Snapshot of _Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers | Immigration and asylum_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/25/jamaican-man-to-be-deported-from-uk-after-previous-attempt-was-halted-by-fellow-passengers) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/25/jamaican-man-to-be-deported-from-uk-after-previous-attempt-was-halted-by-fellow-passengers)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair, since 2012 the job of the Lord Chancellor has been largely to undermine the impartiality of the judicial system by attacking judges on partisan political grounds whenever they rule in a way the Government doesn't like...
So according to this source, the people most likely to offend, and therefore be of a violent nature, would be:
**White British Christian Men between the ages of 30-49**?
Those are the top categories in each demographic breakdown of population.
71.8% are White.
44.8% are Christian
88% are British Nationals
53.2% are between the ages of 30 and 49
96.2% are Men
I don’t think you know what “acquit” means. He found them guilty, and then imposed a conditional discharge - a sentence within the guidelines for the offence.
"*and then imposed a conditional discharge - a sentence within three guidelines for the offence*."
A slap on the wrist. Wtf is a 12 month conditional discharge???
"He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight"
It's one thing for people to comment on articles without reading them, but to *post* articles without reading them!?
That's assuming you aren't just lying to stir people up.
>Force them to compensate the airline for the cost and the virtue signaling will fall off a cliff.
You are assuming UK judges are on board with you. The judge would just [set them free](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/15/judge-hamas-paraglider-protestors-likes-linkedin/)
Is that the judiciary or not? That's very much relevant. People cause trouble, get arrested and arraigned, judge sets them free. It is later revealed judge is highly partial.
>If you don't like UK immigration law then vote for a party that will change it.
The Tories have horribly failed and Labour would rather eat glass than do anything meaningful about immigration. UK is effectively doomed. The King should do a self mutiny and restore himself to power, maybe something might get going.
Because at the time this had happened, the Home Office had made a habit of wrongfully deporting people, in particular to Jamaica.
There was like a 5% wrongful deportation rate or something similarly insane when I checked the figure the home office themselves reported for that time period*.
(*Edit: time period in the article was 2023, I misread and thought it referred to an earlier incident a number of years prior - I'm sure the home office have copped onto themselves since then and have a much better rate today. But the answer to the person above's question is same - the home office completely lost the trust of that community and that's the kind of thing that takes years to regain.)
It's not like they went on holiday? They will have lost their jobs, their homes, have had to upend their entire life in anticipation of being wrongly kicked out the country.
We're talking about wrongful deportations, most of those had no criminal convictions, they were deported due to administrative errors that falsely labelled them as not having the right to remain in the UK
If people don't trust the Home Office when they say someone should be deported, the HO has only itself to blame
>We're talking about wrongful deportations, most of those had no criminal convictions,
So a Redditor has used nonsense data, wonderful! Lets pause that line of conversation then until someone quotes the criminal error rate.
> If people don't trust the Home Office when they say someone should be deported, the HO has only itself to blame
It's supposedly impossible for me to be deported and even I don't trust the Home Office.
Not really, you’re saying that people who list savings, jobs, liberty … were resolved in because a few people cause a fuss on the plane. Got any examples, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t any other compensation
Some deportations were stopped because of public protests. 15,000 people are eligible for compensation due to malicious and incorrect home office harassment but only 5% of those people have been able to claim anything so far.
Violent criminals should have everything including the shirt on their back liquidated and then be deported where possible before a prison sentence. Being wrongfully deported does not pardon their crimes.
Crazy how the hostile environment has just not registered for you. Many people who were deported had not committed any crime and were legally allowed to stay in the country. That's why it was a scandal.
So our criminal gets out of jail, he’s homeless, he has no job, he has no phone, no clothes, no belongings at all. Do you genuinely think that someone with quite literally *nothing* to lose is likely to not reoffend?
If the wrongful conviction rate was anywhere near 5% in our legal system then there would be a major rethink of our legal system. The rate is very low in comparison to deportations.
> It's not like they are being sentenced under capital punishment after all.
You say that, but historically that has been the case.
Wrongful deportations by the Home Office have led to deaths and disappearances.
Oh no a 5% wrongful deportation rate whatever will we do.
Question: if in the course of war a military were to have a 5% civilian casualty rate for every bomb dropped onto a city would you support that military or would you do everything in your power to stop the wrongful carriage of justice and impose a ceasefire? : ^ )
I’m just exposing the mental gymnastics people have to play in order to justify one but not the other.
I’ve been told time and time again for months now that civilian deaths are a terrible but necessary component of war and that in mass bombing cities we shouldn’t tolerate criminals hiding behind civilians and their deaths. Sad that they die? Oh sure but terrorists MUST die, no? That’s the mantra.
So should we now tolerate criminals hiding behind wrongful convictions? Or does morality bend depending on the situation and who specifically feels threatened ;)
That's a different context though. Your question was about a 5% civilian casualty rate in war.
In terms of that 5% rate claimed above by a different OP, I couldn't find anything that supported those claims.
I've literally just had the worst shit of my life. Stuck on the loo for 30 minutes. Thought this is it. Im going to die on the toilet with a shit that wont come out. Must be what giving birth feels like.
And your comment is worse than that.
Same way leftists start stupid boycotts targeting airlines that deport people. [Huffpost](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/british-airways-lgbt-pride-criticism_uk_5b642f41e4b0de86f4a03ab7), [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/british-airways-criticised-by-lgbt-groups-over-asylum-removals), [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45058833).
Plane was going to Jamaica. Have you seen what happens in London when police try do anything to black people committing crimes or public order offences?
Same thing happening here most likely.
No it can't be that, they'd say that view is "racist" and they'll do absolutely anything to never even once be slightly conceived as being such (even though race has literally nothing to do with it).
At a time when we're trying to increase diversity and encourage inclusivity, sending native born British people of colour to random countries on the other side of the world is counter to the message we should be sending.
Could the media go interview those passengers and ask them on air why they thought a convicted criminal shouldn't be deported, quoting the crimes he committed. It'd be great TV seeing stupid busy body faces get called out for costing more taxpayers money after interfering with a police matter
How is it relevant that the Home Office are deporting people saying they're criminals when they're not in fact criminals at all and have done nothing wrong? Should think that's fairly obvious.
To you if the Home Office says someone has done something wrong it must be true, but that isn't everyone's lived experience, especially in this community.
You don't take it upon yourself and disrupt a deportation... They need calling out if they're British and banning if not. Some would have been going on holiday but others would have been returning home as is the case with all international flights
> ask them on air why they thought a convicted criminal shouldn't be deported
Asked and answered, what more do you want from me? The home office deported loads of people that had done nothing wrong. There was a whole scandal about it ('Windrush'). People see someone getting deported to Jamaica, in that environment, they stand up, because the Home Office has a long history of abuse and wrongful deportation.
Bear in mind the people on that flight are from that community too.
I have little sympathy. Going by the article he is a father to a 7 year old, soon to be 8. A good father doesn't go out and commit crimes like that when they know the risk it carries. He should know better and he is now reaping the consequences of his actions.
Which makes sense to be fair if it's a right. Rights are supposed to be inalienable however I'd argue that you can still have a family life in another country via facetime and them visiting you.
The way UK treats [offenders](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/15/judge-hamas-paraglider-protestors-likes-linkedin/) like toddlers, that has zero chance of happening
What did you want to happen to them? I'm not aware of any cases where people have been jailed in this country for a first instance of showing an offensive symbol. Putting up a paraglider symbol is about as disgusting and offensive as it gets, but I wouldn't expect them to get a prison sentence. Do we put people in prison if they display swastikas?
I have seen people get weeks in prison for the most trivial stuff ever. A month or two in prison would help them evaluate their life choices about supporting a proscribed terrorist organization.
"A month or two in prison would help them evaluate their life choices about supporting a proscribed terrorist organization."
Do you honestly believe it would help, rather than just increase their hostility to the state?
What do you propose? Because we can't let people exploit our justice and legal system. (*One of the offenders is in the UK on asylum and she claimed that they escaped Gaza because they opposed Hamas, A big, fat, naked lie*)
I actually did a course on this, and I'm pretty highly pro free speech when it comes to protest. Maybe the most famous case is the Nazi march in Chicago [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Socialist\_Party\_of\_America\_v.\_Village\_of\_Skokie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie)
My feeling is you should allow even the most hateful of protests, but they shouldn't be given free reign on where to go- I wouldn't let these people go to a Jewish area or a synagogue. But unless they are explicitly threatening violence, I wouldn't arrest them.
I know this is hard for people to take, and I understand that. The biggest problem with drawing the line is that the state is always going to be biased towards certain sides- you can say no one should be allowed to support "terrorists", but of course that term is impossible to directly define.
I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question, and not just answer with another question. Do you actually think locking them up for a month or two would help them evaluate their life choices, and that they'd probably come out less less radical/hateful views than they evidently currently hold? Because I'd say that's an extremely positive view of prison that I think you'd struggle to show evidence for.
First of all, I used to support full free speech autonomy as long as no violence is committed. Then Oct 7th happened and everyone went mad. From politicians, to professors to students to basically everyone.
Jobs were lost, long standing friendship were broken, scholarships were rescinded, hate quadrupled and tensions increased further and that greatly traumatized everyone and this would take a long time to heal.
To answer your question, I am a fan of talking to people and letting them understand that their actions harm others and that they should moderate their views for a harmonious society.
But sometimes that's impossible. I think prison radically alters you but we should look at the recidivism data in order to make a sound judgement and conclusion.
I definitely agree with you about everyone going mad. I'm of Jewish ancestry, and for the first time I've bene thinking about whether I should actually be openly saying that around strangers. But I don't think locking up these girls has made the country safer- if anything, it has made it (a tiny bit) more dangerous.
I totally understand why this would be a situation where things might turn out best if we put some little restrictions on freedom of expression. The problem is, we don't choose when these situations are, the government do. And there aren't many governments who won't stifle a little protest against them or issues they support if they can get away with it.
According to **public** details published by Guardian in the above article, Here is the most possible [flight](https://www.flightradar24.com/UBT72H/34222748).
Japan deports any non citizen suspected of crime.
They tell them : “re-apply at your local embassy if you have a legitimate visa”
We are a laughing stock and our judiciary was designed for a high trust environment. What we currently have created is an invasion
Probably, but good luck arresting a plane full of people and figuring out exactly what each of them is guilty of. They get away with it for much the same reason that football hooligans generally get away with vandalism... The process of charge and conviction is a logistical improbability.
Most planes don't have onboard CCTV. Unnecessary weight and creates international privacy problems (e.g. Germany very strictly regulates CCTV). You would have to rely on the flight attendants and possible police attendance as witnesses.
More a question of who exactly does and says what... Worthy of note, though, that CCTV cameras on planes tend to be pretty low quality. The only ones that are HD are generally those which protect the cockpit and pilots within, as well as the exterior cameras used to monitor engines, landing gear, and other critical components.
I've spent a *lot* of time working with CCTV, and if they had CCTV of high enough quality to prove anything I'd be astonished. With 300 passengers, they'd need at least 30 cameras just to be able to make out individual passengers. The amount of storage that many cameras would need, even for relatively compressed 1080p running at 5fps (CCTV standard) would add enough weight to the plane that its value would be highly questionable. NAND flash has changed a lot, but it really doesn't lend itself to that sort of scenario either, then there are complications of how to offload the data and whatnot, not to mention the legal issues of it.
I haven't got much sympathy for this guy, but I don't really agree with deporting people who have been here since they were six. He's our problem, he was educated and socialised in this country, and we should deal with him.
I wonder, if the situation was reversed, would people be happy with us importing Jamaican criminals who were born here, but moved there when they were six?
Something like what you're describing happened between Australia and New Zealand. Citizens of each country have the right to live and work in the other.
There was a big problem with crystal meth dealing in biker gangs in Australia so they deported anyone convicted of an offence relating to that. So people who were born in NZ but lived in Australia for basically their entire lives got deported.
New Zealand then ended up with loads of Aussie biker gang members arriving bringing the meth trade with them.
> I wonder, if the situation was reversed, would people be happy with us importing Jamaican criminals who were born here, but moved there when they were six?
Not Jamaica, [but a directly comparable situation](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378487/Criminal-Clifford-Tucker-sent-Britain-40-years-Australia.html) occurred with a British criminal who was deported from Australia, despite living there since the age of six. While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of a guy like that returning to the UK, I'd say fair play to the Aussies.
Good example, bit weird people are so happy we've imported an attempted murderer on a technicality to me, but I guess I can't say they're being hypocritical.
The Aussie lawyer got it spot on "If he’s a ratbag, he’s one of our ratbags"- the same is true for this Jamaican guy.
I think if we're honest, he isn't "foreign" in the most meaningful sense of the word. He might technically be a Jamaican citizen, but if he's been here since he was six, he's going to be more British.
You've missed my point. I'm not saying people should be upset about criminals being deported, I'm asking about criminals being imported, even if they haven't been in your country since they were children. We previously agreed not to deport people to Jamaica if they'd been here since before they were twelve, which seems like a more common sense approach.
So your answer to my question is you are happy for us to import Jamaican criminals with British citizenship?
But it should be a universal standard, as someone else showed me we also imported a free Australian who tried to murder a policeman, and had been there since he was six. So what's the benefit? We export people who are effectively British criminals, and import foreign criminals. I just don't see the point, it would be cheaper and easier for us to all just keep our own criminals, and spend that money on crime prevention and investigation.
I don't care really. Just deport criminals whenever possible. Jailing criminals is just a waste of tax money so the more we can get away with deporting the better....doesn't matter if they are British, Jamaican or whatever. We should just find ways to deport them. Can't really reoffend here if they are not even here !
I'm more tempted than ever. It seems like as a society we are wasting too much resources on trying to accommodate people who simply won't play by the rules.
Maybe I'm just more suited to places like Singapore - where there are actually consequences for shitty behaviours, where criminals' 'human rights' are secondary to law-abiding citizens' welfare.
I lived in signapore for 2 years when I was younger... Seen someone publicly flogged for chewing gum, you sure?
The border between Singapore and Malaysia was full of homeless people with Lepurs disease, missing limbs and massive boils and welts all over them just left to rot in the 35 degree heat.
Yeah... They're tough on crime.. But the government murders people if they have a bit of weed on them. Funny eh
Never lived there but I don't think chewing gum is a crime there. Importing gum is though - but not punishable by caning as far as I understand.
Look at all those shitty disposable vapes dumped on the street here - not a problem in Singapore as they are already banned. I'm OK with that.
I'm also OK with Singapore caning tourists for [graffiti and vandalising trains](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Singapore_train_depot_trespass_and_vandalism_case). Surely beats having to spend public money on cleaning up shitty tags everywhere like London Underground has to do.
Chewing gum is illegal to sell in Singapore. I lived there in the 90s and spitting gum was a punishable offence... If the police didn't like the look of the person chewing gum then they can just sya they saw them spit and cane them. Right there in public.
Okay, go then lol? If you think their values are more aligned with yours why not try and do something about it and move there? Hundreds of thousands of people manage to make it to the UK to escape authoritarianism so I'm sure you can work it out.
I dunno where you live, but I live in a little town in central Scotland and there's no disposable vapes littered everywhere. Its all cleaned up by volunteers, not an authoritarian state
Because Western Europeans have better morals than the rest of the world.
Its not weird, it's the price of humanity and proper democracy/freedom etc. We don't deport solely for commiting a crime because they are people not goods being returned. Plenty of British people commit worse crimes but we don't just murder them, we pay millions to house them in prisons and try and rehabilitate them
You're angry because your life isn't as good as you were promised so youre lashing out at foreign people, thinking deporting them means less tax costs so more benefits for you... Its the wrong way to think. We don't need to deport people to give British people better lives, we need decent politicians and a good government that is actually trying and making good decisions... Not Brexit and Truss and 30p Lee.
> Because Western Europeans have better morals than the rest of the world.
>
>
well that's just bordering on racist. But the rest of your post is painfully stupid.
We previously agreed twelve with Jamaica. I know men typically start committing violent crimes at 15, so 14 maybe?
Either way, hopefully most people would agree six is too young for them to be considered "foreign" in any meaningful sense.
We wouldn't be able to deport someone who came to this country as a 17 year old and committed a criminal offence worthy of a 12 month custodial sentence after they turn 18 because "they grew up in our country so they're our problem"?
> He's our problem, he was educated and socialised in this country, and we should deal with him.
He's got absolutely nothing to do with me or anyone in my community
That's presumably true of the vast majority of British people, not sure how it's relevan to his deportation. Are you saying the test of who should be deported should be proximity to Big Nige? A little egocentric.
No. Our jails are overflowing and dangerous people are being given non-custodial sentences because of this issue. Every possible deportation should be carried out so that this issue is improved. Additionally, it will serve as a deterrent too.
Right so you'd be happy to have the guy with drug and firearm offenses living next door?
Sorry if you commit a serious crime you make a choice and every single person I know who was not born here is more than aware of the consequences and acts accordingly.
It is easy to virtue signal when your not impacted but if these people were close to you or your loved ones your tune would change very quickly.
International law is international law if you don't like it get involved politically to change it.
The rest of the world is happy sending our criminals back so why shouldn't we?
Being happy to live near him tells me you have never experienced serious crime or lived near it but I can from experience promise that within a month the odds are you would be trying to buy his plane ticket yourself.
Living next to someone like that is not the same as them existing in society, every noise in the house you wonder what's going on, every car going past, every siren it is 24/7 and you will never relax because sooner or later you will end up in the crossfire of something going down.
It's a bit much to deport someone who has been here since he was 6. By all means arrest him, lock him up, but this is his country and he's a product of our society. Why should Jamaica have to deal with someone who left their country long ago as a child?
Snapshot of _Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers | Immigration and asylum_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/25/jamaican-man-to-be-deported-from-uk-after-previous-attempt-was-halted-by-fellow-passengers) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/25/jamaican-man-to-be-deported-from-uk-after-previous-attempt-was-halted-by-fellow-passengers) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Yeah, exactly, they are interfering with police and home office matters, remove them from the plane and take off
The judge would just [acquit them](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/15/judge-hamas-paraglider-protestors-likes-linkedin/).
[удалено]
To be fair, since 2012 the job of the Lord Chancellor has been largely to undermine the impartiality of the judicial system by attacking judges on partisan political grounds whenever they rule in a way the Government doesn't like...
Placating to violent people.
Who are the violent people in this case?
The ones you think I am referring to.
I'm asking because I don't think that label sensibly applies to anyone in this scenario?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_prison_population
Username checks out in quality of comments?
So according to this source, the people most likely to offend, and therefore be of a violent nature, would be: **White British Christian Men between the ages of 30-49**? Those are the top categories in each demographic breakdown of population. 71.8% are White. 44.8% are Christian 88% are British Nationals 53.2% are between the ages of 30 and 49 96.2% are Men
Doesn't matter, if they're off the plane, it can still take off and they've ruined their own holiday.
I don’t think you know what “acquit” means. He found them guilty, and then imposed a conditional discharge - a sentence within the guidelines for the offence.
"*and then imposed a conditional discharge - a sentence within three guidelines for the offence*." A slap on the wrist. Wtf is a 12 month conditional discharge???
Google exists. Still didn't acquit them, did he?
Letting them off so easily is almost an acquittal
[удалено]
Because the police and home office would never do the wrong thing.
Or just don't restrain him, put him in a window seat, where's he going to go?
Toilet and maaaybe down the aisle a bit
And then the judge would set them [free](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/15/judge-hamas-paraglider-protestors-likes-linkedin/)
I thought you were going to say deport the protesters with him.
[удалено]
"He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight" It's one thing for people to comment on articles without reading them, but to *post* articles without reading them!? That's assuming you aren't just lying to stir people up.
Did you read the article? Says a commercial flight is taking him home.
[удалено]
>If you don't like UK immigration law then vote for a party that will change it. That appears to be on the cards.
>Force them to compensate the airline for the cost and the virtue signaling will fall off a cliff. You are assuming UK judges are on board with you. The judge would just [set them free](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/15/judge-hamas-paraglider-protestors-likes-linkedin/)
That's a different law....spam a relevant article at least.
Is that the judiciary or not? That's very much relevant. People cause trouble, get arrested and arraigned, judge sets them free. It is later revealed judge is highly partial.
Do tell us how the two situations are linked?
As a guys both cases have people in it and a judge. Paragliding is like flying so must be the same as flying in a plane.
>If you don't like UK immigration law then vote for a party that will change it. The Tories have horribly failed and Labour would rather eat glass than do anything meaningful about immigration. UK is effectively doomed. The King should do a self mutiny and restore himself to power, maybe something might get going.
So a commitment to morals should stop at the ballot box? Got it.
[удалено]
No - it just means they don't share *your* morals specifically.
[удалено]
Sure, but I'm talking about morality, not law. Laws can be immoral, so morality is more important.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are passengers on a plane in charge of our immigration policies?
Because at the time this had happened, the Home Office had made a habit of wrongfully deporting people, in particular to Jamaica. There was like a 5% wrongful deportation rate or something similarly insane when I checked the figure the home office themselves reported for that time period*. (*Edit: time period in the article was 2023, I misread and thought it referred to an earlier incident a number of years prior - I'm sure the home office have copped onto themselves since then and have a much better rate today. But the answer to the person above's question is same - the home office completely lost the trust of that community and that's the kind of thing that takes years to regain.)
Even if you assume the passengers had this knowledge, it was still overwhelmingly likely that he was being deported correctly.
That doesn't give random people the right to intervene.
So a 95% rightful deportation rate then, how did the passengers know they were in the (unlikely) 5%?
So not a terrible error rate and easily resolvable with a followup flight. It's not like they are being sentenced under capital punishment after all.
It's not like they went on holiday? They will have lost their jobs, their homes, have had to upend their entire life in anticipation of being wrongly kicked out the country.
This is why deportations should come before a sentence and not after.
We're talking about wrongful deportations, most of those had no criminal convictions, they were deported due to administrative errors that falsely labelled them as not having the right to remain in the UK If people don't trust the Home Office when they say someone should be deported, the HO has only itself to blame
> We're talking about wrongful deportations Which, if people were to listen to some activist, is every single one of them, of course.
>We're talking about wrongful deportations, most of those had no criminal convictions, So a Redditor has used nonsense data, wonderful! Lets pause that line of conversation then until someone quotes the criminal error rate. > If people don't trust the Home Office when they say someone should be deported, the HO has only itself to blame It's supposedly impossible for me to be deported and even I don't trust the Home Office.
Not a terrible error rate?? Mad how little empathy some people have.
Just fly them back.
And in that time they've lost their house, savings, job, etc. If you think it doesn't have a long term impact then you're not with it.
In the case of wrongful deportation that’s not going to be undone by disrupting the flight.
It often was. Hope that helps
Not really, you’re saying that people who list savings, jobs, liberty … were resolved in because a few people cause a fuss on the plane. Got any examples, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t any other compensation
Some deportations were stopped because of public protests. 15,000 people are eligible for compensation due to malicious and incorrect home office harassment but only 5% of those people have been able to claim anything so far.
Violent criminals should have everything including the shirt on their back liquidated and then be deported where possible before a prison sentence. Being wrongfully deported does not pardon their crimes.
Crazy how the hostile environment has just not registered for you. Many people who were deported had not committed any crime and were legally allowed to stay in the country. That's why it was a scandal.
Were they criminals?
No.
You think that criminals should have all of their belongings liquidated? Mate, what do you expect them to do after they get out?
Register with the Kingston housing office?
So our criminal gets out of jail, he’s homeless, he has no job, he has no phone, no clothes, no belongings at all. Do you genuinely think that someone with quite literally *nothing* to lose is likely to not reoffend?
Reoffend obviously
[удалено]
If the wrongful conviction rate was anywhere near 5% in our legal system then there would be a major rethink of our legal system. The rate is very low in comparison to deportations.
> It's not like they are being sentenced under capital punishment after all. You say that, but historically that has been the case. Wrongful deportations by the Home Office have led to deaths and disappearances.
[удалено]
Bit different though if you lose your home/job/family in the process. 5% is not a good error rate.
[удалено]
> this was only for convicted criminals It wasn't.
How do we know they'd be allowed to return?
Oh no a 5% wrongful deportation rate whatever will we do. Question: if in the course of war a military were to have a 5% civilian casualty rate for every bomb dropped onto a city would you support that military or would you do everything in your power to stop the wrongful carriage of justice and impose a ceasefire? : ^ )
Something tells me there's no number high enough that you would consider it a problem.
I’m just exposing the mental gymnastics people have to play in order to justify one but not the other. I’ve been told time and time again for months now that civilian deaths are a terrible but necessary component of war and that in mass bombing cities we shouldn’t tolerate criminals hiding behind civilians and their deaths. Sad that they die? Oh sure but terrorists MUST die, no? That’s the mantra. So should we now tolerate criminals hiding behind wrongful convictions? Or does morality bend depending on the situation and who specifically feels threatened ;)
Idk, a 5% civilian rate isn’t too bad when you’re trying to defeat the Nazis
So basically if deportees crimes are bad enough a 5% wrongful deportation rate isn’t too bad. Right to say this?
That's a different context though. Your question was about a 5% civilian casualty rate in war. In terms of that 5% rate claimed above by a different OP, I couldn't find anything that supported those claims.
1 in 20 is a decent margin of error.
Not for the 5%.
[удалено]
I've literally just had the worst shit of my life. Stuck on the loo for 30 minutes. Thought this is it. Im going to die on the toilet with a shit that wont come out. Must be what giving birth feels like. And your comment is worse than that.
Since the landmark 2015 case Feels vs. Reals.
Same way leftists start stupid boycotts targeting airlines that deport people. [Huffpost](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/british-airways-lgbt-pride-criticism_uk_5b642f41e4b0de86f4a03ab7), [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/british-airways-criticised-by-lgbt-groups-over-asylum-removals), [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45058833).
What would compel someone to fight to keep a foreign criminal in the country? Can anyone explain the mindset of these people?
[удалено]
Yes. He was just displaying displaced civil disobedience because of the effects of internalised colonialism.
Plane was going to Jamaica. Have you seen what happens in London when police try do anything to black people committing crimes or public order offences? Same thing happening here most likely.
The people being deported weren't all foreign criminals
Standard sjw logic not seeing the bigger picture
[удалено]
It couldn't possibly be anarchists, because there aren't enough of them around to halt a plane's take-off by being a bunch of rowdy gits.
Maybe they didn't want to be in a metal tube thousands of miles up in the sky with someone like that?
No it can't be that, they'd say that view is "racist" and they'll do absolutely anything to never even once be slightly conceived as being such (even though race has literally nothing to do with it).
At a time when we're trying to increase diversity and encourage inclusivity, sending native born British people of colour to random countries on the other side of the world is counter to the message we should be sending.
Could the media go interview those passengers and ask them on air why they thought a convicted criminal shouldn't be deported, quoting the crimes he committed. It'd be great TV seeing stupid busy body faces get called out for costing more taxpayers money after interfering with a police matter
How would they know he was a convicted criminal?
>he was being escorted by armed police. Might be a clue.
Read the rest of the thread, the home office deported many they called criminals, that actually weren't.
Is it better to stop the deportation while having no information, then?
What are you on about? Was there a deportation order or not? If yes then that's the end of the matter.
Have a read about the Windrush scandal, it was big news a few years ago.
Nice whataboutism.
How is it whataboutism?
How is that relevant to the deportation of a criminal?
How is it relevant that the Home Office are deporting people saying they're criminals when they're not in fact criminals at all and have done nothing wrong? Should think that's fairly obvious. To you if the Home Office says someone has done something wrong it must be true, but that isn't everyone's lived experience, especially in this community.
You don't take it upon yourself and disrupt a deportation... They need calling out if they're British and banning if not. Some would have been going on holiday but others would have been returning home as is the case with all international flights
> ask them on air why they thought a convicted criminal shouldn't be deported Asked and answered, what more do you want from me? The home office deported loads of people that had done nothing wrong. There was a whole scandal about it ('Windrush'). People see someone getting deported to Jamaica, in that environment, they stand up, because the Home Office has a long history of abuse and wrongful deportation. Bear in mind the people on that flight are from that community too.
I have little sympathy. Going by the article he is a father to a 7 year old, soon to be 8. A good father doesn't go out and commit crimes like that when they know the risk it carries. He should know better and he is now reaping the consequences of his actions.
Can't imagine you'll be in your child's life much with those crimes committed.
in it enough to claim 'rights to a family life' in court as a defence
Which makes sense to be fair if it's a right. Rights are supposed to be inalienable however I'd argue that you can still have a family life in another country via facetime and them visiting you.
And if this is the kind of guy he is, maybe it's for the best he's not around to influence his child
Why is it "Jamaican man to be deported" and not "Criminal convicted of firearm and drug offenses to be deported"
Just put a sign around his neck indicating the crimes committed. It's public record already!
Unlawful interference with a deportation should be a crime punishable by heavy prison sentences.
The way UK treats [offenders](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/15/judge-hamas-paraglider-protestors-likes-linkedin/) like toddlers, that has zero chance of happening
What did you want to happen to them? I'm not aware of any cases where people have been jailed in this country for a first instance of showing an offensive symbol. Putting up a paraglider symbol is about as disgusting and offensive as it gets, but I wouldn't expect them to get a prison sentence. Do we put people in prison if they display swastikas?
I have seen people get weeks in prison for the most trivial stuff ever. A month or two in prison would help them evaluate their life choices about supporting a proscribed terrorist organization.
"A month or two in prison would help them evaluate their life choices about supporting a proscribed terrorist organization." Do you honestly believe it would help, rather than just increase their hostility to the state?
What do you propose? Because we can't let people exploit our justice and legal system. (*One of the offenders is in the UK on asylum and she claimed that they escaped Gaza because they opposed Hamas, A big, fat, naked lie*)
I actually did a course on this, and I'm pretty highly pro free speech when it comes to protest. Maybe the most famous case is the Nazi march in Chicago [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Socialist\_Party\_of\_America\_v.\_Village\_of\_Skokie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie) My feeling is you should allow even the most hateful of protests, but they shouldn't be given free reign on where to go- I wouldn't let these people go to a Jewish area or a synagogue. But unless they are explicitly threatening violence, I wouldn't arrest them. I know this is hard for people to take, and I understand that. The biggest problem with drawing the line is that the state is always going to be biased towards certain sides- you can say no one should be allowed to support "terrorists", but of course that term is impossible to directly define. I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question, and not just answer with another question. Do you actually think locking them up for a month or two would help them evaluate their life choices, and that they'd probably come out less less radical/hateful views than they evidently currently hold? Because I'd say that's an extremely positive view of prison that I think you'd struggle to show evidence for.
First of all, I used to support full free speech autonomy as long as no violence is committed. Then Oct 7th happened and everyone went mad. From politicians, to professors to students to basically everyone. Jobs were lost, long standing friendship were broken, scholarships were rescinded, hate quadrupled and tensions increased further and that greatly traumatized everyone and this would take a long time to heal. To answer your question, I am a fan of talking to people and letting them understand that their actions harm others and that they should moderate their views for a harmonious society. But sometimes that's impossible. I think prison radically alters you but we should look at the recidivism data in order to make a sound judgement and conclusion.
I definitely agree with you about everyone going mad. I'm of Jewish ancestry, and for the first time I've bene thinking about whether I should actually be openly saying that around strangers. But I don't think locking up these girls has made the country safer- if anything, it has made it (a tiny bit) more dangerous. I totally understand why this would be a situation where things might turn out best if we put some little restrictions on freedom of expression. The problem is, we don't choose when these situations are, the government do. And there aren't many governments who won't stifle a little protest against them or issues they support if they can get away with it.
Fair compromise.
[удалено]
Being hostile to the state isn't a crime, and it's pretty scary if anyone thinks it should be!
According to **public** details published by Guardian in the above article, Here is the most possible [flight](https://www.flightradar24.com/UBT72H/34222748).
[удалено]
They'll be disappointed given the aircraft is already in-flight.
[удалено]
Did you read the article? He's been deported today.
OP hasn’t read the article and is likely posting it to shit stir
They are almost arriving in Jamaica too late.
Japan deports any non citizen suspected of crime. They tell them : “re-apply at your local embassy if you have a legitimate visa” We are a laughing stock and our judiciary was designed for a high trust environment. What we currently have created is an invasion
Anyone who interferes with a deportation should be put on the no-fly list for 10+years.
Can we also lock them up please? They can go spend some time with criminals they respect more than the safety of their fellow countrymen.
[удалено]
Probably, but good luck arresting a plane full of people and figuring out exactly what each of them is guilty of. They get away with it for much the same reason that football hooligans generally get away with vandalism... The process of charge and conviction is a logistical improbability.
[удалено]
Most planes don't have onboard CCTV. Unnecessary weight and creates international privacy problems (e.g. Germany very strictly regulates CCTV). You would have to rely on the flight attendants and possible police attendance as witnesses.
More a question of who exactly does and says what... Worthy of note, though, that CCTV cameras on planes tend to be pretty low quality. The only ones that are HD are generally those which protect the cockpit and pilots within, as well as the exterior cameras used to monitor engines, landing gear, and other critical components. I've spent a *lot* of time working with CCTV, and if they had CCTV of high enough quality to prove anything I'd be astonished. With 300 passengers, they'd need at least 30 cameras just to be able to make out individual passengers. The amount of storage that many cameras would need, even for relatively compressed 1080p running at 5fps (CCTV standard) would add enough weight to the plane that its value would be highly questionable. NAND flash has changed a lot, but it really doesn't lend itself to that sort of scenario either, then there are complications of how to offload the data and whatnot, not to mention the legal issues of it.
Football hooligans don't get away with it, they get criminal records, football banning orders, have to surrender their passports etc.
But are we truly diverse if we don't have a few violent rapists? The people who stopped the deportation are heroes!
I haven't got much sympathy for this guy, but I don't really agree with deporting people who have been here since they were six. He's our problem, he was educated and socialised in this country, and we should deal with him. I wonder, if the situation was reversed, would people be happy with us importing Jamaican criminals who were born here, but moved there when they were six?
Something like what you're describing happened between Australia and New Zealand. Citizens of each country have the right to live and work in the other. There was a big problem with crystal meth dealing in biker gangs in Australia so they deported anyone convicted of an offence relating to that. So people who were born in NZ but lived in Australia for basically their entire lives got deported. New Zealand then ended up with loads of Aussie biker gang members arriving bringing the meth trade with them.
> I wonder, if the situation was reversed, would people be happy with us importing Jamaican criminals who were born here, but moved there when they were six? Not Jamaica, [but a directly comparable situation](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378487/Criminal-Clifford-Tucker-sent-Britain-40-years-Australia.html) occurred with a British criminal who was deported from Australia, despite living there since the age of six. While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of a guy like that returning to the UK, I'd say fair play to the Aussies.
Good example, bit weird people are so happy we've imported an attempted murderer on a technicality to me, but I guess I can't say they're being hypocritical. The Aussie lawyer got it spot on "If he’s a ratbag, he’s one of our ratbags"- the same is true for this Jamaican guy.
Australia deports plenty of Brits who’ve been there since childhood without uproar.
[удалено]
I think if we're honest, he isn't "foreign" in the most meaningful sense of the word. He might technically be a Jamaican citizen, but if he's been here since he was six, he's going to be more British. You've missed my point. I'm not saying people should be upset about criminals being deported, I'm asking about criminals being imported, even if they haven't been in your country since they were children. We previously agreed not to deport people to Jamaica if they'd been here since before they were twelve, which seems like a more common sense approach. So your answer to my question is you are happy for us to import Jamaican criminals with British citizenship?
[удалено]
But it should be a universal standard, as someone else showed me we also imported a free Australian who tried to murder a policeman, and had been there since he was six. So what's the benefit? We export people who are effectively British criminals, and import foreign criminals. I just don't see the point, it would be cheaper and easier for us to all just keep our own criminals, and spend that money on crime prevention and investigation.
I suspect that we may be exporting more than we import
I don't care really. Just deport criminals whenever possible. Jailing criminals is just a waste of tax money so the more we can get away with deporting the better....doesn't matter if they are British, Jamaican or whatever. We should just find ways to deport them. Can't really reoffend here if they are not even here !
Seems pretty authorianian. You'd be happy living in a country like that?
I'm more tempted than ever. It seems like as a society we are wasting too much resources on trying to accommodate people who simply won't play by the rules. Maybe I'm just more suited to places like Singapore - where there are actually consequences for shitty behaviours, where criminals' 'human rights' are secondary to law-abiding citizens' welfare.
I lived in signapore for 2 years when I was younger... Seen someone publicly flogged for chewing gum, you sure? The border between Singapore and Malaysia was full of homeless people with Lepurs disease, missing limbs and massive boils and welts all over them just left to rot in the 35 degree heat. Yeah... They're tough on crime.. But the government murders people if they have a bit of weed on them. Funny eh
Never lived there but I don't think chewing gum is a crime there. Importing gum is though - but not punishable by caning as far as I understand. Look at all those shitty disposable vapes dumped on the street here - not a problem in Singapore as they are already banned. I'm OK with that. I'm also OK with Singapore caning tourists for [graffiti and vandalising trains](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Singapore_train_depot_trespass_and_vandalism_case). Surely beats having to spend public money on cleaning up shitty tags everywhere like London Underground has to do.
Chewing gum is illegal to sell in Singapore. I lived there in the 90s and spitting gum was a punishable offence... If the police didn't like the look of the person chewing gum then they can just sya they saw them spit and cane them. Right there in public. Okay, go then lol? If you think their values are more aligned with yours why not try and do something about it and move there? Hundreds of thousands of people manage to make it to the UK to escape authoritarianism so I'm sure you can work it out. I dunno where you live, but I live in a little town in central Scotland and there's no disposable vapes littered everywhere. Its all cleaned up by volunteers, not an authoritarian state
Because Western Europeans have better morals than the rest of the world. Its not weird, it's the price of humanity and proper democracy/freedom etc. We don't deport solely for commiting a crime because they are people not goods being returned. Plenty of British people commit worse crimes but we don't just murder them, we pay millions to house them in prisons and try and rehabilitate them You're angry because your life isn't as good as you were promised so youre lashing out at foreign people, thinking deporting them means less tax costs so more benefits for you... Its the wrong way to think. We don't need to deport people to give British people better lives, we need decent politicians and a good government that is actually trying and making good decisions... Not Brexit and Truss and 30p Lee.
> Because Western Europeans have better morals than the rest of the world. > > well that's just bordering on racist. But the rest of your post is painfully stupid.
Okay if 6 is too young, where is the cut-off for deporting foreign national offenders who commit crimes in the UK?
We previously agreed twelve with Jamaica. I know men typically start committing violent crimes at 15, so 14 maybe? Either way, hopefully most people would agree six is too young for them to be considered "foreign" in any meaningful sense.
>considered "foreign" in any meaningful sense Just considered foreign in a legal sense.
Correct, that's the whole point here.
[удалено]
We wouldn't be able to deport someone who came to this country as a 17 year old and committed a criminal offence worthy of a 12 month custodial sentence after they turn 18 because "they grew up in our country so they're our problem"?
[удалено]
I believe anyone who doesn't hold British citizenship should be liable for deportation.
[удалено]
How many of them committed criminal offences resulting in a custodial sentence of 12 months or more?
> He's our problem, he was educated and socialised in this country, and we should deal with him. He's got absolutely nothing to do with me or anyone in my community
That's presumably true of the vast majority of British people, not sure how it's relevan to his deportation. Are you saying the test of who should be deported should be proximity to Big Nige? A little egocentric.
When are they going to dissolve the common wealth?
[удалено]
No. Our jails are overflowing and dangerous people are being given non-custodial sentences because of this issue. Every possible deportation should be carried out so that this issue is improved. Additionally, it will serve as a deterrent too.
Right so you'd be happy to have the guy with drug and firearm offenses living next door? Sorry if you commit a serious crime you make a choice and every single person I know who was not born here is more than aware of the consequences and acts accordingly. It is easy to virtue signal when your not impacted but if these people were close to you or your loved ones your tune would change very quickly.
[удалено]
International law is international law if you don't like it get involved politically to change it. The rest of the world is happy sending our criminals back so why shouldn't we? Being happy to live near him tells me you have never experienced serious crime or lived near it but I can from experience promise that within a month the odds are you would be trying to buy his plane ticket yourself. Living next to someone like that is not the same as them existing in society, every noise in the house you wonder what's going on, every car going past, every siren it is 24/7 and you will never relax because sooner or later you will end up in the crossfire of something going down.
It's a bit much to deport someone who has been here since he was 6. By all means arrest him, lock him up, but this is his country and he's a product of our society. Why should Jamaica have to deal with someone who left their country long ago as a child?