Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
The Impact Of Immigration On Our Criminal Justice System.
24 Answers
Apart from our NHS, Housing, schools, and jobs etc. it would seem that our criminal justice system cannot also cope with the impact of immigration.
/// Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe warned that the criminal justice system is not adapting quickly enough to cope with the impact of immigration. ///
http://
/// Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe warned that the criminal justice system is not adapting quickly enough to cope with the impact of immigration. ///
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
In my view Sir Hyphen-Howe is clouding two issues.
His assertion that the criminal justice system has not kept pace with the problems caused by immigration is not correct (certainly not as far as the issues he has raised). He suggests that the police should do more to stop those banned from the UK from getting in and that they should do more to kick out those who should no longer be here. The police have no remit to do either. The former is a matter for the Border Agency whilst the latter is the responsibility of the courts.
Foreign nationals sentenced to twelve months or more in custody face deportation when their sentence is served. The majority of foreigners arrested in London are from the EU and as such have a right to be here under the ludicrously wide free movement provisions. The government has promised to get tough with those convicted but so far shows no signs of doing so. Many of the remainder of those convicted (from outside the EU) and some of those who from the EU who do face expulsion use Human Rights legislation to avoid expulsion from the UK, many on the flimsiest of grounds which seem to be accepted too readily by the courts. The criminal justice system is perfectly able to deal adequately with foreign criminals if its provisions, particularly in respect to deportation, are followed.
The article mentions 110 EU nationals who have been removed and 142 more who are currently under investigation. This is quite small beer when compared to the numbers sentenced. He suggests that more robust intelligence sharing is needed to prevent convicted criminals entering the country. This is certainly true. But the bulk of the problem is that huge numbers of foreigners are allowed free access to the UK regardless of their background and no amount of intelligence sharing will alter that. This is exacerbated by the fact that very few are automatically deported after serving their sentence. This will not reduce until we remove the right of some 500m EU citizens free access to the country (which would mean leaving the EU), repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
His assertion that the criminal justice system has not kept pace with the problems caused by immigration is not correct (certainly not as far as the issues he has raised). He suggests that the police should do more to stop those banned from the UK from getting in and that they should do more to kick out those who should no longer be here. The police have no remit to do either. The former is a matter for the Border Agency whilst the latter is the responsibility of the courts.
Foreign nationals sentenced to twelve months or more in custody face deportation when their sentence is served. The majority of foreigners arrested in London are from the EU and as such have a right to be here under the ludicrously wide free movement provisions. The government has promised to get tough with those convicted but so far shows no signs of doing so. Many of the remainder of those convicted (from outside the EU) and some of those who from the EU who do face expulsion use Human Rights legislation to avoid expulsion from the UK, many on the flimsiest of grounds which seem to be accepted too readily by the courts. The criminal justice system is perfectly able to deal adequately with foreign criminals if its provisions, particularly in respect to deportation, are followed.
The article mentions 110 EU nationals who have been removed and 142 more who are currently under investigation. This is quite small beer when compared to the numbers sentenced. He suggests that more robust intelligence sharing is needed to prevent convicted criminals entering the country. This is certainly true. But the bulk of the problem is that huge numbers of foreigners are allowed free access to the UK regardless of their background and no amount of intelligence sharing will alter that. This is exacerbated by the fact that very few are automatically deported after serving their sentence. This will not reduce until we remove the right of some 500m EU citizens free access to the country (which would mean leaving the EU), repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Almost certainly not, Sandy. At least not to the degjree that his Human Rights will be infringed if they are forced to live apart. Anyway, even if they were, the answer is simple - they can all return to Bosnia. Their Human Right to be together can be freely exercised there. The HRA does not stipulate that the rights must be exercised in the UK. But that seems beyond the scope of judges' remit.
Karenkay. How will voting UKIP change anything ? You obviously want Britain to withdraw from the EU. But UKIP has no way of achieving a withdrawal unless they win a General Election here in Britain, which considering they don't have any MPs, isn't going to happen. Playing childish games like turning their backs when Beethoven is played in Brussels just makes fools of themselves.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Sorry...I am still uncertain what you are saying. Are you maintaining that UKIP will gain enough seats, if any, to bring us out of the EU ?
There is only one Party that might do that, and its the Tories. If you really are serious about leaving the EU, then that is the Party that you should be voting for, not wasting your vote on a fringe lot of "loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" ....daves words not mine !
There is only one Party that might do that, and its the Tories. If you really are serious about leaving the EU, then that is the Party that you should be voting for, not wasting your vote on a fringe lot of "loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" ....daves words not mine !
-- answer removed --
Sorry DJH...it wasn't immediately obvious who your reply was meant for !
Its a first for me...to be described as a troll ! Like DJH, and AOG, as well as others on here tonight, I am a regular poster here on AB, on a wide variety of subjects. What a pity that some people revert to name calling instead of engaging in debate !
Its a first for me...to be described as a troll ! Like DJH, and AOG, as well as others on here tonight, I am a regular poster here on AB, on a wide variety of subjects. What a pity that some people revert to name calling instead of engaging in debate !
-- answer removed --
Asking a simple question, in a polite manner isn't making cheap shots karen.
You decided to join in this debate...nobody forced you.
If you can't or won't answer the question, its OK...that is your right. But it does nothing for your credibility to continue insulting people here on AB tonight.
By the way, I have been insulted by far better and more amusing people than you !
You decided to join in this debate...nobody forced you.
If you can't or won't answer the question, its OK...that is your right. But it does nothing for your credibility to continue insulting people here on AB tonight.
By the way, I have been insulted by far better and more amusing people than you !
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.