Stabbing pains

Alice Mills in The Times: Chindamo stays – and I’m proud of it
Chindamo is clearly British, having lived here since he was 6 years old. He speaks no Italian, appears to have no connections with Italy other than the accident of citizenship, and grew up in North London. To try to pretend that he is not a British problem, grown on British streets, fostered through a British education system, is a further abrogation of responsibility by the Government. Would that it were so simple; would that we could just deport this social problem, Mr McNulty, sweep it under an imaginary Italian carpet.

This human rights ruling is so wrong - Sue Carrol in The Mirror:
The Home Office, at least, are said to be incandescent over the decision made by the tribunal and will appeal. Good. But there's a broader issue here. The level of discord between government offices suggests that the right hand has not a clue what the left is doing. And if Human Rights legislation was introduced for the greater good, why has it left Frances Lawrence more broken, defeated and demoralised than she was on the horrendous day she lost her husband to a killer's blade?

Sorry?!  ...'more broken, defeated and demoralised than she was on the horrendous day she lost her husband to a killer's blade?' Really? That is something, if true, I find difficult to get my head around. But Mrs Lawrence also seems rather confused:
She (Mrs Lawrence) conceded that, had she been a judge on the appeal panel, she too would probably have decided that Chindamo had a right to stay in Britain. The law (a combination of human rights legislation and EU immigration regulations, on both of which Chindamo won) is clear. Yet the politicians have wrongly given the impression that Chindamo would be deported on release. Why? Because it’s an easy headline in the face of public hysteria over youth crime, immigration, and in particular the deportation of foreign prisoners. But Chindamo was always going to be a different case to the adult asylum-seeker who robs, rapes or murders.

Having admitted that Chindamo probably has the right to remain in the UK, having admitted that much of her furiously devastated reaction is due to shock because she was led to believe otherwise, and having so admirably said that she wishes him well and a positive life – “it’s never given me any pleasure to see a young man locked away” – Mrs Lawrence added that she wanted “humanity” to overturn the law in this instance. “In this case it’s to try and say the law is not always what must be our context; humanity is more important . . . people feel so confused, that their needs and fears are second place, squashed by some bureaucratic, insensate law.” But to draw the conclusion that “humanity” should therefore override the rule of law is, however understandable, wrong. The rule of law developed to put humanity on a legal, equal footing; it is an attempt, however imperfect at times, to deliver humanity objectively to everyone. The decision to allow Chindamo to remain in the UK is in fact a perfect expression of that humanity, and I feel proud to live under a system that ultimately took the decision to allow him to stay.

Me too.

(My earlier post on this is HERE)