Thai killer who stabbed a friend to death is allowed to stay in Britain...

[MB1]

Wow. The double standards in the uk(my country of origin which is now a shadow of what it once was) quick enough to allow a british subject be extradited to face murder charges of am american in thailand but this is deemed " stressful" ? Oh the scales of justice hanging over the old bailey reminder of a bygone era.

The difference is is that the Thai faced murder charges in the UK where the offence was commited, did the British subject you mention commit the offence in Thailand, me thinks yes, the Thais make an application for extradition for the Brit to face murder charges in Thailand where the offence was commited, big difference IMO if you get my drift...

Oh and by the way, if your talking about Lee Aldhouse, commit the crime face the consequences....Nuff said hey....Have a read below...

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/murder-suspect-lee-aldhouse-thai-3182655

Edited August 15, 2013 by MB1

[sustento]

Wow. The double standards in the uk(my country of origin which is now a shadow of what it once was) quick enough to allow a british subject be extradited to face murder charges of am american in thailand but this is deemed " stressful" ? Oh the scales of justice hanging over the old bailey reminder of a bygone era.

The difference is is that the Thai faced murder charges in the UK where the offence was commited, did the British subject you mention commit the offence in Thailand, me thinks yes, the Thais make an application for extradition for the Brit to face murder charges in Thailand where the offence was commited, big difference IMO if you get my drift...

Don't worry. Some people are confused by facts.

[Escapologist]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

[Escapologist]

Most Brits are chomping at the bit for a chance to live in Thailand, so in some respects this ruling is just furthering his punishment by keeping him in the UK. I mean seriously, who would want to stay there if they had a choice?

"Most Brits"? The sex-tourist community hardly constitutes "most Brits". Get a grip!

[sustento]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

This decision was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It had nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights or a 'politicised cabal of foreign judges'.

[pattayadingo]

I do not like the fact they have kept his name secret especially due to his criminal past.

He is not British + he is a criminal + he is a murderer.

Yes he should be deported and so should so many other criminals who use abuse the Human rights Act who are also not British.

The U.K. is too soft a touch these days.... sadly.

[MB1]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

When you wrote natives, did you spell it wrong and it should have been Indigenous, surely you don't blame Cameron for the decision, it's obvious you have a dislike for Cameron but try and not turn the thread/topic into a Cameron topic....

[kingalfred]

The fact is he is a criminal murderer and thai and some nonsense about "stress" is used to negate justice , RIP UK justice.

Edited August 15, 2013 by kingalfred

[Sing_Sling]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

This decision was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It had nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights or a 'politicised cabal of foreign judges'.

Ah, but nothing like a good anti-European rant and talking about 'cabals' . . . The Sun says so

[Arkady]

It seems strange that he never got around to applying for British citizenship. Thailand would definitely deport a foreigner in these circumstances and they wouldn't have locked him up in a loony bin for only 10 years. He would have been put in the general prison population and for a lot longer than that.

[Escapologist]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

This decision was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It had nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights or a 'politicised cabal of foreign judges'.

From the article: "An immigration tribunal ruled that returning the man who moved to the UK from Thaliand at the age of 13 would breach his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

I think you'll find that it did. It pays to read.

[Escapologist]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

When you wrote natives, did you spell it wrong and it should have been Indigenous, surely you don't blame Cameron for the decision, it's obvious you have a dislike for Cameron but try and not turn the thread/topic into a Cameron topic....

"Natives" was fine. No mis-spelling. Cameron campaigned on a Eurosceptic ticket and now he's openly pro-EU. No referendum, no "great repeal bill". Nothing. This is fundamentally an EU issue. That's the context of the Daily Mail article and that's how most of its readers see it.

[7by7]

This is not "fundamentally an EU issue."

The UK was one of the original signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights; long before the EU's predecessor, the EEC, was formed let alone before the UK joined it.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Get your facts right.

The case was decided by a UK immigration tribunal. Not a " politicised cabal of foreign judges." Get your facts right.

Edited August 16, 2013 by 7by7

[sustento]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

This decision was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It had nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights or a 'politicised cabal of foreign judges'.

From the article: "An immigration tribunal ruled that returning the man who moved to the UK from Thaliand at the age of 13 would breach his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

I think you'll find that it did. It pays to read.

It also pays to know the difference between the the European Court of Human Rights (your 'politicised cabal of foreign judges') and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The decision that this thread is about was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It was not made by the European Court of Human Rights. No 'politicised cabal of foreign judges' were involved.

The European Convention on Human Rights on which the judgement was based is actually based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It (the ECHR) was inspired by Winston Churchill and drafted by British MP David Maxwell-Fyffe.

[b19bry]

Wow. The double standards in the uk(my country of origin which is now a shadow of what it once was) quick enough to allow a british subject be extradited to face murder charges of am american in thailand but this is deemed " stressful" ? Oh the scales of justice hanging over the old bailey reminder of a bygone era.

I agree with post #2, but seriously are you saying Lee Aldhouse should not have been extradited (on a murder charge) back to Thailand after doing a runner merely because he's a Brit?

[Escapologist]

The killer happens to be Thai but the issue for the Daily Mail, and for a large part of the native population, is the overriding of national sovereignty by the ECHR. That's the context in which Brits will view this case - the latest in a long line of humiliating cases. The British government has proven itself utterly impotent against the ECHR's politicised cabal of foreign judges. Even Qatada went of his own accord - despite Theresa May's risible crowing in victory. Yet, despite pre-election promises, socialist Cameron is intent on keeping the status quo. The man is a fraud without a conservative bone in his body and I hope he is annihilated in 2015.

This decision was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It had nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights or a 'politicised cabal of foreign judges'.

From the article: "An immigration tribunal ruled that returning the man who moved to the UK from Thaliand at the age of 13 would breach his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

I think you'll find that it did. It pays to read.

It also pays to know the difference between the the European Court of Human Rights (your 'politicised cabal of foreign judges') and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The decision that this thread is about was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It was not made by the European Court of Human Rights. No 'politicised cabal of foreign judges' were involved.

The European Convention on Human Rights on which the judgement was based is actually based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It (the ECHR) was inspired by Winston Churchill and drafted by British MP David Maxwell-Fyffe.

Sorry but it the convention is deeply intertwined with the court. It created the court and appeals always end up there and are usually successful there. It has happened like that time and time again and that is the context of the Daily Mail's article. Sorry but it really is a group of unelected foreign judges who have the final say over these cases. To suggest otherwise is to have been sleeping for the past decade. Anti-EU sentiment, partly because being in the EU effectively means putting up with the ECHR, is at an all time high in the UK right now. Because Brits are fed up with the impotence of their puppet MP's at Westminster. Qatada was a classic example. Two million pounds in legal costs and, in the end, he went of his own accord. Not acceptable to a lot of us who have a thing about national sovereignty.

[sustento]

Sorry but it the convention is deeply intertwined with the court. It created the court and appeals always end up there and are usually successful there. It has happened like that time and time again and that is the context of the Daily Mail's article. Sorry but it really is a group of unelected foreign judges who have the final say over these cases. To suggest otherwise is to have been sleeping for the past decade. Anti-EU sentiment, partly because being in the EU effectively means putting up with the ECHR, is at an all time high in the UK right now. Because Brits are fed up with the impotence of their puppet MP's at Westminster. Qatada was a classic example. Two million pounds in legal costs and, in the end, he went of his own accord. Not acceptable to a lot of us who have a thing about national sovereignty.

There you go:

"The decision that this thread is about was made by a British Immigration Tribunal. It was not made by the European Court of Human Rights. No 'politicised cabal of foreign judges' were involved. "

[7by7]

Escapologist, what is it you don't understand about the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union?

This case was decided by a United Kingdom immigration tribunal.Set up by the UK Parliament, not the Council of Europe; the parent body of the ECHR.

Foreign judges do not sit on UK immigration tribunals; British judges do.

Yes, the decision on this case was based, in part at least, upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR was drafted in 1950 and came into force in September 1953; four years before the Treaty of Rome which brought the EEC, which is now the EU, into being. The UK was one of it's original signatories. There are currently 47 signatories, including the 28 members of the EU.

History lesson over; so will you get your facts right in future or simply continue to ignore those which disprove your prejudices?

As for this case; you and Daily Mail readers obviously think it right to send a 48 year old mentally ill man who has lived in the UK since he was 13 to what is effectively a strange, foreign country; but the judges at the tribunal don't.

I agree with them.

The same as I agreed with the decision not to strip Sakchai Makao of his ILR and deport him to Thailand.

Never heard of him? Look him up.

Edited August 16, 2013 by 7by7

[thaicbr]

Escapologist, what is it you don't understand about the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union?

 

This case was decided by a United Kingdom immigration tribunal.Set up by the UK Parliament, not the Council of Europe; the parent body of the ECHR.

 

Foreign judges do not sit on UK immigration tribunals; British judges do.

 

Yes, the decision on this case was based, in part at least, upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

The ECHR was drafted in 1950 and came into force in September 1953; four years before the Treaty of Rome which brought the EEC, which is now the EU, into being. The UK was one of it's original signatories. There are currently 47 signatories, including the 28 members of the EU.

 

History lesson over; so will you get your facts right in future or simply continue to ignore those which disprove your prejudices?

 

As for this case; you and Daily Mail readers obviously think it right to send a 48 year old mentally ill man who has lived in the UK since he was 13 to what is effectively a strange, foreign country; but the judges at the tribunal don't.

 

I agree with them.

 

The same as I agreed with the decision not to strip  Sakchai Makao of his ILR and deport him to Thailand.

 

Never heard of him? Look him up.

He is not a UK citizen. So yes he should be deported.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[marstons]

Most Brits are chomping at the bit for a chance to live in Thailand, so in some respects this ruling is just furthering his punishment by keeping him in the UK. I mean seriously, who would want to stay there if they had a choice?

Most Brits choose to retire in other places rather than Thailand, Thailand is the preferred choice of older single men for obvious reasons, and still millions around the world chomping at the bit to get into the UK by choice.

[A1Str8]

If I was a relative or friend of the guy that got stabbed, I would overrule the judge's decision quite quickly. Apparently he could not stay on the planet.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[kingalfred]

Escapologist, what is it you don't understand about the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union?

This case was decided by a United Kingdom immigration tribunal.Set up by the UK Parliament, not the Council of Europe; the parent body of the ECHR.

Foreign judges do not sit on UK immigration tribunals; British judges do.

Yes, the decision on this case was based, in part at least, upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR was drafted in 1950 and came into force in September 1953; four years before the Treaty of Rome which brought the EEC, which is now the EU, into being. The UK was one of it's original signatories. There are currently 47 signatories, including the 28 members of the EU.

History lesson over; so will you get your facts right in future or simply continue to ignore those which disprove your prejudices?

As for this case; you and Daily Mail readers obviously think it right to send a 48 year old mentally ill man who has lived in the UK since he was 13 to what is effectively a strange, foreign country; but the judges at the tribunal don't.

I agree with them.

The same as I agreed with the decision not to strip Sakchai Makao of his ILR and deport him to Thailand.

Never heard of him? Look him up.

The ECHR can block any decision by a uk court in respect of deporting a foreign national from a signoratory country (UK) if it wants as it has done. . That is fact and I dont have to be a Daily mail reader to know how UK courts are being over ruled byEuropean ones . The fact that many UK mps want to change but their party. Leaders dont. Edited August 18, 2013 by kingalfred

[Sing_Sling]

Escapologist, what is it you don't understand about the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union?

This case was decided by a United Kingdom immigration tribunal.Set up by the UK Parliament, not the Council of Europe; the parent body of the ECHR.

Foreign judges do not sit on UK immigration tribunals; British judges do.

Yes, the decision on this case was based, in part at least, upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR was drafted in 1950 and came into force in September 1953; four years before the Treaty of Rome which brought the EEC, which is now the EU, into being. The UK was one of it's original signatories. There are currently 47 signatories, including the 28 members of the EU.

History lesson over; so will you get your facts right in future or simply continue to ignore those which disprove your prejudices?

As for this case; you and Daily Mail readers obviously think it right to send a 48 year old mentally ill man who has lived in the UK since he was 13 to what is effectively a strange, foreign country; but the judges at the tribunal don't.

I agree with them.

The same as I agreed with the decision not to strip Sakchai Makao of his ILR and deport him to Thailand.

Never heard of him? Look him up.

The ECHR can block any decision by a uk court in respect of deporting a foreign national from a signoratory country (UK) if it wants as it has done. . That is fact and I dont have to be a Daily mail reader to know how UK courts are being over ruled byEuropean ones . The fact that many UK mps want to change but their party. Leaders dont.

The problem is that people like you see the Machiavellian work of the dastardly EU behind everything.

The EU had no influence in this decision - why even bring them into the debate but to further your own agenda - which is completely irrelevant here.

[thaicbr]

 

Escapologist, what is it you don't understand about the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union?

This case was decided by a United Kingdom immigration tribunal.Set up by the UK Parliament, not the Council of Europe; the parent body of the ECHR.

Foreign judges do not sit on UK immigration tribunals; British judges do.

Yes, the decision on this case was based, in part at least, upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR was drafted in 1950 and came into force in September 1953; four years before the Treaty of Rome which brought the EEC, which is now the EU, into being. The UK was one of it's original signatories. There are currently 47 signatories, including the 28 members of the EU.

History lesson over; so will you get your facts right in future or simply continue to ignore those which disprove your prejudices?

As for this case; you and Daily Mail readers obviously think it right to send a 48 year old mentally ill man who has lived in the UK since he was 13 to what is effectively a strange, foreign country; but the judges at the tribunal don't.

I agree with them.

The same as I agreed with the decision not to strip Sakchai Makao of his ILR and deport him to Thailand.

Never heard of him? Look him up.

The ECHR can block any decision by a uk court in respect of deporting a foreign national from a signoratory country (UK) if it wants as it has done. . That is fact and I dont have to be a Daily mail reader to know how UK courts are being over ruled byEuropean ones . The fact that many UK mps want to change but their party. Leaders dont.

 

 

The problem is that people like you see the Machiavellian work of the dastardly EU behind everything.

 

The EU had no influence in this decision  -  why even bring them into the debate but to further your own agenda - which is completely irrelevant here.

No the problem is that wishy washy liberals have allowed a convicted killer who is not British to stay in Britain. When in fact he should have been deported to Thailand.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[7by7]

None of us, the Mail included, know the full circumstances of this man and the full reasons for the judgement.

We do know that he has lived in the UK for 36 years; from the judgement it seems that all his family live in the UK and he has none in Thailand.

We know that he was convicted of manslaughter, not murder; there must have been a reason for that.

We know that he was sent to a secure mental institution, not prison; there must have been a reason for that.

The tribunal will have heard all the evidence before reaching it's decision. The Home Office must have agreed with the tribunal's verdict as they have decided not to take the case any further; which they could have done had they wished.

I think it is right that those non British citizens living in the UK who commit a serious offence should have their status in the UK looked at; but I also think it right that each case be treated on it's own merits. Hysterical "they're criminals; kick them out!" reactions have no place in a modern democracy. I guess that makes me, in thaicbr's eyes at least, a wishy washy liberal.

Whilst it is cases like this which get all the publicity, the Mail, and those who agree with it, forget that the UK Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human rights both protect the rights of ordinary members of the public.

For example, posts in the visas and migration to other countries forum show that many members here are hoping that appeals using Article 8 will eventually overturn the ridiculous and draconian financial requirements imposed in July 2012 by the government on those who marry foreigners and want to live in the UK with them.

Maybe those who object to those rights would be happier living in North Korea and so have no rights at all?

The Mail has no real interest in this case; they have an anti EU agenda and have used this case to advance that agenda. Even though they undoubtedly know that the ECHR and the EU are not the same entity, they hope that their readers don't.