General Chat

Good :) Isn't it better that they are working?

greg try telling them they cannot work at the place I work I've seen them there that have only been in the country a few hours and not one can speak english and that was worse over xmas Paul

Well, I would respectfully disagree. Asylum seekers are here (generally) because they are persecuted or risk being persecuted in their own country. When they arrive, they get very little. If they are illegal immigrants, they get nothing at all!! Some ansylum seekers are not genuine, but are economic migrants. That means they came to make a better life. It is papers like the Daily Mail now that supported fascists and racists previously, campaigned against the jews during WW2, who have now chosen a new target ('asylum seekers'). The Daily Mail and company are not much better than 'Der Sturmer' was pre-WW2. Both hate filled, and published to stir up trouble. The Daily Mail have complained about immigrant previously (Jewish) and so it current actions are nothing new. If you want to talk about a 'free for all' how about the 800,000+ Brits on the dole here (not to mention the rest on other benefits). Many (of course not all) of whom have no interest in getting a job when they can get the dole for free. And sorry, but I don't believe that just because someone was born here, they have an automatic right to sponge off the system. I would gladly swap a 'genuine' dole bludger for someone coming here to work and make a better life, any day. No matter what their skin colour or religion. Lets look at the facts: * In the UK, we take fewer than most Western European countries. * The numbers coming in are also going down. * On top of accomodation, asylum applicants receive ~£38/week. Yes, £38/week. Do you honestly think thousands of people are going to risk their lives so they can live in poverty? * Until their claim is decided, they CANNOT work (although lets be realistic, if they could work, the Daily Hate would claim they are stealing our jobs. If they can't work, the Daily Hate claims they are all lazy scroungers). * A police report from 2001 shows that aslyum seekers are far more likely to be victims of crime rather than criminals.

greg i find that your comments are totally wrong.germany killed jews and they were racist.our country has turned into a free for all where people can take advantage of our system and good nature even when they are not in trouble.i feel that uis why people feel so strongly about the asylum issue.that is not being racist it is a factxxxx(:

the law has recently been changed,to include 'death by dangerous driving'...surely drink/driving is dangerous! bryan.

Well we probably drive on the other side of the road for most of them :) The point is though, that I would bet money that the fact that he is either here illegally, or an asylum seeker is completely irrelvent to the sentence. Yes the sentence sounds like a joke, but all the 'daily hate' etc do is make the situation worse because unfortunately, there are people out there who will read it and thing 'god damn asylum seekers' when in fact it is nothing at all to do with the fact he is one. This is the most tolerant country I have ever lived in despite the hatred drummed up by the press. It would be nice if it stayed that way. Unfortuately, until more people stop buying trash and start thinking objectively, we will continue down the path to Germany 1933.

Hi Greg Like 'Lisa from Sunny Southsea' I come from an even sunnier 'Eastney'. Every week in the local Evening News, they have a court round up. It may be coincidence or not, but the majority of the convicted don`t have local sounding names. Are they here on 'Daytrips'? Keith PS:- I`m talking motoring offences

Keith, I haven't read the article, but I thought he was an asylum seeker not an illegal immigrant. Either way, the fact that someone was killed does not become a more serious crime depending on the status of the person behind the wheel. The fact that he is an 'asylum seeker' is completely irrelevent to the story as far as I am aware and no one has been able to provide a valid exaplanation of how it is relevent.

Grandpa Jim Say what you mean, don`t beat around the bush! Are you after the resumption of the judge putting on the black cap? Keith

I don't care whether they are over the limit, drugged up to the eyeballs, holding a mobile phone, eating a cornish pasty, overtired or speeding. If the result of them driving is a death it should be treated as manslaughter. The only excuse for killing someone with a vehicle should be that the driver was taking ALL necessary precautions which includes their personal condition.

Greg The fact that he was an illegal immigrant automatically denies him access to motor insurance, road tax etc. The laws of the land were set out for the indigeous population, who are mainly law abiding. Our laws do not cater for such situations. Why don`t we direct our anger at the appropiate people? Keith

If you are proven over the limit with either a breath or blood test while driving a car you ARE GUILTY end of story Paul

I don't think anyone of us knows the exact details of the case, but we live in a country when people are innocent until proven guilty. Sure, it means that some people get off with ridiculous sentences or nothing at all, but what is the alternative? Having people have to prove they are not guilty? No thanks. I think the law is slightly unbalanced in favour of the defendant but to me the answer is to utilise technology (nation police force, national and compulsory finger print database, national and compulsory DNA database, more cameras, biometric scanners, facial recognition software (when it actually works),etc, etc. Yes, the law is often an ass, but it could be much, much worse. What would you rather have, a minority getting ridiculous sentences, or a Stalin like government where we are all waiting for the knock at the door because someone things we have done something and it is up to us to prove otherwise?

If I offend any one sorry....but the law is an ass, there is no justice. Bev

He should be sent back to his previous country immediately he gets out of gaol, no messing... Can I just point out that holding a mobile phone while driving is just as dangerous (and illegal), so why are men and women still doing it? I see at least one every day. Equally, I can never understand drivers with children loose in the car, unbelted, don't they love those kids? Dilys

Apparantly he wont even do the 2 months as he has already done that while waiting to go to trial.......not much justice there then! Bev

Brian so going out drinking in a car and drinking too much then climbing in the car knowing you are over the limit is NOT intentional??? Paul

Paul W - am with you on this one. No excuse for drink driving whatsoever. Daisy

Murder has to be intentional, which in this case it patently was not. The correct charge would be manslaughter. If I recall correctly, that's what the driver in the Selby train crash was charged with, although in that case I don't think it was justified as he fell asleep at the wheel and the vehicle went onto a railway line, was hit by a passenger train which derailed, the derailed train then hit some points which threw it onto the other track where it was hit be a goods train coming the other way. No way could the car driver have imagined that those sets of circumstances would have all lined up!

I believe anyone that ends up killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol should be tried for murder lets face it they know what they are doing when they drunk and get behind the wheel of a lethal weapon Paul