IF receives pension in UK

[Libsmasher]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...8-000-incapacity-benefits-year--bad-back.html

outrage piled upon outrage

 

[The Scotsman]

Until our politicians have the guts to kick this bastard out....why not? Anyway mate we have other less deserving domestic scum that cream the system for even more cash.

This wanker is by no means exceptional! our own politicians are deeper into the cash trough than this guy....jeez he's a lightweight compared to some

Widespread support for tougher regulation of MPs' expenses was emerging in parliament last night after the Commons delivered a 10-day suspension to former Conservative MP Derek Conway for claiming excessive payments out of public funds to his university student son.
In the first ministerial intervention into the controversy, the justice secretary, Jack Straw, said he "never understood for the life of me why MPs are not required to say who they employ". Downing Street endorsed the call for more transparency, although it was careful not to back automatic naming and the idea was criticised by Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes. But the proposal has support from David Cameron and other Tory MPs, and there is growing acceptance of fully audited expenses. A proposal for random spot checks is likely to go before MPs this summer.

In the Commons, Labour MP and former welfare minister Frank Field said it was "difficult to think how much lower our collective reputation might sink" in the wake of the revelations that Conway paid his son Freddie £45,000 over two-and-a-half years while he was studying full-time at Newcastle University. He also questioned whether the punishment was adequate in this and other cases of impropriety by MPs. "If this example of what I would see as embezzlement had occurred, say, in the refreshment department on this scale, we would have expected that person to leave the employment of this establishment on that day," Field said.

MPs endorsed the recommendation of the Commons standards and privileges committee to suspend Conway and order him to repay up to £13,161, without a vote. The standards commissioner, John Lyon, is considering a new complaint against Conway concerning his elder son Henry, who is said to have received £32,000 for research work. Conway said on Wednesday that he would stand down from the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency at the next election, the day after he was suspended from the party. Police are considering a complaint that Conway committed offences under the Fraud Act.

...........come to the UK mate and you can make a living by not making a living


goodnight................

 

[Libsmasher]

Until our politicians have the guts to kick this bastard out....why not? Anyway mate we have other less deserving domestic scum that cream the system for even more cash.

This wanker is by no means exceptional! our own politicians are deeper into the cash trough than this guy....jeez he's a lightweight compared to some



...........come to the UK mate and you can make a living by not making a living


goodnight................

Why do the british people put up with this crap???

 

[UShadItComing]

Good decision in my opinion libs, and no different all that much from what all othe first world countries do.

Except, you know.

 

[Libsmasher]

Good decision in my opinion libs, and no different all that much from what all othe first world countries do.

Except, you know.

Yaaaaaaaa - every country gives pensions to alqaeda butchers - sure. Your posts are becoming more deranged each time.

 

[The Scotsman]

Why do the british people put up with this crap???

.......I have no idea....seriously I cannot give you an intelligent reply!

Its not as if we've just arrived here as if by magic its been going on for years. I lived in Germany for a number of years and hardly visited the UK in that time, I remember picking up the newspaper once I'd returned and both the wife and I looked at each other and wondered what the frig was going on! I think in all honesty we are afraid of not paying money to people like this because they will go to a lawyer and claim an infringement of their Human Rights.......I don't know mate!

Maybe my fellow Brit 9Sub....could jump in?

 

[BigRob]

.......I have no idea....seriously I cannot give you an intelligent reply!

Its not as if we've just arrived here as if by magic its been going on for years. I lived in Germany for a number of years and hardly visited the UK in that time, I remember picking up the newspaper once I'd returned and both the wife and I looked at each other and wondered what the frig was going on! I think in all honesty we are afraid of not paying money to people like this because they will go to a lawyer and claim an infringement of their Human Rights.......I don't know mate!

Maybe my fellow Brit 9Sub....could jump in?

I am no expert of British law, but it seems to me that denying a pension or disability insurance to a convicted felon is not a violation of human rights and would never stand up in court.

 

[The Scotsman]

Oh my dear man...truely... you have no idea to the extent to which we Brits use and interpret the Human Rights laws to the benefit of criminals, deliquents and down to earth scumsucking craphounds...

permit me to whet your appetite with....this for example one of the LESS bizaar cases

Jack Straw's enthusiasm for the Human Rights Act when he triumphantly introduced it as Home Secretary eight years ago was misplaced.

His assessment then that the incorporation of the Act into British law would inaugurate "a major step in the creation of a culture of rights and responsibilities in our society" seems to require urgent revision in view of the public outrage that has followed the Chindamo case.

The grounds for the decision by the Asylum And Immigration Tribunal not to deport the killer of headteacher Philip Lawrence because to do so would breach his "human right" to a family life seems, in terms of common-sense justice and humanity, to be patently absurd.

It ranks - in the grotesquerie stakes - with an earlier decision by the courts that the Government was legally obliged under the Act to offer full refugee status to the Afghan hijackers who had seized a plane at gunpoint and forced it to fly to Britain.

The hope that the Act would somehow transform the national political consciousness into being consistently centred on a benign principle of inalienable "rights" has well and truly evaporated.

What has emerged instead is a legalistic nightmare, in which one perverse consequence follows another. The Government now finds itself in the bizarre position of having to appeal against rulings forced upon it by its own legislation.

Even before the shocking case of Learco Chindamo hit the headlines - and the dignified protest of Mr Lawrence's widow had won the respect and sympathy of the country - David Cameron had voiced grave reservations about the Human Rights Act.

Certainly such a step would be popular with the electorate as well as being consistent with the traditional Conservative view that inherent liberties - rather than prescribed "rights" - lie at the heart of the British concept of freedom.

But the attractions of a simple repeal might be more apparent than real. Even if the legislation that incorporated the Act was to be abolished, Britain would remain a signatory to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

It was this convention which permitted any British citizen to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - to go over the heads, as it were, of the courts of his own country. (All that the incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law did was to make this foreign legal excursion unnecessary.)

In principle, all that Chindamo's lawyers need to have done to have achieved the same result, had the Act not been in force, would have been to take their complaint to Strasbourg.

Ironically, even if the Act were now to be repealed, the awareness by British courts of the possibility of appeal to the ECHR would make them likely to conform to its principles anyway.

Which means that Parliament would have to find another way to restore what most British people regard as natural justice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/22/dl2201.xml


..............I'd post more but I get depressed and reach for a pint of solace

 

[BigRob]

Oh my dear man...truely... you have no idea to the extent to which we Brits use and interpret the Human Rights laws to the benefit of criminals, deliquents and down to earth scumsucking craphounds...

Bullocks

 

[The Scotsman]

please..............re-read

 

[UShadItComing]

I am no expert of British law, but it seems to me that denying a pension or disability insurance to a convicted felon is not a violation of human rights and would never stand up in court.

I would suggest that Canadian law would do the same. Why would or should it not? When any person commits a crime, is found guilty through our coutrts and is jailed, serves his sentence and is released, he is seen to be forgiven for the crime. The fact that we are talking about a certain person in this case who you deem to be a worse felon than perhaps another who commited a different crime makes no difference to the law.

It may or may not be my own opinion Rob, but some would consider this man to be guilty of nothing more than fighting for his rights and freedoms.

The American mindset is terribly flawed in my opinion and the results are mirrored in the number of your citizens you have locked up in your prisons. It needs to become more a matter of rehabilitation as opposed to punitive punishment.

This is another issue which is covered in Will Hutton's, A Declaration of Interdependence.

 

[Libsmasher]

Oh my dear man...truely... you have no idea to the extent to which we Brits use and interpret the Human Rights laws to the benefit of criminals, deliquents and down to earth scumsucking craphounds...

permit me to whet your appetite with....this for example one of the LESS bizaar cases



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/22/dl2201.xml


..............I'd post more but I get depressed and reach for a pint of solace

Geez, it sounds like Brits are losing their sovereignty to transnational potentates! If I were a european now, I'd say let's have a fair trade pact, a mutual defense pact, and forget the rest.

 

[BigRob]

I would suggest that Canadian law would do the same. Why would or should it not? When any person commits a crime, is found guilty through our coutrts and is jailed, serves his sentence and is released, he is seen to be forgiven for the crime. The fact that we are talking about a certain person in this case who you deem to be a worse felon than perhaps another who commited a different crime makes no difference to the law.

Public opinion does play a role in the law. As for him being released and all being forgiven, he is sentenced to life in prison in Jordon. As for his "release", he is out on bail awaiting immigration hearings to go back to Jordon and serve his sentence. I predict he will be sent back.

It may or may not be my own opinion Rob, but some would consider this man to be guilty of nothing more than fighting for his rights and freedoms.

His right to do what? Blow up tourists in Jordon? Or maybe you mean his right to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police officers? Is it that one?

The American mindset is terribly flawed in my opinion and the results are mirrored in the number of your citizens you have locked up in your prisons. It needs to become more a matter of rehabilitation as opposed to punitive punishment.

This is another issue which is covered in Will Hutton's, A Declaration of Interdependence.

We have many people locked up yes, the highest incarceration rate in the world I believe. That said, when people commit crimes they need to go to jail, not get a slap on the wrist. Perhaps our incarceration rate is so much higher because we actually send people to jail for crimes, while others slap them on the wrist instead.