On Thursday it hit 41c in central France, where I was sitting in a traffic jam on my bike wearing full racing leathers.with an engine temperature of 106c. It felt like the sort of thing the CIA are alleged to get up to in Guantamo Bay,
You clearly haven't read the article Gingerjon linked to or you'd see the case you're banging on about has nothing to do with the HRA and everything to do with a really bad job by the prosecutors. He was charged with not having insurance and leaving the scene of an accident ffs, not killing someone. Consequently he could not be deported as he only had a relatively minor traffic conviction. If he'd been charged with death by dangerous driving then he would have been out of here years ago and rightly so. As it is we do not have a system that allows families to be broken up because of a driving conviction. That's where your outrage should be directed, getting people charged with the offences they've committed and maybe at the politicians that are stirring up outrage by misleading us all by blaming their own failings and those of their appointees on something other than their own slap dash work.
You clearly get more upset about me not reporting everything in a courtroom style than the actual effects of his actions.
What you are not understanding is that people get upset about, is things like *why* he wasn't charged with dangerous driving in the first place? Technicalities perhaps? Maybe it's the thicko publics fault for not knowing every legal loophole.
Why was he here for 7 years anyway? What on earth takes 7 years to sort out?
And if we are arguing that innocent children can affect sentencing, then again, why is anyone in prison? Most of those will have children/dependants....is he special and nobody else's children are affected?
Before this thread descended into a "who can be the most outraged" contest it was supposed to be about the Human Rights Act.
8 people have voted in the poll to scrap it. The case you referred to was used by you and others as an example of why the act should be either overhauled or replaced. A cursory examination of the facts of the case, rather than a hysterical tabloid account, revealed that it has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act and everything to do with a shoddy piece of work by the prosecutors. To then use that as a justification to scrap or amend the HRA seems to me to be bizarre.
I'm just surprised how it got to the stage it did, I mean it's not as if where they come from has a history of entrenched bigotry with many instances of offence being caused and taken willfully by the most pointless and / or needlessly provocative acts