The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There have been lots of discussion on asylum seekers in this forum and so I am not starting a debate on any of the aspects of whether or not they should be here etc etc.
So what IS my gripe with asylum seekers or in this case 2 asylum seekers. Today I purchased a copy of my local rag (newspaper) and was graced with the headline "MUM'S SEX CASE FURY followed by "AN ASYLUM seeker who indecently assaulted a ten-year old girl has been spared a prison sentence because it would have led to his deportation."
I could not believe this story, haven't we in England enough problems with paedophiles without allowing a person who as yet was not even a British Citizen stay in are country but more disturbing allowing him to stay without any form of prison sentence?
We must remember that this person committed one of the most horrific crimes there (short of rape and murder)and this terrible act was upon a ten Year old child.
So not only is this person not graced with jail but still aloud to stay in England because I quote from Judge Linda Sutcliffe "I am not prepared to run the risk of things I have been told happening to you. That would involve punishment out of proportion with the crime I am dealing with." The prior quote is in relation to the mans defence of him being Jailed or passably put to death, if deported To Iraq.
My answer to this mans pathetic plea, SO WHAT! If you have committed a crime and been proved guilty of that crime then you deserve to be punished for that crime whether that means Jail and or deportation. If this man fears for his life if returned then why? is it for crimes committed in Iraq or even for the crimes he has committed in England.
Moving on, in my first paragraph I commented on 2 asylum seekers. The 2nd asylum seeker who lives literally just round the corner from my house and next to a Primary School has been remanded in custody for attempted Rape. As this man has not been proved guilty I can not really comment on his case except for saying that In England people are only generally remanded in jail (while waiting trial), If there is a strong suspicion/evidence of guilt, a possibility of "diapering before trial or fear of reoffence
As you can see I am totally appalled and as stated above this is not a discussion on whether Asylum seekers should be aloud in the country but indeed how they should be treated if found guilty of crimes?
So what IS my gripe with asylum seekers or in this case 2 asylum seekers. Today I purchased a copy of my local rag (newspaper) and was graced with the headline "MUM'S SEX CASE FURY followed by "AN ASYLUM seeker who indecently assaulted a ten-year old girl has been spared a prison sentence because it would have led to his deportation."
I could not believe this story, haven't we in England enough problems with paedophiles without allowing a person who as yet was not even a British Citizen stay in are country but more disturbing allowing him to stay without any form of prison sentence?
We must remember that this person committed one of the most horrific crimes there (short of rape and murder)and this terrible act was upon a ten Year old child.
So not only is this person not graced with jail but still aloud to stay in England because I quote from Judge Linda Sutcliffe "I am not prepared to run the risk of things I have been told happening to you. That would involve punishment out of proportion with the crime I am dealing with." The prior quote is in relation to the mans defence of him being Jailed or passably put to death, if deported To Iraq.
My answer to this mans pathetic plea, SO WHAT! If you have committed a crime and been proved guilty of that crime then you deserve to be punished for that crime whether that means Jail and or deportation. If this man fears for his life if returned then why? is it for crimes committed in Iraq or even for the crimes he has committed in England.
Moving on, in my first paragraph I commented on 2 asylum seekers. The 2nd asylum seeker who lives literally just round the corner from my house and next to a Primary School has been remanded in custody for attempted Rape. As this man has not been proved guilty I can not really comment on his case except for saying that In England people are only generally remanded in jail (while waiting trial), If there is a strong suspicion/evidence of guilt, a possibility of "diapering before trial or fear of reoffence
As you can see I am totally appalled and as stated above this is not a discussion on whether Asylum seekers should be aloud in the country but indeed how they should be treated if found guilty of crimes?
Mewtwo wrote:
> my point in this case was that
> the accused was guilty by plea (and obviously some form evidence) at
> Crown Court and unlike your friend was ONLY spared jail because he
> was an asylum seeker, not because of lack of evidence.
Yes, I understood what you were saying. My point was that this is what causes tension - an UK national convicted of a rape despite there being no evidence, and an asylum seeker admitting guilt goes free because of what might happen to him if locked up.
I know that not *all* asylum seekers are criminals etc., but things like this happen with increasing frequency, and it does cause tension.
> my point in this case was that
> the accused was guilty by plea (and obviously some form evidence) at
> Crown Court and unlike your friend was ONLY spared jail because he
> was an asylum seeker, not because of lack of evidence.
Yes, I understood what you were saying. My point was that this is what causes tension - an UK national convicted of a rape despite there being no evidence, and an asylum seeker admitting guilt goes free because of what might happen to him if locked up.
I know that not *all* asylum seekers are criminals etc., but things like this happen with increasing frequency, and it does cause tension.
No worries, I didnt mean to cause offence mate.
Apologies this is my 2nd major bodge up in the last 2 days (see my Tag line). This Post should have gone in the football, life etc forum. I only however realised this when looking for my post and could not find it.
This and my other mistake (regarded the Virtual newbie) comp could be easily corrected if we had an Edit (and Move) post feature or even a system where SR staff could correct such errors. The former could not only help sleep deprived idiots like myself posting in the wrong forums.
Once again apologies as this does affect the topic of the forum.
RE Wòókiee Møn§†€R
I agree with you that there needs to be clear evidence but my point in this case was that the accused was guilty by plea (and obviously some form evidence) at Crown Court and unlike your friend was ONLY spared jail because he was an asylum seeker, not because of lack of evidence.
This and my other mistake (regarded the Virtual newbie) comp could be easily corrected if we had an Edit (and Move) post feature or even a system where SR staff could correct such errors. The former could not only help sleep deprived idiots like myself posting in the wrong forums.
Once again apologies as this does affect the topic of the forum.
RE Wòókiee Møn§†€R
I agree with you that there needs to be clear evidence but my point in this case was that the accused was guilty by plea (and obviously some form evidence) at Crown Court and unlike your friend was ONLY spared jail because he was an asylum seeker, not because of lack of evidence.
I agree with Goaty that it's the wrong forum, but more importantly (for me anyway) I agree with your sentiments, Mewtwo.
These are the type of events and actions by the authorities which cause a lot of the tension and resentment. It is not easy to be told to treat them equally when they receive this kind of preferential treatment.
I have a friend who is currently serving a minimum 2-and-a-half years for rape, who was convicted despite there being no physical evidence whatsoever, other than the word of the supposed victim.
Don't get me wrong - rape is a vile crime, and anyone guilty should be locked away - but there has GOT to be sound evidence, which in the case of my friend, their isn't.
These are the type of events and actions by the authorities which cause a lot of the tension and resentment. It is not easy to be told to treat them equally when they receive this kind of preferential treatment.
I have a friend who is currently serving a minimum 2-and-a-half years for rape, who was convicted despite there being no physical evidence whatsoever, other than the word of the supposed victim.
Don't get me wrong - rape is a vile crime, and anyone guilty should be locked away - but there has GOT to be sound evidence, which in the case of my friend, their isn't.
No offence, but why post this in the DVD forum?
There is a Life forum for this kind of post or the one labelled "Chat"
There is a Life forum for this kind of post or the one labelled "Chat"
There have been lots of discussion on asylum seekers in this forum and so I am not starting a debate on any of the aspects of whether or not they should be here etc etc.
So what IS my gripe with asylum seekers or in this case 2 asylum seekers. Today I purchased a copy of my local rag (newspaper) and was graced with the headline "MUM'S SEX CASE FURY followed by "AN ASYLUM seeker who indecently assaulted a ten-year old girl has been spared a prison sentence because it would have led to his deportation."
I could not believe this story, haven't we in England enough problems with paedophiles without allowing a person who as yet was not even a British Citizen stay in are country but more disturbing allowing him to stay without any form of prison sentence?
We must remember that this person committed one of the most horrific crimes there (short of rape and murder)and this terrible act was upon a ten Year old child.
So not only is this person not graced with jail but still aloud to stay in England because I quote from Judge Linda Sutcliffe "I am not prepared to run the risk of things I have been told happening to you. That would involve punishment out of proportion with the crime I am dealing with." The prior quote is in relation to the mans defence of him being Jailed or passably put to death, if deported To Iraq.
My answer to this mans pathetic plea, SO WHAT! If you have committed a crime and been proved guilty of that crime then you deserve to be punished for that crime whether that means Jail and or deportation. If this man fears for his life if returned then why? is it for crimes committed in Iraq or even for the crimes he has committed in England.
Moving on, in my first paragraph I commented on 2 asylum seekers. The 2nd asylum seeker who lives literally just round the corner from my house and next to a Primary School has been remanded in custody for attempted Rape. As this man has not been proved guilty I can not really comment on his case except for saying that In England people are only generally remanded in jail (while waiting trial), If there is a strong suspicion/evidence of guilt, a possibility of "diapering before trial or fear of reoffence
As you can see I am totally appalled and as stated above this is not a discussion on whether Asylum seekers should be aloud in the country but indeed how they should be treated if found guilty of crimes?
So what IS my gripe with asylum seekers or in this case 2 asylum seekers. Today I purchased a copy of my local rag (newspaper) and was graced with the headline "MUM'S SEX CASE FURY followed by "AN ASYLUM seeker who indecently assaulted a ten-year old girl has been spared a prison sentence because it would have led to his deportation."
I could not believe this story, haven't we in England enough problems with paedophiles without allowing a person who as yet was not even a British Citizen stay in are country but more disturbing allowing him to stay without any form of prison sentence?
We must remember that this person committed one of the most horrific crimes there (short of rape and murder)and this terrible act was upon a ten Year old child.
So not only is this person not graced with jail but still aloud to stay in England because I quote from Judge Linda Sutcliffe "I am not prepared to run the risk of things I have been told happening to you. That would involve punishment out of proportion with the crime I am dealing with." The prior quote is in relation to the mans defence of him being Jailed or passably put to death, if deported To Iraq.
My answer to this mans pathetic plea, SO WHAT! If you have committed a crime and been proved guilty of that crime then you deserve to be punished for that crime whether that means Jail and or deportation. If this man fears for his life if returned then why? is it for crimes committed in Iraq or even for the crimes he has committed in England.
Moving on, in my first paragraph I commented on 2 asylum seekers. The 2nd asylum seeker who lives literally just round the corner from my house and next to a Primary School has been remanded in custody for attempted Rape. As this man has not been proved guilty I can not really comment on his case except for saying that In England people are only generally remanded in jail (while waiting trial), If there is a strong suspicion/evidence of guilt, a possibility of "diapering before trial or fear of reoffence
As you can see I am totally appalled and as stated above this is not a discussion on whether Asylum seekers should be aloud in the country but indeed how they should be treated if found guilty of crimes?