howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#2
I cant get on there as I dont have a facebook account.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
try the "this is kent" website paul for basic details paul.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#4
Unfortunately not on their web site and it is a lot to post - will leave it for H to decide if he wants to post it all
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
there is rather a lot, will copy and paste in parts.
Below you will find the full quotes from Charlie Elphicke MP, Antony Hook (local Lib Dem Chairman) and Sue Jones (leader of Labour group on Dover Town Council) from messages sent by email to me (except for the first account of Hook's views, from a phone conversation reported by me and approved by him as accurate) regarding the issue of the release of foreign criminals from Dover Removal Centre.
The differing views formed the contents of a special edition of the latest DCR local news roundup first aired tonight between 7.25 and 7.30pm. Any spelling mistakes and typos in the email messages have not been altered.
Firstly, Elphicke's request in Parliament: 'I have seen people in the Dover removal centre who have been there for three years, being held in stasis after having served their sentence. May I urge the Minister to take all measures possible to get such people out of the system as quickly as possible? It seems basically unfair that they should be incarcerated when they have served their sentence.'
Green's reply:' I take my hon. Friend's point, and he is assiduous in his work on the conditions at the removal centre in his constituency. I can assure him that this Government—like the previous Government, to be fair—will keep people in detention after their prison sentence has finished only if they are thought to pose a danger to the wider community. I am sure he will appreciate that if such people cannot be deported immediately for the reasons that we have been discussing, but they pose a danger to the British public, the best place for them is in immigration detention.'
Hook's initial observations to me, given on the phone, subsequently written-up by me and approved by him as accurate (apologies for caps, used because this was part of a radio script):
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DOVER, DEAL AND DISTRICT LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY,
ANTONY HOOK, SPEAKING TO DCR NEWS, HAS DECLARED HIMSELF TO BE 'SHOCKED AND
SURPRISED' AT MP CHARLIE ELPHICKE'S CALL FOR FOREIGN CRIMINALS HELD AT
DOVER REMOVAL CENTRE TO BE RELEASED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR SENTENCE,
DESPITE THEM BEING CLASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS POSING A DANGER TO THE
BRITISH PUBLIC. MR HOOK SAID THAT ELPHICKE'S VIEW WOULD CONFLICT WITH THOSE
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
OF MOST PEOPLE, SINCE THE ONLY PEOPLE BEING KEPT INCARCERATED ARE THOSE WHO
ARE DANGEROUS. MOREOVER, THEY HAD THE RIGHT OF APPEAL. THE SYSTEM WAS NOT
AN ARBITRARY OR DRACONIAN ONE, AND ONLY THOSE WHO HAD COMMITTED A SERIOUS
OFFENCE FELL INTO THE 'DANGEROUS' CATEGORY.
IF ELPHICKE'S DEMAND WAS MET, THE NET RESULT, HOOK OBSERVED, WOULD BE
DANGEROUS PEOPLE WALKING OUR STREETS. ONLY THOSE WHO DID NOT POSE A DANGER
SHOULD BE RELEASED. HOWEVER, A MINORITY ARE DEMONSTRABLY A DANGER, AND IT
IS PERFECTLY FITTING THAT THEY SHOULD BE RETAINED. WHEN DANGEROUS FOREIGN
CRIMINALS HAVE BEEN RELEASED, AND HAVE REOFFENDED, THE VICTIMS ARE VERY
OFTEN THEIR OWN FRIENDS AND COMMUNITY, SO FREEING THIS CATEGORY OF FOREIGN
CRIMINALS IS DOING THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES NO FAVOUR.
-----------------------------
------------------------------​-----
Elphicke's two-part clarifications of the reasons for his demand, the first before he had read/heard Hook's reaction, the second including also his observations on Hook's views:
1)
The point I was making is that they have served their prison sentences. So they pose as much of a risk as any other person who has served their sentence. They are then in effect kept in prison. That is unfair on them - and on us as we taxpayers have to foot the bill for people in the DRC. I would prefer the Government to move faster in getting these people out of the country. This will take a while as it will take time to catch up with the neglect of previous years.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
I hope this explains things better.
------------------------------​-----------------------
2)
Well I am surprised at the Lib Dems. You'd think they'd support the release of offenders once they've served their sentences, wouldn't you? As a former lawyer I do feel Magna Carta and the principle of Habeas Corpus is a principle not lightly to be set aside. That is how I feel. Tough on crime, but just and a strong believer in liberty once punishment has been made.
The real issue here is not leaving people in prison and throwing away the key for ever - it is about sending people back to their own lands once they have done their time.
------------------------------​------------------------------​----------
Hook's reaction:
A very prickly response from the MP!
I think a main point, that I am not sure he grasps, is the point made to him my the Minister when asked for the prisoners' release in the House. That is the point that they are only detained after finishing their sentence if they are objectively assessed as dangerous.
Dangerousness is independently assessed by bodies like the probation service and based on factors like the type of offence the person was convicted of, their age, whether they have shown remorse and are likely or not to re-offend. It is not a blanket locking-up of everyone. If a person feels they have been unfairly assessed as dangerous they can ask a judge to review it.
Also, this is not unusual. Inderterminate imprisonment applies to many of our own people. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protiection, which is where if that sentence (called "an IPP") the defendant can then be held indefintely beyond when he sentence otherwise would have ended, if he continues to be assess as dangerous.
I think it is quite a reasonable balance in all the circumstances.
I must say I think it is poor form of Charlie Elphicke to play the "I am a lawyer" card. Esepcially as he was a tax solicitor. He helped rich people avoid paying taxes. If we are going to playing that ridiculous game, I am a barrister specialising in criminal law and I deal with these issues of civil liberties and punishment everyday.
He misunderstands what "Habeas Corpus" means. Habeas Corpus (Latin: produce the body) is the rule against unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment. The impisonnment of dangerous foreign convicts is lawful and it is not arbitrary (because of the different way people are treated depending on whether they are dangerous). If these prisoners think their right to Habeas Corpus is violeted that can apply to the High Court 24 hours a a day for Writ of Habeas Corpus. No doubt they have not done so because it woul dbe bound to be rejected.
Likewise Magna Carta, a charter of rights signed by King John. If he is going to say the government is braching it perhaps he can tell us which paragraph of Magna Carta he is referring to? Or is he just raising it with no real idea about its content to distract from the main issue?
The question that I don't think he has answered is why he objects to the system when there is a perfectably reasonable recognition of the distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous individuals?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
and finally.
Sue Jones's personal view:
"I do not have the legal credentials of either gentleman so have considered this as a member of the community of Dover.
It is my hope that the British justice system, in which we trust, does not allow any person of any nationality, who has served a custodial sentence, but has been identified as still a risk to the public, to walk free amongst us.
it is therefore the issue of the delay to deportation which must be addressed by the Government. The ratepayers of this country should not foot the bill to maintain non nationals, who have abused our societies rules, in a detention centre. If the system has decided they need to be deported that should happen within a reasonable time frame.
If they have committed a crime, and remain at risk then they should be processed as a higher priority and sent home. If however they are no longer a risk, but have been refused asylum they should remain in detention, as any other failed asylum seeker would until deported. It is the system which is failing. Sacrificing the safety and security of our communities, and the future of those unfortunates who are in the immigration system is not an acceptable solution."
Monday at 20:36
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#9
Thanks Howard
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
no problem ross, i think charlie is being misrepresented here.
the way i understand it is that he is asking for them to be deported after serving their sentence and not be allowed to walk free here as his opponents are suggesting.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#11
Perhaps - but as a lawyer you would have thought he would have written it in such a way as to avoid that
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#12
Speaking as neither;lawyer,doctor or dentist...[Animal, vegetable or mineral?]
Far better if such assessments were made at conviction and the sentence served in their home country. Though the extreme of refusing entry to all who's home nation did not allow for this is to be avoided too.
There will be cases where the person convicted and deemed dangerous came here to escape from their home country with valid reasons (as assessed at point of entry) and it makes more sense to attempt rehabilitation with the carrot of release and the stick of life imprisonment.
The point that any of this is done at public expense is lost in the fact that ALL of this is done that way.
[I had a lawyer in the back of my cab once...turns out that 'Habeas Corpus' to him meant, "Take me home, James.
]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#13
Party politics spring to mind and like Howard I read Charlie's statement to be get it sorted either way as soon as possible. It is not right that anyone is held for three years prior to deportation or eventual release.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#14
Justice delayed is justice denied. A principle that our courts, particularly the ECHR, lost sight of a generation ago.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#15
If dangerous people cannot be deported straight away to their country of origin after serving their term in prison, then something is wrong with the deportation system.
But until such time as they can be deported, keep them locked up.
#16
Simples.....?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#17
Better safe than sorry, Bern!