your OP.

Mad Tony
16-12-10, 15:31
You can really feel the christmas spirit. It's snowing outside, the forum has finally activated the christmas smileys, and there's a new "Let's all hate foreigners!" thread. Makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it?

I'd go into more detail, but I think you already know what I am about to say, and/or won't care anyway.I think perhaps you need to look at the original post a bit more carefully. For such an intelligent person I'm surprised you didn't manage to grasp that this isn't a "let's all hate foreigners" thread.

Personally I don't even know why he was let into the country in the first place. Britain was obviously not the first safe country he came to. That's for another topic though.

I'm finding two things about this appalling - the ridiculously lax sentence and the fact that he hasn't been deported. It's got nothing to do with the fact that he's foreign. I think I remember hearing about this before and both the previous government and the current government have been fighting to have him deported, so I guess it's good to see that the government want to see people like this deported.

tha_mattster
16-12-10, 15:39
Hang on, was he actually responsible for her death?

Let's read the article (from Sky news, of course it's rubbish)

The 33-year-old Iraqi Kurd was already banned from driving when he ran Amy Houston down in November 2003.
He fled the scene, leaving her dying beneath the wheels of his car.
Hours later her father, Paul Houston, had to make the decision to turn off her life support machine.
Ibrahim was jailed for four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.
So his crime was failing to stop, and driving while disqualified. There is nothing in this article that says he was responsible for her being hit. I suppose there are a lot of Daily Mail 'readers' here...

Secondly, without any real knowledge of the case some people are saying he should be deported - to Iraq - or executed? What the hell!? Thank god judges and lawyers in our country are required to have degrees.

Mad Tony
16-12-10, 15:42
Hang on, was he actually responsible for her death?

Let's read the article (from Sky news, of course it's rubbish)


So his crime was failing to stop, and driving while disqualified. There is nothing in this article that says he was responsible for her being hit. I suppose there are a lot of Daily Mail 'readers' here...Says on the BBC he knocked her down

Iraqi Kurd Aso Mohammed Ibrahim was jailed for four months after knocking down Amy Houston in Blackburn in 2003.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12007100

dizzydoil
16-12-10, 15:43
He fled the scene, leaving her dying beneath the wheels of his car.:) Clearly, we should put his car in prison.

Spong
16-12-10, 15:46
:) Clearly, we should put his car in prison.

Excellent :tmb::D

interstellardave
16-12-10, 15:54
Okay, then what is the part you object to: The four months in jail sentence, or the lack of deportation? Because the article linked to, the first post and the thread title all imply the latter.

Edit to add:

Threads like this appear from time to time, and the response is always the same. It annoys me a tiny bit to see how many people think human rights are there just to annoy "normal, decent" people.

Yeah, human rights should apply to everyone. What outrages me, though, is the crazy lenient sentence he originally got. It also irritates me when the letter of the law interferes with the spirit of the law; that often leads to situations that are clearly unjust to the victim/victims families just because of a peculiar technicality or odd situation--that can never seemingly be made right.

^^^ That's all just my overall view; as for this situation I'm going on the assumption that he did hit her with his car and did leave the scene which is criminal in itself and surely delayed any aid that she did finally receive. (Some are now saying maybe that's not the case but the article seems clear to me).

tha_mattster
16-12-10, 15:55
^ What? :confused:

^^ Mad Tony I'm not saying that he didn't knock her down. But in many hit and runs it is not the drivers fault that they knock the person down. If you are driving and someone runs out into the road what can you do? Well of course you must stop and call and ambulance, do first aid or whatever you can. To say that he 'knocked her down' is misleading if she ran out into the road. Of course he should not have fled the scene. He has been prosecuted for that crime. Let's not read more crimes into the case.

Was he speeding? Drunk? Driving recklessly? No he wasn't (from what they say). He did however not have a license so you would wonder if that could have contributed to the event.

interstellardave
16-12-10, 15:59
If you hit someone--no matter the circumstance--and leave them to die (cause she did die) then you are SCUM, period. And you are criminally responsible. If she'd run out that would be terribly unfortunate but he should still have stayed and called for help, etc. He'd be a much more sympathetic figure if he'd done that.

I cannot feel very sorry for this man.

Cochrane
16-12-10, 16:16
I simply quoted the original headline title from the Sky News website.

Stating the obvious, here, but our laws say quite clearly that if you are an asylum seeker, and you break the law, you will serve whatever sentence you are given and then return to your country of origin.

To answer your question: I object to both parts. Is that not allowed? Am I to be called racist for thinking that?

First of all, I strongly believe that you would not have posted anything about this story if the person was british and the whole deportation thing had not been an issue. If I am wrong, I'd be sorry, but so far I have no reason to believe that you would have.

Concerning the rest, I think my reply to Mad Tony below sums it up. I think the article you post is…*well, maybe not racist, but definitely questionable, and you seem to agree with it fully. Neither the article nor you consider the circumstances except for those that speak against the asylum-seeker.

I think perhaps you need to look at the original post a bit more carefully. For such an intelligent person I'm surprised you didn't manage to grasp that this isn't a "let's all hate foreigners" thread.

No, I think you need to look at that post more carefully. Take a look at the ingredients: There are clear victims, all-british. There is someone responsible, obvious by the fact that he was already in jail for this. The one responsible is not only a foreigner, but also an asylum-seeker, i.e. someone who is on average more likely to be labeled a "leech" than your average foreigner.

The issue discussed is also 100% about the status as asylum seeker. Traffic accidents that kill children happen a lot, way too often, and that includes hit and run situations. Most of them don't make the news, let alone get posted here after seven years.

And then the post and the article are 100% for the victim and 100% against the offender. The news article refuses almost completely to say why the offender was left in the UK at all, only that this is so, so distressing for the father. A short mention of the daughter is made, but it is immediately qualified - the british guy lost his daughter, so the iraqi's daughter does not count.

It does not say that literally, of course, but I think it is clearly implied. And yes, much of that is in the statements of the father, not the article proper, but the selection of statements is clearly biased. Count how often the offender or his lawyers got to say anything. Nowhere. There is not even an "we tried to reach them but they wouldn't answer". His side of the story is simply ignored, with the implication that "he is evil and who cares what he thinks anyway". Is he sorry that this happened? We'll never know.

The article is heavily biased and invokes all sorts of clichés (the clichés were in the case already, but the article emphasizes them a lot). This is not fair and balanced, it's not informative, it's a story written to make us feel a certain way, and that way is not sympathetic to iraqi asylum-seekers. By linking to it and quoting from it without any qualification, ggctuk's post apparently agrees with all of this.

Looking at this thread, I can't help but think it succeeded. You can see several responses of the sort "it sucks that criminals have human rights" (not literally, of course) here. I mean, there are people calling for his execution, something not even China would do (unless the girl was the daughter of a party leader).

If you disagree with my opinion that this article and to some degree thread are meant to stir up anti-foreigner sentiments, then I have to wonder what else you think it is. It is definitely not informative and balanced reporting on a highly important current event.

interstellardave
16-12-10, 16:24
The article is heavily biased and invokes all sorts of clichés (the clichés were in the case already, but the article emphasizes them a lot). This is not fair and balanced, it's not informative, it's a story written to make us feel a certain way, and that way is not sympathetic to iraqi asylum-seekers. By linking to it and quoting from it without any qualification, ggctuk's post apparently agrees with all of this.

Yes, you are quite right. And it does elicit the response intended... these kind of stories always get me, too, and my first response was very angry as well! The article is very one-sided, though.

I can't help but go back to the original situation, though. I guess why he only got 4 months is the main question I have. Was that a really lenient sentence as it appears to be at first glance or not? I don't care about his nationality, though, or the nation where this occurred.

Cochrane
16-12-10, 16:33
I can't help but go back to the original situation, though. I guess why he only got 4 months is the main question I have. Was that a really lenient sentence as it appears to be at first glance or not? I don't care about his nationality, though, or the nation where this occurred.

Truth to be told, four months seems very little to me as well. In a recent case in germany that at least sounded similar (no driver's license, hit-and-run, victim dead), the one who caused the accident got a prison sentence of nine years (the family of the victim has announced that they might appeal, though, so it's not yet final).

But without knowing more about the background of the situation, I am somewhat reluctant to say that this decision was clearly wrong.

Mad Tony
16-12-10, 16:38
^ What? :confused:

^^ Mad Tony I'm not saying that he didn't knock her down. But in many hit and runs it is not the drivers fault that they knock the person down. If you are driving and someone runs out into the road what can you do? Well of course you must stop and call and ambulance, do first aid or whatever you can. To say that he 'knocked her down' is misleading if she ran out into the road. Of course he should not have fled the scene. He has been prosecuted for that crime. Let's not read more crimes into the case.

Was he speeding? Drunk? Driving recklessly? No he wasn't (from what they say). He did however not have a license so you would wonder if that could have contributed to the event.Well firstly we don't know how he knocked her down. At the very least though, he should've stayed. On top of that he was driving without a license which is of course a criminal offense. There was a reason why he was disqualified from driving and I guess we probably know why now.

No, I think you need to look at that post more carefully. Take a look at the ingredients: There are clear victims, all-british. There is someone responsible, obvious by the fact that he was already in jail for this. The one responsible is not only a foreigner, but also an asylum-seeker, i.e. someone who is on average more likely to be labeled a "leech" than your average foreigner.

The issue discussed is also 100% about the status as asylum seeker. Traffic accidents that kill children happen a lot, way too often, and that includes hit and run situations. Most of them don't make the news, let alone get posted here after seven years.

And then the post and the article are 100% for the victim and 100% against the offender. The news article refuses almost completely to say why the offender was left in the UK at all, only that this is so, so distressing for the father. A short mention of the daughter is made, but it is immediately qualified - the british guy lost his daughter, so the iraqi's daughter does not count.

It does not say that literally, of course, but I think it is clearly implied. And yes, much of that is in the statements of the father, not the article proper, but the selection of statements is clearly biased. Count how often the offender or his lawyers got to say anything. Nowhere. There is not even an "we tried to reach them but they wouldn't answer". His side of the story is simply ignored, with the implication that "he is evil and who cares what he thinks anyway". Is he sorry that this happened? We'll never know.

The article is heavily biased and invokes all sorts of clichés (the clichés were in the case already, but the article emphasizes them a lot). This is not fair and balanced, it's not informative, it's a story written to make us feel a certain way, and that way is not sympathetic to iraqi asylum-seekers. By linking to it and quoting from it without any qualification, ggctuk's post apparently agrees with all of this.

Looking at this thread, I can't help but think it succeeded. You can see several responses of the sort "it sucks that criminals have human rights" (not literally, of course) here. I mean, there are people calling for his execution, something not even China would do (unless the girl was the daughter of a party leader).

If you disagree with my opinion that this article and to some degree thread are meant to stir up anti-foreigner sentiments, then I have to wonder what else you think it is. It is definitely not informative and balanced reporting on a highly important current event.What point are you trying to make here? I didn't read the article from the original post but I read the BBC article about it so I can't comment on how biased it may or may not be but this thread is certainly not a "let's all hate foreigners" thread. The article may be like that, but I think the OP is just angry that an asylum seeker who was driving without a license killed a girl in a hit and run accident is not being deported for his crime.

Just because a criminal is foreign doesn't excuse them from criticism.

Spong
16-12-10, 16:38
Was that a really lenient sentence as it appears to be at first glance or not?

Yes it is. I blame the UK justice system. More often than not, the book only gets thrown at people if the theft of money is involved somewhere, loss of life seems to be way down the list of 'importance' when it comes to handing out sentences. That's how it always appears to me, it's sad really.

Mad Tony
16-12-10, 16:40
Yes it is. I blame the UK justice system. More often than not, the book only gets thrown at people if the theft of money is involved somewhere, loss of life seems to be way down the ladder of 'importance' when it comes to handing out sentences. That's how it always appears to me, it's sad really.That's not entirely true. Cases involving deaths are often treated quite severely but not always. I think there's just a general inconsistency in the justice system.

peeves
16-12-10, 17:02
He should spent the rest of his life in UK prison without the possibility of parole.

xb4b1x
16-12-10, 17:05
He should spent the rest of his life in UK prison without the possibility of parole.

no,we don't need to clog them up anymore.

Lara's Nemesis
16-12-10, 17:30
Should have got a much longer sentence, don't think we can start kicking people out of the country for crimes tho.

Mad Tony
16-12-10, 17:39
don't think we can start kicking people out of the country for crimes tho.Why not for something as serious as this?

Lara's Nemesis
16-12-10, 17:45
Why not for something as serious as this?

I don't agree with the decision but the system doesn't work like that.

Mad Tony
16-12-10, 17:46
I don't agree with the decision but the system doesn't work like that.Actually, in a lot of cases I believe it does. :confused:

Lara's Nemesis
16-12-10, 17:48
Actually, in a lot of cases I believe it does. :confused:

I don't really know all the facts about asylum seekers rights or this case so I'll need to read more about it.

Cochrane
16-12-10, 17:58
Most, if not all legal systems have rules saying that an alien who has committed a crime can be expelled and returned to their home country. This does not apply to naturalized citizens, of course.

The rules vary, though. Generally, there is a restriction to only some crimes, and a requirement that a judge checks every case individually. Other laws might also prevent it, for example in this case the family ties.

Dark Lugia 2
16-12-10, 18:03
I just love how people always have lots of things to say about these types of things... when we really dont know much about the case. Just what the headlines tell us - which isnt a lot.

Another Lara
16-12-10, 18:03
Most, if not all legal systems have rules saying that an alien who has committed a crime can be expelled and returned to their home country. This does not apply to naturalized citizens, of course.

The rules vary, though. Generally, there is a restriction to only some crimes, and a requirement that a judge checks every case individually. Other laws might also prevent it, for example in this case the family ties.

I haven't read the article in the OP but several reports I've heard claim that his own child was born after the incident occurred... something says to me, he's been told how to play our system and it's all fallen very nicely into place for him!

Rai
16-12-10, 18:29
He only got four months for this? Far too lenient a sentence.

Poor girl and so sad for her parents.

ggctuk
16-12-10, 20:28
First of all, I strongly believe that you would not have posted anything about this story if the person was british and the whole deportation thing had not been an issue. If I am wrong, I'd be sorry, but so far I have no reason to believe that you would have.

Concerning the rest, I think my reply to Mad Tony below sums it up. I think the article you post is…*well, maybe not racist, but definitely questionable, and you seem to agree with it fully. Neither the article nor you consider the circumstances except for those that speak against the asylum-seeker.

Then clearly you do not know me. I have never been racist, and this goes right back to what I was saying before about this: by me posting this, I take you to assume that I am being racist. While also untrue, I believe that view is a form of racism in itself.

I would have posted the exact same thing had the person been British, or American. Heck he could have been Martian for all I care. I comment on the act, not the actors.

Clearly, that's not true, you already posted the evidence in your OP.

The way it is supposed to be is different from the way things are. What I posted was the way things are meant to be.

Yeah, human rights should apply to everyone. What outrages me, though, is the crazy lenient sentence he originally got. It also irritates me when the letter of the law interferes with the spirit of the law; that often leads to situations that are clearly unjust to the victim/victims families just because of a peculiar technicality or odd situation--that can never seemingly be made right.

^^^ That's all just my overall view; as for this situation I'm going on the assumption that he did hit her with his car and did leave the scene which is criminal in itself and surely delayed any aid that she did finally receive. (Some are now saying maybe that's not the case but the article seems clear to me).

What it is, is this - the British Justice System is allowing the Human Rights Act to inferfere with the process of justice. britain appears to be the only country this is happening in. I have scoured for ages trying to find other examples in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece... I won't be so bigoted to say it doesn't happen but it happens on a much larger scale here.

Anyway, this topic's old news to me now, I'm more concerned about the incoming snow.

Cochrane
16-12-10, 22:04
ggctuk: I wrote a long reply, but I think it was way too confrontational. I'd just like to point out that I never called you a racist, nor do I think you are one. What I think is that the article you posted and your own comment show a clear, unhealthy right-wing populist bias, in this case against human rights and foreigners, as I explained above. I think this bias is also evident in other things you wrote here (e.g. the UK giving foreign aid to Palestine, or about the student protests). I do not object to conservatism in itself, it is one-sided populism I have an issue with.

I wonder about one thing, though: How would it be racist if I were to call you racist? As far as I know (and care), you are member of no race at all, and I can't remember commenting on that. It would be great if you could clear that up for me.

Finally, though: Human rights interfering with what you call justice is the whole point of having them. They are meant to stop the state, whether that is the government, parliament or justice system, from being inhumane and disregarding the rights of the individual, and they are widely considered to be a very good thing. Yes, sometimes they will give results that are not in line with public opinion (and yes, that does happen in Germany as well), but then public opinion is definitely not fair and impartial either. Guaranteeing them for everyone, including for people we don't like, is the only way to make sure that the government won't take them from all of us some day.

ggctuk
16-12-10, 22:14
ggctuk: I wrote a long reply, but I think it was way too confrontational. I'd just like to point out that I never called you a racist, nor do I think you are one. What I think is that the article you posted and your own comment show a clear, unhealthy right-wing populist bias, in this case against human rights and foreigners, as I explained above. I think this bias is also evident in other things you wrote here (e.g. the UK giving foreign aid to Palestine, or about the student protests). I do not object to conservatism in itself, it is one-sided populism I have an issue with.

I wonder about one thing, though: How would it be racist if I were to call you racist? As far as I know (and care), you are member of no race at all, and I can't remember commenting on that. It would be great if you could clear that up for me.

These days, at least in my country, even saying the word 'foreigner' in public risks somebody taking offense and reporting you for racism. Heck, I can recount a tale where a police officer tried to report our MP for using the word 'foreigner'. I think this in itself is a form of racism. As for the other topics, I believe I've given answers about those (specifically, with student riots I was saying that while I disagree with the rise in fees, I did not believe violence solved anything, and I also remarked about Gaza that when we're tightening our belt why are we still giving out millions to other countries, not just Gaza)

I do apologise that I took what you said as implying I was a racist.

Finally, though: Human rights interfering with what you call justice is the whole point of having them. They are meant to stop the state, whether that is the government, parliament or justice system, from being inhumane and disregarding the rights of the individual, and they are widely considered to be a very good thing. Yes, sometimes they will give results that are not in line with public opinion (and yes, that does happen in Germany as well), but then public opinion is definitely not fair and impartial either. Guaranteeing them for everyone, including for people we don't like, is the only way to make sure that the government won't take them from all of us some day.

Human rights should never interfere with the rest of the law. And I am a firm believer that your rights end where another's person's begin.