Rimmer Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Pattaya Immigration issue order to revoke visa of British National PATTAYA: -- A British National is expected to be deported from Thailand after Pattaya Immigration issued a notice of visa revocation against him. A press conference was held at the Immigration Office in Jomtien on Tuesday Afternoon to announce the detention of Mr. Roderick William Robinson aged 73 from England who was caught in a joint operation with The Special Organized Crime Agency from UK at the V&M Terrace in Soi Beokeow. The Police detailed 4 separate cases involving Mr. Robinson dating back to 1999 with a case as recent as March 2010 in Australia. In each case the suspect is accused of crimes against minors. For this reason, the Immigration Department made the decision to issue an order to revoke his visa and ordered an immediate deportation to UK, Full story and pictures HERE -- Pattaya One 2011-02-15 [newsfooter][/newsfooter] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 4 times is enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkbill Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Four times is four to many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Four times is four to many. maybe you get 4 chances in 12 years....................................or maybe half a chance every year and a half :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotinsiam Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Four times is four to many. Good news - one more gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldmonky Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Four times is four to many. Good news - one more gone But there must be 1 hell of alot more of the (&%&)/§""ARDS . Well I suppose one is better than none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkbrad Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Good ridance. And if there is strong enough evidence against this creep, under UK law he can be prosecuted even if the offences were not committed on UK soil. Edited February 15, 2011 by bkkbrad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 ^ Oh indeed, he will be met at the door, maybe even escorted from his seat before any other passengers can move. The eBorders procedures for these types is pretty thorough. If you have skipped a court date, they pick you up at passport control, if you messed up your probation hearing, you are met at the door of the aircraft. If you fiddle with kids, they come right inside and get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w11guy Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This guy hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderpuff Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Hopefully he gets his day in court soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario2008 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 1 call for violence removed. It is an emotional subject, but keep it civil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchestermcfcmod Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Four times is four to many. Good news - one more gone , bad news- we dont want him back in the uk :angry:we not take him out to sea and feed him to the sharks ? will be good sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldgit Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Don't get me wrong I have no sympathy with anybody involved in the abuse of kids, but this guy is innocent until proven guilty especially given this quote from the article " the Immigration Department made the decision to issue an order to revoke his visa and ordered an immediate deportation to UK, even though Mr. Robinson is currently not wanted in connection to any of the cases." Why oh why do these goons insist on these stupid photo shoots don't they realise how ridiculous they look? if Robinson ever went on trial any lawyer worth his salt would use these photos to claim he couldn't get a fair trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This guy hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. Not just that.... the actual article reads: ..."even though Mr. Robinson is currently not wanted in connection to any of the cases." So he's being deported even though there are no local or foreign warrants for his arrest, or even apparently any convictions in those cases... That kind of approach to deportations would seem to be more than a bit troubling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) This guy hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. In my country and probably in every, guilt is presumed by the judicial system except (supposedly) by the jury during the trial. The system could not work otherwise. Edited February 16, 2011 by MaxYakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderpuff Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 He sure looks guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario2008 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 It is not necessary that he is wanted. Like any other country in the world he can be expelled based on being perceived a danger to the public. He was serviced notice, against which I think he can appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario2008 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This guy hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. In my country and probably in every, guilt is presumed by the judicial system except (supposedly) by the jury during the trial. The system could not work otherwise. One is always presumed innocent and for that reason guilt has to be proven, not innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) ^ The guy was "caught in a joint operation with The Special Organized Crime Agency from UK" so it is a pretty sound assumption that he will have a welcoming committee at the other end. Have you ever wondered when your plane is parked at the gate, you are standing in the aisle with your bags waiting to deplane and shortly after the doors are opened, there's the announcement for a passenger to identify themselves to the ground staff? Do you think those are ALL just a courtesy call for the passenger with a tight onward connection? Edited February 16, 2011 by NanLaew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELCata Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Innocent until proven guilty of course, but this is an international operation involving a specialist unit of the UK police & others. One alleged offence has taken place in Australia & I surmise the other three in Thailand & the UK. The investigation will have been ongoing for a lengthy period of time in order to secure the testimony of the alleged young victims & other vital evidence; this is undoubtedly not a case of 'tea money'. The police do make mistakes, whether due to incompetence or overzealousness, but I assume (hope) that they have indisputable evidence in this case. :jap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 It's hard to know for sure from the details presented in the report... but based on what it says... It doesn't appear that there are any criminal cases pending against this individual in any country... no arrest warrants, no charges outstanding... So it's hard to see how he'll ever be found guilty of anything in these matters... He's simply being deported without having been found guilty or facing formal charges of anything....at least based on the info in the article.. So much for innocent until proven guilty... The implication is he's some kind of child molester...and no one supports that... But if he is, then why hasn't or isn't he being prosecuted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogal Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This guy hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. I agree, it is a little worrying. Although 4 times is looking like guilty BUT what happens if in future they change it to 3 times, 2 times and 1??? Point in case: Many years ago an entire creche (Like pre-school) were brought up on molestation charges. about 6 women and 2 men! This went right through the court system until all cases were thrown out but 1. A man was convicted with only testimony from children as proof. (The same testimony as they used against all the women). To cut a long story short years later the man was also released (pardoned) and this case is now looked upon as a huge travesty of justice. Right from the start it was ridiculous to even consider that that many people including 6 women were all pedophiles in the same school. The only evidence based on children's suggested story from ill-trained "psychologists". Along with a lot of unprofessional police work during the investigation, the lead detective was also having an affair with one of the childrens mothers. The whole thing was a sham from the beginning. We should be careful about how we judge "accused" people as apposed to "convicted" people. Even then, it has been proven before that even convicted persons may be innocent. On the other hand, how do previously convicted felons get into the country!? Once convicted you shouldn't be allowed to travel at all. They have given up their rights as a civil human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldgit Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Unfortunately it's not unknown for police in the UK to use, or rather misuse, immigration laws to give them time to build up a case against alleged perpetrators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anterian Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 As a senior teacher, it was sometimes my role to defend a teacher against sexual charges brought by a pupil. This is one of the few situations where the accused is guilty until proven innocent. In one particular case two 14 year old girls accused a teacher of keeping them in after school on detention and then fondling their breasts, his word against theirs. He was lucky, I was able to establish that one of these girls, the daughter of a policeman, had made similar previous complaints against a middle school teacher and a swimming instructor, in each case she had been acting on her father's guidance, as she was in this instance. I was able to convince the board of governors that this policeman's sordid view of humanity had distorted his attitudes to other men, particularly as it transpired his wife had left him for another man. An interesting end to this tale was that several years later I met this girl's older brother in a local pub. He confided in me that the whole thing was a put up job by the two girls to get the teacher dismissed as they hated him. They knew full well that this would have been the normal outcome of such an accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makkam Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This guy hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. In my country and probably in every, guilt is presumed by the judicial system except (supposedly) by the jury during the trial. The system could not work otherwise. A jury is part of the judicial system. The police charge people with offences on the basis of evidence ( real and circumstantial, witness statements etc ) and hand that over to prosecutors who decide whether it is sufficient for a court of law to find the person guilty of the offence and for a punishment ( custodial or otherwise ) to be meted out. Defenders and Judge are part of the judicial system, and in a civilised country these 2 distinct and seperate groups do not presume guilt, until all evidence and testimony is heard by the jury and then they deliberate and decide. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of democracy, and is the difference between the law of the jungle and decent society norms. In the less civilised countries where 'guilt is presumed by the judicial system ' they use such 'weapons' to try and legitimise the prevailing regime. You must be glad to be out of your country if that is how they operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makkam Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 He sure looks guilty. So did the guildford 4 and the birmingham 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Unfortunately it's not unknown for police in the UK to use, or rather misuse, immigration laws to give them time to build up a case against alleged perpetrators. There's always a civil libertarian around when you need one. Hypothetically, say this chap was a kiddie fiddler and he had been fiddling with your kid. Wouldn't you be a tad pissed off if he was just 'bailed' and allowed to flee to (say) Cambodia and keep on fiddling beyond the reach of law enforcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mca Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I bet there's a few TVF members whose <deleted> started puckering reading the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELCata Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This guy hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. I agree, it is a little worrying. Although 4 times is looking like guilty BUT what happens if in future they change it to 3 times, 2 times and 1??? Point in case: Many years ago an entire creche (Like pre-school) were brought up on molestation charges. about 6 women and 2 men! This went right through the court system until all cases were thrown out... I'm not one for the 'thin end of the wedge argument'. Are you referring to the McMartin case? http://www.religious...rg/ra_mcmar.htm A broader treatment of the subject, which should educate the reader on multiple aspects of critical thinking, can be found here: http://www.skepdic.com/satanrit.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mca Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 He sure looks guilty. As powderpuff gives another reason to support the case for having professional jurors as opposed to 12 good men and true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now