Dealing with Germs - Australia teaches the UK a lesson

[Dedworth]

Shipped back to Britain: Australians say career thug is a risk to the public - so they've sent him home to the UK... as a free man

A career criminal who tried to murder a police officer in Australia was yesterday returned to Britain as a free man.

The taxpayer now faces spending tens of thousands providing housing and benefits to Clifford Tucker even though he has spent most of his life in Australia.

Officials there ruled that Tucker, who has committed a string of crimes over almost 30 years, posed an ‘unacceptable risk to the public’.

Tucker, 47, moved from Britain to Australia with his parents aged six, and has lived in Adelaide for 41 years.

But because he never obtained an Australian passport his visa was revoked over his criminal conduct after he returned home from a holiday to Bali. He committed his first crime aged only 11 and has served more than a decade in jail.

MPs said that, had Britain tried to deport an Australian guilty of similar offences, the Government would have been defeated by human rights law.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378487/Criminal-Clifford-Tucker-sent-Britain-40-years-Australia.html#ixzz1K3RGnbW6


:xxgrinning--00xx3: Brilliant - he even had to pay his own airfare and that of his escorts.

as the Mail goes on to say

Consider, however, what would have happened if Tucker – a career criminal jailed for 12 years for shooting and seriously wounding a police officer – had been a foreigner committing crimes in Britain.

There is precisely zero chance that our courts – or the interfering judges in Strasbourg – would have agreed to his removal in the interests of protecting the British public.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378487/Criminal-Clifford-Tucker-sent-Britain-40-years-Australia.html#ixzz1K3S2KBkm

[Tawi2]

We sent brit crims to Oz for years,how the wheel has turned:icon_lol:

[les_taxi]

I like the way the Aussies do things:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[stevie c]

wish the uk would take a leaf out of there book we are a dumping ground for every other countries trouble makers & sroungers :cwm23:

[Walaytawo]

Some interesting reactions on his facebook page :D

[Dedworth]

We sent brit crims to Oz for years,how the wheel has turned:icon_lol:

And even back then we paid for their carriage - Australia's got the right idea Pay As You Go Deportation :D

[Walaytawo]

There must be a failed state which could be used for situations such as this. Somalia maybe :Erm:

[grahamw48]

Perhaps the Aborigines should ask the rest of the 'Ozzys' to go with him. :rolleyes:

On a lighter note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA&feature=related

[Dedworth]

Another article in today's Mail

A career thug was shipped back to Britain from Australia, so why can't we do the same thing?



On the other side of the world, a migrant convicted of the attempted murder of a police officer is deported, on the grounds he poses an ‘unacceptable risk’ to the native population.

Few would describe the Australian government’s decision as anything other than common sense.

After all Clifford Tucker, a British citizen, had abused Australia’s hospitality. By throwing him out, justice was undeniably done.

Consider, however, what would have happened if Tucker – a career criminal jailed for 12 years for shooting and seriously wounding a police officer – had been a foreigner committing crimes in Britain.

There is precisely zero chance that our courts – or the interfering judges in Strasbourg – would have agreed to his removal in the interests of protecting the British public.

Instead, they would have found that, because he moved here from his home country when he was young, Tucker had a ‘human right’ to a family life in his adopted nation. Since he had three children his hand would have been strengthened even further.

Depressingly, these are the rules we live by thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights and Labour’s Human Rights Act.

No matter whether a person is living here illegally, or what heinous crimes they commit, if they can evade the authorities for long enough, our courts will let them stay for ever. Housing, benefits and every other right enjoyed by law-abiding British citizens will inevitably follow.

In other words, compared to Australia, America and dozens of other countries, British justice is a soft touch.

Witness how, in a case with chilling similarities to that of Tucker, Learco Chindamo was permitted to remain in Britain despite killing London headmaster Philip Lawrence.

Instead of Chindamo being sent home to Italy once his sentence was served, an immigration tribunal ruled – to widespread horror – that because he had been here since he was a small child, he had a human right to remain here. The fact he posed a danger to the public was seemingly irrelevant.

Or consider the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim who knocked down a 12-year-old girl in his car in Darwen, Lancashire, and left her to die.

Ibrahim, an Iraqi who had been refused asylum here, was driving while disqualified, and after Amy Houston’s death he committed a string of further offences.

However, an immigration tribunal ruled that because Ibrahim had children in Britain he had a right to a ‘family life’ in the UK.

Not a thought was given to the human rights of the family whose lives he had destroyed.

In a further shocking case, Rocky Gurung, a Nepalese who killed the son of a Gurkha war hero by throwing him into the Thames on a drunken night out, was permitted to stay here so his right to a ‘family life’ could be protected.

After prison, Gurung persuaded judges that it would breach his ‘right to family life’ if he was sent back to Nepal. This was despite the fact he was single and had no children.

Last year, a total of 200 foreign prisoners avoided deportation by claiming their human right to a ‘family life’ in Britain. The Home Office has confirmed that the ‘right to a family life’ is now the most popular claim used by criminals who successfully avoid deportation from the UK – overtaking the right to ‘protection from torture’ which they might face when returning home.

If faith in our legal and immigration systems are not to be fatally undermined, this has to stop. Britain must regain control of its own destiny in the same way that Australia does.

The fact that we are shackled to the European Convention on Human Rights of course makes this harder.

But the truth is that this is entirely possible. Under the Convention, unlike the rights to protection from torture or inhumane treatment, the right to a family life is not absolute.

It states that there can be no interference with the right to a family life ‘except as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security [or] public safety… for the prevention of disorder or crime’.

It is only Strasbourg’s judges and our own courts which slavishly follow their rulings who let foreign criminals claim the right to a ‘family life’ to stop being deported from Britain.

The question now is whether David Cameron, who promised to take the toughest possible line against foreign criminals, will take a stand against this judicial activism.

As Tory MP Dominic Raab says, it is one thing to argue against deporting an individual to a state which permits the use of torture but it makes a mockery of British justice to let hundreds of criminals and suspected terrorists claim a human right of family ties to avoid deportation.

‘This is merely a novel expansion of human rights by the UK courts and Europe,’ Mr Raab argues. ‘It is time they were put in their place.’

MPs could easily initiate legislation in the British Parliament to remove the contentious ‘right to a family life’ protection.

Inevitably, any new law would be challenged in Strasbourg where unelected judges would undoubtedly find against Britain.

But then what? Because the judges do not have the power to enforce their judgments (in a deliberate move to protect member states from abuse of power by Strasbourg, they can only huff and puff against countries who defy their rulings).

Admittedly, the Council of Europe could threaten to revoke the UK’s membership but it has consistently failed to expel Russia and Turkey who have been guilty of most flagrant abuses of human rights law.

So it is inconceivable that Britain would be sanctioned for deporting killers and rapists to their original countries – even if it does mean leaving behind a ‘family life’ in Britain.

The same is true of Europe’s ruling that UK prisoners should be entitled to vote – a judgment in clear defiance of the wishes of our own democratically-elected Parliament.

Indeed, there are currently 8,600 rulings by Strasbourg which have been defied by European countries.

Mr Cameron, whose government is now responsible for looking after British-born gunman Clifford Tucker following his expulsion from Australia after 40 years and making sure he does not harm the British public, must say that enough is enough.

We have plenty of nasty foreign-born criminals like Tucker living here. It is high time they were placed on a plane home, whatever the judiciary may say.

Failure to do so will mean Britain remains a safe haven for the world’s worst criminals.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1378728/Australian-career-thug-shipped-Britain-thing.html#ixzz1K97sePZW