Or rather, who should get them? if you read the news today you would see that the killer of the head teacher, Philip Lawrence, who was murdered at his school gates in 1995, has escaped deportation because "it would breach his human rights".

story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956279.stm

it really makes me wonder what the human rights act was set up for, as it doesnt seem to be protecting the decent people does it?

my personal view is that if you take somebody else's life and you are found guilty of that crime, and sentenced to life imprisonment, as in this case, you should only have access to basic rights. It just makes me feel that the government WANT us to feel like we have no rights....

meanwhile we are stuck with this nutter who shouldnt really be here. you have to feel for Mr Lawrences widow...

Have to agree with you on this one, makes me so angry when people like that seem to get more rights than the victim or their families ..............

As far as i am concerned if you take someone's life, then the word's 'life imprisoment' should mean exactly that, not the few years they get nowadays ..............

I have to stop now or i will get even more angry .............. xx

The issue is not about his sentence, but about whether or not he should be deported to "his country of origin" when it is somewhere he's not lived since he was a child, and he doesn't even speak the language.

Considering the above details, I have to say that I am not convinced that deporting him is the right thing to do.

His sentence is another issue altogether, along with the fact that he was 15 when he committed the crime he did. I'd have to know the details of the incident better to comment on that.

Long before i was 15 i knew it was wrong to stab somebody to death, so i wouldnt be bothered about the fact that he was 15, he stabbed a man to death who was trying to help somebody else, which means he was stopping somebody else from being aided as well as stabbing this man to death. He doesnt have a british passport and under immigration law because he had a sentance to prison for more than 2 years he is supposed to be deported. thats the law. but he is using the human rights act to try stop that. to me thats wrong, thats not what the human rights act should be supporting.
quoting immigration law

Im with you Scottie, he took away the human rights of the man he killed so why should he have any?? Deport him back to his own country
_________________

Deportation would be pointless. He would be returned to Italy which is an EU member state, so as an EU citizen he could live there for a few months then just turn up back on out doorstep and there wouldn't be much we can do about it.

Even if he were to have his return to the UK challenged you'd probably find that it would breach the EU's rules on free movement of member states citizens, which would mean Britain would get a telling off and the guy would probably be allowed back in.

Though in all honesty, whilst I'm of the opinion that he should still be locked up, a murder is a murder no matter whether you're 15 or 50, his deportation would be pointless even if there weren't issues surrounding it. The guy was 15 when he committed the crime, despite Prison being somewhat of a cakewalk, he's probably still had quite a nasty experience in there, which at an impressionable age, may have made him ' see the error of his ways'.

Perhaps I'm just being a liberal hippie, but if we have to let the guy out we should at least give him a second chance and let him make up for his past misdemeanors in some way.

Why get rid of someone when they could quite easily be a productive member of society. Obviously keep him under a tight security and being watched a lot, but if we have to have him we may as well make some use out of him.

i was under the impression that somebody could not settle here if they had a severe conviction such as murder. i know when i was working at the asylum casework offices at the home office, one of the reasons alot of people were turned down for ILR (indefinite leave to remain) was because of a criminal conviction. i couldnt see that being different for somebody else just because they were a member of the EU but i may be wrong on that issue.

the point is that he is able to use the human rights bill to try and choose where he lives, in my view, he should not have the access to human rights such as that. maybe you are a liberal hippie, maybe i am just harsh, i just dont think he has that right since he took the life of a man in a particularly vicious way and shows no remorse. i dont think we should be dishing out rights so irresponsibly to murderers, its just like rewarding their behavior in my opinion, we should stop pandering to murderers and rapists 'rights' and get on with protecting the rights of the innocent.

The issue here is not if a dangerous foreign national should be deported, it is if an individual who has been assessed as "unlikely to re-offend if released by the Parole Board on life licence" and lived in this country since the age of six should be deported to a country away from his family and with a culture that he has next to no experience with.

If people would not consider deporting a british citizen away from his family then why is the deportation of this individual being considered?

Sources used:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956279.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2300188.ece
_________________
Maybe if this sig is witty enough someone will finally love me...

(Oh what do you expect? I mean really)

because the law is that a person without a british passport who is convicted of a crime that carries a custodial sentence over 2 years should be deported back to their country of origin. why give him the right to choose where he lives if he took away another persons right to life? the law should be interpretated fully in his case and remove him. why treat him any different from any other case just because he cites the human rights act? he didnt have any respect for human rights when he stabbed an innocent man to death did he?

The letter of the law in this case is quite frankly ridiculous, this individual has been in this country for the majority of his life, the only reason that his deportation can even be considered is due to the fact that he lacks a British passport, but did this stop him from being imprisoned and rehabilitated in the British legal system? Did this stop him from being schooled in the UK? Did this stop him from being considered, for all intents and purposes, a naturalized British citizen? No, it did not.

Why is it that just because this individual lacks a certain legal document he is being considered for deportation when any convicted murderer with a British passport is allowed to return to their families and the life they left behind?
_________________
Maybe if this sig is witty enough someone will finally love me...

(Oh what do you expect? I mean really)

We brought our kids up with the idea that "Rights come with responsibility, and responsibility comes with rights".
The mind boggles when reading in the paper that some drug addict who is in prison for stabbing someone to rob them of their money he sued the prison for not giving him heroin while in prison as it went against his Human Rights? Can't recall the full story but that was the gist of it.
I too get riled when i hear criminals crow about their human rights - dismissing the 'human rights' of their victims.
We live in a sick society where we all gotta be PC for fear of someone suing us or being labelled racist or whatever and i agree it does seem as if the focus does these days seem to be focussed on the human rights of the criminals and not their victims.
I have no idea what to say re the deportation story, its a minefield of complicatedness.