A paedophile convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter has been allowed to remain in the UK as deporting him would breach his right to a “family life”.
It’s possible to think that he’s already affected his family life, no?
The man, who is in his early 50s and is from the Democratic Republic of Congo, was jailed for three years in 2020 for “appalling” offences including sexual penetration and sexual assault against his stepdaughter and two other young girls in the family.
Because of the severity of his offences, he was ordered to be deported back to his African homeland.
However, he successfully appealed against the sanction, with an immigration judge ruling deportation would “negatively impact” the “wellbeing” of his wife and three biological children, whom the sexual offences were not committed against.
An interesting example of one of those claims. Inhabiting a house with an unrelated male – a stepfather – is one of those dangerous things in life….
Scumbag given a whole life sentence of free housing, money, healthcare and mere wrist-slap for his vile criminality courtesy of the UK taxpayer. This happens with such monotonous regularity I’m surprised it even counts as news nowadays.
Because of the severity of his offences, he was ordered to be deported
Only kidding. Never going to happen.
…deportation would “negatively impact” the “wellbeing” of his wife and three biological children…
They could have accompanied him if deported. In the spirit of reasonable compromise, since he stays, remove his ‘nads.
At least he wasn’t a Rwandan refugee previously involved in the genocide. That would have got him the best possible human right lawyer.
“three biological children, whom the sexual offences were not committed against.”
Oh, there’s posh!
Since the chap is so obviously of fine moral character, who could possibly think he didn’t molest the other three?
And Simon,
“three biological children, against whom the sexual offences were not committed.”
Now, that’s grammatically better, ie more posh
Crimes severe enough to get the nonce deported, but not to get him more than three years from whatever cunt was on the bench.
The ECHR allows for the safety of the community to take precedence over the rights of criminals, however British immigration judges rule in favour of the criminal every time.
Britain would be immeasurably improved if every single immigration and human rights lawyer and judge was dragged into the street and beaten to death.
Bring back the noose??
Should British judges be renamed to the Nonce Protection Force?
Marius: +1.
People who say “negatively impact” should be put in the stocks and have cabbages hurled at their heads.
dearieme
“People who say “negatively impact” should be put in the stocks and have cabbages hurled at their heads.”
I’d agree, but suggest the cabbages should be frozen
I’d agree, but suggest the cabbages should be frozen
And half-rotten before being frozen
What we need is a Human Responsibilities Act. Which lays out all the things that as a responsible member of society you should or shouldn’t do. And if you breach the terms of said act you lose all Human Rights available elsewhere. Simple.
Jim @ 1.41, walking home from my local after a couple of lagers this arvo and seeing two plod in an area normally inhabited by ‘scum’ (with the scum noticeably absent), I was struck by the idea that anyone in receipt of ‘social welfare’ payments who indulged in ‘anti-social behavior’ should have their payments forfeited. A week for the first offense, two weeks for the second etc……
Much more effective, cheaper and quicker, than asbos, community service and tags surely?
The reporting of this case shows some interesting bias. The headline says “allowed to stay in UK under ECHR rules” and the subhead says “would affect his family life”. However reading the actual article shows that both of these are false.
The heading is effectively false because he is currently only being allowed to stay pending legal proceedings and the article says that the Home Office has won the right to a new hearing, so he may well be deported once the case is concluded.
The subhead is false because the article says that the rights under which it is claimed be cannot be deported are not his at all, but those of other people (his family).
It’s almost as if a newspaper has its own agenda and is printing deceitful material in pursuit of it, hoping that readers either do not read more than the heading or do not read the article carefully enough to reverse the initial impression they got.
@Jim – “What we need is a Human Responsibilities Act.”
Any such act would say that you have a responsilility to pay as much as possible in tax and get nothing in return.