« Previous | Main | Next »

Learco Chindamo and Philip Lawrence

Eddie Mair | 17:02 UK time, Monday, 20 August 2007

What do YOU think?

Comments

  1. At 05:05 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Davd wrote:

    The government should not their laws are quite clear on this and they should realise what their laws mean.
    If you don't like this vote UKIP. All other parties think EU citizens who are criminals should be allowed to live here.
    As an Italian citizen even if he was deported he could come back.

  2. At 05:10 PM on 20 Aug 2007, nick chance wrote:

    It seems quite obvious, as Blair was told at the time, that this Rights law is not to the benefit of the indiginous population. It only benefits people like this Italian bloke and people, like Blair's wife, who are lawyers.
    When will we rise up and cry enough! What the hell does it take?

  3. At 05:10 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Ronald Gilbertson wrote:

    This is stupid the Humna Rights Act was not meant to protect criminals. Mrs Lawrence deserves more than our sympathy, she must receive our support to make the government appeal this peverse decision and over turn it immediately. Chindamo committed murder. that does not allow him to remain in the UK. If this decision stands we should be ashamed.

  4. At 05:10 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Fifi wrote:

    A classic PM moment:-

    Headline sets us up to think: "They're going to do WHAT?"

    * Outrage! *

    Interviewee confounds expectations by sounding more contrite and tremulous, even than the client he describes. There are complexities in the case and he gets them all across. Eddie allows this.

    * Oh... *

    5.15 bulletin repeats the 'outrage' headline anyway... wasn't Brian Perkins listening??

    Fifi

  5. At 05:12 PM on 20 Aug 2007, phillip eldridge wrote:

    Dear Sirs, The decision to allow one trio of individuals, to decide, that the convicted killer of, of Mr Lawrence, to continue living in this country is absurd. How do other EU countries deal with criminals. I remember the french government deporting those related to alleged terrorists. The question to be asked, why are we so considerate to felons...

  6. At 05:13 PM on 20 Aug 2007, P Blandford wrote:

    If someone has been brought up in this country and speaks english as a first language, they have the right to stay here rather than be deported to some country that they know nothing of just because of what passport they happen to hold.
    It really makes no difference what they have done

  7. At 05:14 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Phil Gooch wrote:

    I'm sorry, but I find this despicable. Some years ago I used to be a member of organisations such as Amnesty International and Liberty, but became disillusioned and resigned when it became clear that the Human Rights Act was being used repeatedly to defend the interests of the worst members of society.

    Let me make this clear. Any concept of rights is completely meaningless if it does not apply equally to everybody. Any concept of rights is meaningless if it means that we must stand by, powerless, while the thugs destroy society with impunity.

    We need a society based on duties and responsibility. If we have a shared responsibility, it means that if you are hungry, distressed, or in danger, I have a duty, a responsibility, to come to your aid.

    A society based on rights means that I can walk on by - as doing nothing does not contravene your rights - so I do nothing. Intervening may in fact contravene your rights.

    I really hope we will see a turning point now and the Human Rights Act will be consigned to the dustbin where it belongs.

  8. At 05:14 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Grahame Kean wrote:

    Eddie
    Listening to David Davis quoted by you after listening to the lawyer for this young man, really shows the politicians up for what they are, endeavouring to make political capital out of a case that was decided with regard to the now established rules of european and human rights law.

  9. At 05:15 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Judith Moreby wrote:

    Re: Learco Chindamo. I am appalled and dismayed regarding the Human Rights decision. All my sympathy is with Mrs Lawrence and her family. As frustrating as it is what can we do to change the Human Rights policies? How can his Solicitor defend such a result, as eloquent as he is? I found Mrs Lawrence's quote just as eloquent and moving and can only hope she finds the strength to carry on.

  10. At 05:15 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Derek Gift-Simms wrote:

    Whilst I do not support this gentleman's crime. I do believe the same rules should apply regardless of your political connections; Life should be life and the punishmenty should fit the crime; but then I think Mark Thatcher got off to Switzerland.

  11. At 05:17 PM on 20 Aug 2007, name withheld wrote:

    As deplorable as this man crime was, why do we want to punish him twice?
    Perhaps we should go back to transportation of all our criminals & ex -prisoners.
    Anyone who was brought to this country as a child, did not chose to come to this country and is now a product of this country can't be deported to a place or country they don't know or have any contact with.

  12. At 05:17 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Sid Cumberland wrote:

    This is one of those cases that makes an old liberal like me stop and think. What I'm thinking at the moment is that referring to Learco Chindamo as 'foreign' is disingenuous. He's been in this country for about twenty years, and went to primary and secondary schools here. Deporting him because he has an Italian passport seems to me to be looking for an easy answer to a difficult question.

    Sid

  13. At 05:17 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Yusuf Smith wrote:

    While I wouldn't hesitate to support Chindamo's deportation if he had been an adult when he came here or had come here for criminal purposes, the fact is that he wasn't. He came here when he was six and no doubt went astray the same way as many of our other young criminals do. As American politicians reportedly used to say, he may be a SOB but he's our SOB.

    Quite apart from the fact that all his family are here, we cannot get into the habit of dumping British criminals in foreign countries. We would end up simply exporting our criminal gangs to those countries, as is known to have happened in Central America where the USA dumped a number of its own criminals who were not US citizens but had been moved to the USA as children. It may also lead to British criminals forming more serious links with those in the criminals' countries of origin, which in this case is Italy (enough said).

  14. At 05:17 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Trish wrote:

    I think the decision to even let this person out of prison after 12 years is disgusting in itself without also letting him walk the streets of Britain. It is really unimportant as to whether he is a changed person or not, he still committed murder. The human rights act should be put to the bottom of a rubbish bin as it only has one side. My heart goes out to Mrs Lawrence and her family who have their own life sentance to deal with.
    It is about time life meant life, our laws are a pathetic laughing stock.

  15. At 05:18 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Anthony Edwards wrote:

    If the people of this country offer a foreigner sanctury, it is reasonable to expect that person will at the very least behave according to the rules of the host nation. If those rules are broken he should lose any rights to sanctuary - and be sent back.

    If you invite a guest to your home and they damage your house do you allow them to stay and risk further damage?

  16. At 05:19 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Iain Webster wrote:

    About Learco Chindamo and Philip Lawrence

    It would seem upon serving his sentance Chindamo has paid his price.

    Why should he be deported in his circumstances after growing up here?Seems like opposition political opportunisum trying to exploit a situation

  17. At 05:19 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Helen wrote:

    I am absolutely disgusted to hear that Philip Lawrences killer will be allowed to stay in the UK.

    Chindamo lost any 'right' to stay here after he was convicted for murder and I think that deportation in these cases should be automatic.

    His human rights are mentioned alot, what about the rights of Philip Lawrences family I wonder?.

    Its a absolute disgrace and my deepest sympathy is sent to the Lawrence family who must be heartbroken that the law has failed them so badly.

  18. At 05:20 PM on 20 Aug 2007, JimmyGiro wrote:

    Learco was raised here (from age 6) and lived here for most of his subsequent term.

    If he is still a bad person, then why should Italy pick up the pieces of our bad culture?

    If he has served his term, then he is an ex-murderer, and should have the same rights as most of us enjoy.

  19. At 05:20 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Jonathan Eaton wrote:

    People can be deported with the EU if they are proven to have a continuing danger. If the government cannot prove this then removing an EU resident is just revenge and not justice.

  20. At 05:20 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Stephen Macmillan wrote:

    When Philip Lawrence was murdered by Learco Chindamo I was the headteacher of a local junior school in the same education authority (City of Westminster). Perhaps that fact makes me somewhat biased. However, I cannot help feeling that we live in a depressing world when an individual who removed the most basic human right of all (the right to life) from a hardworking public servant cannot subsequently be deported in the name of "human rights".

  21. At 05:21 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Paul Bale wrote:

    It doesn't matter whether the murderer was born abroad nor about the failed deportation. The vicitm was only intervening as required by his position. In this case Life should mean for life.


  22. At 05:21 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Kay wrote:

    Whilst I have huge sympathy for Mrs Lawrence and her family, I fail to understand why this person, (or any other foreign national for that matter)who will have done his time, and therefore paid the price for his crime as far as the law in this country goes, should be deported. If he had been born here he would not be sent away after coming out of prison, in which case there would be a risk of a member of the Lawrence family passing him in the street. Also, if he is still a danger to society, he should neither be released from prison, nor sent to another country, to perpetrate further crimes. The government must take responsibility for rehabilitating criminals if they are legal residents of this country.

  23. At 05:21 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Sid Cumberland wrote:

    Davd - just the sort of easy answer we should be wary of.

    Sid

  24. At 05:22 PM on 20 Aug 2007, karen from devon wrote:

    The comment made by the lawyer of learco chindamo expressing the killers' "deepest sympathy" towards Mrs.lawrence & her family, seemed to be missing the words remorse,regret or even maybe sorry ! I live & work in the Middle East where the crime of taking anothers' life has yet to be trivialised to the extent it appears to have been here in the UK.

  25. At 05:23 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Gerald Hartup wrote:

    i am surprised that both Conservatives and Labour believe that Learco Chindarmo should be deported to Italy. It is a technicality that he has italian citizenship. He only speaks English. We may not like it but he is our murderer.

    To send him back to Italy, a convicted murderer, lost in a world that he cannot possibly understand would be disastrous for him and perhaps,as a result, to Italians.

    He will not be relsased in this country unless he is not considered to be a risk to the public.

    We cannot make policy on the basis of Mrs Lawrence's feelings no matter how we sympathise with the horror that befell her family.

    I speak as someone who would reinstitute the death penalty for some categories of murder, not as a bleeding heart liberal.

  26. At 05:24 PM on 20 Aug 2007, j walker wrote:

    About Chindamo and his 'human rights', I feel if the same happened and it had been my husband who had been killed I would want this person out of my country. He has forfeited his claims on our civility, and I did not understand from the report whether or not he was a British citizen.
    He knew right from wrong from the age of 7 as the age of reason would have it. I only hope he can make proper and fitting restitution to the family of his victim. If he is depending on the Social Services, good luck to him, but seeing as our own citizens have very little access (viz pensioners etc) to the same service, my mind boggles. Jo Walker

  27. At 05:24 PM on 20 Aug 2007, jonathan morse wrote:

    unless the UK leaves the European Convention of Human Rights, which is separate from the EU but a key requirement for new-joiners, this decision is always going to happen and people who don't have the guts to commit to that, e.g. the Tories, should admit it.

  28. At 05:25 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Roger wrote:

    One can only begin to imagine the distress of the Lawrence family at the gross use of the human rights law in this case. Once again the victim and the victim's family have been totally ignored in favour of the criminal. When are the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of THIS country going to have their human rights upheld in everyday life? How are we going to protect ourselves from these foreign murderers and who will argue our human rights when we are dying in some gutter from knife wounds? Once gain the British legal system has shown itself to be an ass and we are the laughing stock of the EU. This criminal is Italian by birth and should be removed to that country - and his family with him.

  29. At 05:25 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Anne Grice wrote:

    If I were the widow of Philip Lawrence I truly believe that I, too, would feel as horrifyingly disillusioned and distressed as she does. I pray, tho', that - if Learco Chindamo is as reformed a character as his solicitor would have us believe - I would have it in my heart to forgive him. Especially if Learco Chindamo, when free, makes it his life's ambition to educate and thus stop other youngsters from picking up the knife and murdering as he did. Anne Grice.

  30. At 05:26 PM on 20 Aug 2007, jonathan morse wrote:

    unless the UK leaves the European Convention of Human Rights, which is separate from the EU but a key requirement for new-joiners, this decision is always going to happen and people who don't have the guts to commit to that, e.g. the Tories, should admit it.

  31. At 05:29 PM on 20 Aug 2007, kevin lister wrote:

    I was disguisted by Julia Hartly's bigotted view of the climate camp.

    I was there so by her definition I am a ludite. To qualify for being a ludite, I have an honours degree in Aeronautical engineering, and MBA, I am a qualified teacher and am finishing off my masters in pure mathematics. Other ludites I met were a professor of mathematics from Cambridge, an author, a midwife, a university lecturer, and a marketing executive.

  32. At 05:29 PM on 20 Aug 2007, PFW Chapman wrote:

    I am just listening to PM and the interview with Leskin the defence lawyer for Chindamo.

    How absolutely horrendous is the decision to allow Chindamo to stay in the UK. Our news programs are daily recounting acts of thuggery and murder on our streets and the call is made by politicians for role models to influence the yobs.

    What happens in the case of the death of a real role model like Philip Lawrence? The judicery fall about to protect the likes of Chindamo's human rights.

    This is yet another sordid example of the lack of justice, moral fibre and common sence being foisted on our country through compliance with the bancrupt Human rights laws.

  33. At 05:31 PM on 20 Aug 2007, PFW Chapman wrote:

    I am just listening to PM and the interview with Leskin the defence lawyer for Chindamo.

    How absolutely horrendous is the decision to allow Chindamo to stay in the UK. Our news programs are daily recounting acts of thuggery and murder on our streets and the call is made by politicians for role models to influence the yobs.

    What happens in the case of the death of a real role model like Philip Lawrence? The judicery fall about to protect the likes of Chindamo's human rights.

    This is yet another sordid example of the lack of justice, moral fibre and common sence being foisted on our country through compliance with the bancrupt Human rights laws.

  34. At 05:32 PM on 20 Aug 2007, P F Darlington wrote:

    If the law ceases to satisfy the need to see justice done, it will be dispensed by alternative means. If Mr Lawrence had been my father/son/brother I would now be looking to
    dispense it myself and it would tend to be biblical in character.

    BTW Great programme even if it makes me angry at times.

  35. At 05:35 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Making Myself Unpopular wrote:

    On the subject of the climate protests, they have clearly failed.

    Why have they failed? Because we are not talking about climate change, we are talking about climate change protestors!

    On the subject of the Lawrence murder, there is a blindingly obvious fact that seems to escape consideration by almost everyone inclined to comment on the subject of the treatment of criminals and victims. This fact is fundamental to British law and the justice system and raises us above many, many other nations of the world and... theoretically... marks us out as a more civilised and progressive race.

    This underlying principle is that crime is committed against the Crown, not the individual. Crime is committed against society as a whole, not the individual. Society as a whole acts to reprimand the criminal, not the individual. It is society, through an established system of justice, which determines that an offender has paid their debt according to the requirements of law, not the individual.

    The individual, or victim of crime, has no right to influence any part of this process. Thank god for that, because the alternative is unthinkable.

    Anyone who would raise the rights of the individual victim of crime above the interests of society would have us descend into lawlessness, anarchy and a revolting revenge culture.

    So, he's been let out and he'll stay in the UK. That's the law that we, as a nation, signed up to for many good reasons.

    I'd rather have it this way than the only other possible alternative.

  36. At 05:35 PM on 20 Aug 2007, W. HAYBURN wrote:

    words fail me nearly. This is typical of the people in control of this country. There 4000 foreign prisoners in jail in this country and we cannot get rid of them. Thousands more awaiting trial Mostly on legal aid ,no wonder the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.What about the Human Rights of the victims and families. There should be a Victims Council U.K. tro get rid of these thugs, murderers and criminals.The only way to get heard it appears is to take to the street, damage property, assault police and riot. Then they may listen, instead of feeding the public a lot of gobbledegook.

  37. At 05:36 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Steven Plunkett wrote:

    The legal outcome was perhaps predictable, and there probably isn't much point in sending that young man to Italy, which is not a dumping ground for our social misfits, even if he did happen to be born there. But surely we can be spared listening to the hypocrisy of the solicitor offering his ''sympathy'' to Mrs Lawrence. That really makes one feel sick.

  38. At 05:37 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Sid Cumberland wrote:

    Let's be quite clear. The option of deporting this man is only available because he happens to have an Italian passport. He doesn't speak Italian, and his family lives in the UK. If he had been born here the question of deportation simply wouldn't arise.

    If we deport him, that would impose an additional penalty which would not be available if had a British passport.

    Sid

  39. At 05:39 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Eileen Chandler wrote:

    As Mr Chindamo's solicitor is so sure his client will not offend again, presumably he is prepared to stand surety and would be prepared to face the same sentence as Mr Chindamo if he should reoffend.

  40. At 05:40 PM on 20 Aug 2007, JonG wrote:

    Fifi - Outrage? I was certainly leaning towards outrage listening to the lawyer. His client, apparently, is a marvelous, reformed character - yet not marvelous and reformed enough to do the decent thing and get well away from those who he has hurt so much - Mr Lawrence's family.

    If the lawyer sounded contrite and tremulous, well, I would sound pretty tremulous if I had to defend such an atrocious decision on national radio.

    Mind you, to those who are claiming that voting UKIP is the answer to such situations, that argument carries about as much weight as telling me I should burn my house to the ground to stop a burglar nicking my hi-fi.

  41. At 05:41 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Motown wrote:

    The problems that we now see facing some Fire Brigades will only worsen over time. This is the result of the Baine Review and the Government's vendetta against the Fire Brigades Union, which despite all the Government propaganda which was swallowed hook, line and sinker by the media, has seriously damaged the quality and capacity of every brigade in Britain. What is not widely acknowledged is that the FBU began it's campaign quietly and reasonably. It was only the actions of the Government which inflamed the situation out of hand, which is when the cameras arrived and when the editorials were written.

    Everyone should buy a fire extinguisher or three, because we can't rely on this once admirable and well regarded public service in the aftermath of John Prescott's vicious hatchet job.

    P.S. No, I am not a firefighter. I just take an active interest in my own survival and that of my neighbours.

  42. At 05:41 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Geoff wrote:

    Learco Chindamo need not worry about deportation. If I was the son of Mr Lawrence he would be safer in Italy.
    Who are these lunatics who allow this. He has no human rights , he gave them up when he took that mans life

  43. At 05:45 PM on 20 Aug 2007, C Wood wrote:

    This decision is yet again an absolute disgrace. "Nice boy", sais his Lawyer! He knifed a headteacher to death - he's a murderous -------- - he should be deported immediately he's out of prison ... Why should we Brits have to have foreign murderers among us. Don't we the British public have human rights? Sincerely, Chris Wood. Gloucester.

  44. At 05:48 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Sarah wrote:

    Each time I've heard the news today about Philip Lawrence's killer not facing deportation, I have felt complete and utter frustration with the law. How can a killer have human rights? What happened to the human rights Mr Lawrence had? He had a basic right to life. If we have to accept that his killer has the same right (although I believe he morally lost all rights to anything the day he killed Mr Lawrence), then he should be serving 'life imprisonment'. Not 12 years. Since when has a life only lasted 12 years? This is a farce. An absolute travesty of justice. Mr Lawrence died trying to protect his pupils. A brave man who lost his life to someone who is a complete disgrace. I am British born and am normally proud to say so. Today, I'm ashamed that 3 judges decided it would be against the human rights of a convicted murderer to deport him to his birth country. As a p/t student 3 yrs into a 5 yr law degree and planning a future career as a solicitor, I'm wondering whether to continue. The law is an ass. My sympathy to Mrs Lawrence and her family. The government MUST appeal this decision. I know his lawyer has to be seen to be fair, but his comments about what a nice guy his client is, made me feel sick. The world has gone quite mad. Would Italy do the same with a British born killer? I doubt it!
    It's time for Gordon Brown to stand up and be counted. Hopefully he is more determined than his predecesor when it comes to 'tough on crime, tough on the cause of crime'. Come on Gordon show your strength and appeal this disgraceful decision immediately!

  45. At 05:55 PM on 20 Aug 2007, donald holden wrote:

    I would like to speak up for the human rights of messrs Leskin and Stafford-Smith and hope that the fabled BBC hospitality suite has a large, damp stone for them to wait under until their interview!

  46. At 05:57 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Mark Fiddaman wrote:

    It seems to me that the criticism of the tribunal's decision to allow Mr. Chindamo to rermain in the country is based on a fundamental misunderstandung of what is meant by a 'right'.

    Human rights exist to protect individual's from actions, not from feelings. Mrs Lawrence quite understandibly despises her husbands killer, to the extent that she doesn't feel able to share a country with him. But given that Mr Chindamo has paid his debt to society and, by all accounts, reformed during the process, she must accept that he now has all the rights she has, and those rights cannot be infringed upon by hatred or ill grounded fear.

  47. At 05:57 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Barbara Ridgley wrote:

    What about Phillip Lawrence's human rights? The right to live his life. No, to my mind, once you have taken another human life, you give up your own human rights.

    It is about time life imprisonment means LIFE!

  48. At 06:04 PM on 20 Aug 2007, M Clark wrote:

    This didn't seem to work the first time, so I'm trying to post again. Apologies if both turn up.

    So, on the Chindamo case...

    It's important not to confuse two arguments.

    It's an accident of geography that Learco has Italian citizenship. He is - for all practical purposes - British. He speaks only English. What's he going to do in Italy? As it is, they're trying to ship him off on a technicality.

    He's served his time now and if he were any other British criminal the victim's family would have no choice but to put up with the released prisoner being in the same country as them.

    There are people around who - if we let them - would still be shipping criminals off for the term of their natural lives to penal colonies on the other side of the world. Should we be happy for them to use this story as an excuse to vent these authoritarian beliefs?

  49. At 06:15 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Mike W wrote:

    It lifts the spirit to know that we live in a civilised and progressive country where the freedom from fear of a man with a blade is our human right. It gladdens the heart to realise that our interests are those of the Crown which will protect us. We are thus so fortunate and have many reasons to be happy. Sadly, not all of us are and if "Making Myself Unpopular" would dare to come down from the moral high ground he or she (why don`t we have a name?) might see what`s going on in the real world. There are people I know who are afraid to go out after dark just in case they meet a man with a blade.

  50. At 06:15 PM on 20 Aug 2007, clifford hircock wrote:

    re learco chindamo, [ and others in the same situation]. 1 you forfeited your claim to human rights when you commited the crime 2 life sentence?? ha ha. ask phillip lawrences widow what is her life sentence? forget 12 years or whatever the meaning of a life sentence should be comparable to the victims nearest relatives life sentence. cliff hircock

  51. At 06:23 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Sarah wrote:

    Having just checked the Law Society's website to look at the registration details of Chindamo's lawyer, I see that he is a partner in an NW1 firm. I note that he practices in the areas of Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Criminal Law, Imigration Law etc He must be feeling very pleased with himself today as he was clearly convincing to 3 judges who accepted his argument. But then he is a partner in the firm and as such must have reached a certain standing.
    I suspect Chindamo is receiving legal aid. If I'm right, his defence must be costing an absolute fortune and frankly I object that my taxes are paying for what must be a very expensive lawyer to defend a foreign born convicted murderer. Mr Leskin, you may have been appointed to the case rather than chosen it, but did you need to be so supportive of Chindamo in your comments - particularly the part where you said he sent his condolences to Mrs Lawrence? How dare he? He has no right to send anything to Mrs Lawrence and her family. Today your comments made me ashamed to admit that I'm a law student.

  52. At 06:39 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Sue G wrote:

    I'm not surprised Chindamo was allowed to stay - he's more British than any other nationality, and if sent back to Italy with no family connections would be far more likely to re-offend.

    What concerned me was that his lawyer was describing him as a reformed character, and how he had been telling younger offenders how sorry he was that he had wasted his life. Did I hear this right? What about Philip Lawrence's life?

  53. At 06:40 PM on 20 Aug 2007, admin annie wrote:

    I have to say that listening to the unctuous Mr Leskin made me rather sorry that Charles Dickens wasn't still around to put him in a book.

    that was after I stopped feeling sick when he wanted to pass on his client's totally inappropriate sympathy to Mrs Lawrence. Which I doubt he ever expressed in the first place.

  54. At 06:43 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Peter Garner wrote:

    I've just submitted a comment but it has not been accepted, apparently because I did not supply my name and address. But I wasn't asked for it.

  55. At 06:52 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Camille Savinien wrote:

    According to his lawyer, the only Italian thing about Mr. Chindamo is his passport (and who can remember precise facts about the first 6 years of one's life anyway?). He doesn't know his father and nothing links him with his native country.
    It is logical, therefore, to say that this man is more British than Italian.
    From what I understood of the preceding comments, Mr . Chindamo should be deported (which is, under the circumstances, a violation of his human rights) to a country he doesn't know.
    So let's face it, what troubles people is the fact that a murderer can, after having paid his debt to the society, wander the streets.
    Why don't those demanding this man's deportation on the grounds of his Italian heritage also demand the isolation (perhaps even deportation) of a repentant British murderer?
    As horrible as Mr.Chindamo's crime was, he was deprived of his liberty for 12 years for it and will feel the guilt of what he did as an irresponsible fifteen-year old child for the rest of his life.
    If you are so repulsed by the fact that a murderer has the potential to reform, perhaps it is your own humanity, not his, which you need to question.

  56. At 06:57 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Gill wrote:

    Like it or not Chindamo, regardless of the Human Rights Act, has ever right to stay here. Unless, that is, we bring back transportation for all and every criminal.

    Where we could send them in this century would be a problem - Australia would probably have some objections.

  57. At 06:59 PM on 20 Aug 2007, jonathan morse wrote:

    the ECHR was set up before the Common Market because Europe's then leaders were embarrased by Germany's treatment of the Jews during WW2 and by the rest of Europe's indifference. Before the War Jews in Germany tried to get some of their children out only for every country to send it away. Recently a British Official in our then Embassy in Berlin was awared a medal by Israel for forgeing UK visas to allow German Jews to escape Germany against UK policy.

    The ECHR was set up to stop this ever happening again. It 's protection for any possible 'Jew' against any possible reason to punish or exile him to danger. If this man could be extradicted you could also fake a conviction for any Jew then extradite them to a death camp.

    If we hadn't looked the other way in 39, or even agreed with the Nazis, there would be no ECHR.

    The Human Rights Act merely makes the ECHR applicable in UK courts, otherwise the same decision would have been secured but at more cost to the taxpayer.

  58. At 07:00 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Roger wrote:

    I feel great sympathy for the anguish of Mrs Lawrence and sorrow that after all this time she has not come to terms with her loss. Mr Chindamo was a youth when he was sentenced for the murder of Mr Lawrence. He's a young man now and has already served a long time in gaol, longer than many other murderers. Deporting him will serve no purpose at all apart from punishing him all over again. We should give this man a chance to redeem himself in our society. Otherwise what kind of society do we live in? Are we to condemn a man forever for a terrible mistake he made when he was only boy?

  59. At 07:03 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Catherine wrote:

    That lawyer Mr Leskin sounded such a typical drippy flabby liberal flob, mouthing his sententious 'sympathies' to the Lawrence family, that I wanted to smack him in his mealy little mouth.
    There's far too many Mr Leskins' around, which is why society is such a disintegrating mess today.
    With more human rights for scum like Chindamo than for victims of crime, and when 'life imprisonment' does not mean life at all, then what hope have we.
    The Government just wants to sit back and line its own pockets whilst having a good laugh at us.

  60. At 07:03 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Colin Smale wrote:

    Because the politicians and police are so worried about upsetting the human/civil rights brigade, things that should be dealt with such as a good old clip round the ear don't happen any more.

    I think the human rights brigade are the most dangerous threat to our society next to terrorism.

  61. At 07:06 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Matt Harrison wrote:

    Julia Hartley-Brewer is tiresome one, she is the one living in the past. 99% of climate scientists are in agreement of the causes and dangers of climate change. The Climate Camp was a responsible and moderate attempt to publicise these dangers. To me it is terrifying that such a high proportion of the media are still as ignorant and biased as she is.

  62. At 07:16 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Electric Dragon wrote:

    Amidst all this hoo-hah, have we not forgotten something? Learco Chindamo has not been released. He will still have to go up before a Parole Board before that happens. Also, even if he is given parole, he will still be on a life licence. That is what life means: it does not mean "imprisonment for life" but "life parole" and he can be re-imprisoned at any time if he violates the terms of that parole.

  63. At 07:23 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Catherine wrote:

    Just take a look at comments nos: 6, 11, 16, 18, 22, 35, 46, 48, 55 and 58 (so far) to see how many sympathizers this creature called Leamo Chindamo has.
    No doubt, as soon as I've posted this message, there'll be loads more of these Leskinites.

  64. At 07:27 PM on 20 Aug 2007, christine wrote:

    Learco should have been learning the Italian language whilst incarcerated and being prepared for deportation to Italy. The fact he knows noone and it will be a punishment all over again - Wow loads of people emigrate there and i'd rather have the Italian summer than our one. I believe it is no hardship to deport someone back to their (peaceful) country of origin. If Learco isn't ready for that he should have thought about it whilst he was/is locked up. Time for reflection I thought.
    Has the Italian government contributed towards his 'keep' whilst at his majesty's leisure?

  65. At 08:21 PM on 20 Aug 2007, sacrebleu wrote:

    It's time the whole justice system was looked at. The victim loses out every time.

    I have a friend whose uncle was murdered (a case of mistaken identity) by three youths. None of them was found guilty because they couldn't prove which individual did the fatal stabbing! Not only that but each accused insisted on their OWN post mortem of the body, causing untold distress to the deceased's family.

    What's going wrong here?

  66. At 08:26 PM on 20 Aug 2007, AnnieBertha wrote:

    It is a tragedy that Philip Lawrence was stabbed to death, a tragedy the worse because he was a caring and kind head teacher.

    It was also a tragedy for the lad who killed him. How does a child cope with the finality of the awfulness of what they have done? How do they live with themselves?

    It was a tragedy for both families and, in fact, for this society, in which Learco Chindame grew up. For we, citizens of this country who all contributed in our own way to the zeitgeist of 1995, cannot avoid culpability. Learco spent three times as long in England as he did in Italy.

    Why did his mother bring him here? Was it not because her roots were here? Does she, a woman, not endow Learco with the right to remain near his family over here? Is it Just that his future should be in exile in his father's country relatively near to a parent who took no interest in him for most of his childhood?

    The influences abroad here while Learco was a growing child, produced devastating consequences for all involved. Should we not be relieved that out of this tragedy has come hope? A thoughtless child who became a murderer is given the opportunity to repent, reform and, now a young man of 26 years, has shown he has the potential to lead a responsible and dutiful life. Surely this is the fulfilment of the message of the Gospels and the creed of Christians and good people everywhere, whatever their faith or none.

  67. At 08:27 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Sid Cumberland wrote:

    Catherine (63): If you think my comment was sympathetic, you probably didn't read it properly. What I said was:

    "This is one of those cases that makes an old liberal like me stop and think. What I'm thinking at the moment is that referring to Learco Chindamo as 'foreign' is disingenuous. He's been in this country for about twenty years, and went to primary and secondary schools here. Deporting him because he has an Italian passport seems to me to be looking for an easy answer to a difficult question."

    Or do you prefer easy answers to difficult questions?

    Sid

  68. At 08:28 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Jon wrote:

    What is such bad reporting doing on PM? The article reported that a killer is to be released and human rights legislation is to defend him - therefore human rights legislation is a bad thing.

    Whatever the merits of the killer's case, would we really be better off in a world without human rights legislation?

    How human life has become so devalued that murderers are being released after serving just twelve years is another debate entirely.

  69. At 09:15 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Nat Chester wrote:

    Only when the barbarians are in Downing Street will something be done to address all these problems.
    In the meantime, it's just more Co2 ... and we 'know' what that does, don't we?

  70. At 09:25 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Jack wrote:

    Learco Chindamo, apart from an Italian passport due to his father, is for all practical purposes a British Citizen and to deport him would be, as the three judges decided, a gross injustice. He does not speak Italian and knows no-one in Italy, futhermore his mother is now a naturalised Briton. Why the knee-jerk reaction to deport him?

    Why should it be especially insupportable for Mrs Lawrence that he lives here just because his passport is Italian? If he was legally British, he would be allowed to continue his life in Britain because he has served his time in prison and been a model prisoner.

  71. At 09:48 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Pete Gosling wrote:

    Let him stay, and then tell him that a life sentence really means life, not just 12 years.

  72. At 10:03 PM on 20 Aug 2007, nick broadbent wrote:

    It is obvious that Mrs lawrence would feel aggrieved - in her position we all would, but it also is incumbent on wider society to take a wider view. It would appear that the young man has reformed and shown remorse. He has done the time that the law decreed reflected his crime so he should now be allowed to go on with his life without let or hindrance. He should be shown as a shining example of how the prison system can work.

  73. At 10:32 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Gordon Scott wrote:

    I was sickened but not surprised that 3 so called Judges decided not to deport the killer of a decent school master who died trying to defend a pupil against a gang of thugs.
    Why wasn't I surprised, because the so called "law" in this Country is dedicated to defending criminals. Why? easy because the legal "profession benefits from defending criminals its called Legal defence! In other words these solicitors are paid by the tax payer to defend these thugs. Then you have old senile judges who consider the human rights of the vile killer (in this case Learce Chindamo) BUT forget the rights of Philip Lawrence! He had a right to life, but then they were not being PAID to think about Mr Lawrence! Don't they make you feel sicK?
    So do not try to defend yourself againt thugs or you will be arrested, the thug can beat you senseless but will only receive a slap on the wrist. You hurt him and boy are you in trouble, it is called "justice" UK style.
    When the death penalty was abolished we were promised life inprisonment, what a lie!! Life means a few years! What a joke, had they said that all thoses years ago there would have been more protests. So what about a referendum on restoring the death penalty???

  74. At 10:40 PM on 20 Aug 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    12 years really doesn't seem very long to serve for such an appalling crime, whether or not he is a reformed character. The issue of his staying in Britain is entirely separate in my eyes, but I have great sympathy with Mrs Lawrence & her family who face seeing this man released while the pain of her husband's brutal death is still so raw.

  75. At 11:27 PM on 20 Aug 2007, jo wrote:

    I can see that when this young man has served his sentence, he is in absolutely the same position as anyone else who has completed a prison sentence. If he is an EU citizen we cannot deport him until EU Human Rights Legislation - he would be entitled to leave Italy and travel back to the UK whenever he pleased. Perhaps it is time we looked again at how the Human Rights Act is interpreted by our judiciary, and make necessary amendments.

    The problem is that, in common with other violent criminals, release comes too early in their sentence. Mrs Lawrence and her children (the victims of this crime) should be given much more consideration about the release of this man.

  76. At 11:47 PM on 20 Aug 2007, mac wrote:

    my problem was that i couldn't (and can't) find out what frances lawrence actually said (full text??) - only what reporters said she said.

    Was she saying 'Rights? You're joking aren't you? He took our rights away when he killed my husband.'

    Or was she saying 'This man might get us'

    I SUSPECT the former and if so why is everyone (from both sides) jumping on what is an understandable piece of Jobian rhetoric.

    (incidently Fifi is being too forgiving as ever. The lawyer had to fight his way past Eddie to correct him about the appeal and to point out that Reid transfering him out of open prison was one of those bureaucratic nitemares only Mr. McKay could dream up. (He applied it to all 'potential' (his opinion) deportees))

    If the former then that is a simple matter of administration isn't it?

    The remaining case is: She feels 'I would be destroyed if I saw him' which his lawyer answered well enough i think. And ultimately one hopes she finds the strength to acknowledge that he IS free and trying to live a life that is free of blame.

  77. At 09:05 AM on 21 Aug 2007, RJD wrote:

    Eddie - Re "Remembering not to feed the trolls" -Well I did say he was in turns erudite, offensive and quite often totally incomprehensible. My opinion still holds.

  78. At 09:44 AM on 21 Aug 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    RJD;
    I refer you to last Mondays Glass Box when I commented "semi-incoherent style and lousy attitude" which met with your approbation at the time.

    Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

    I didn't answer the ravings then, I wouldn't bother now......

    Si.

  79. At 10:01 AM on 21 Aug 2007, RJD wrote:

    Si - That's my policy too. Unfortunately some other regular froggers don't seem to share our opinion.

  80. At 10:16 AM on 21 Aug 2007, George Robert Mackay wrote:

    The Human Rights laws are problematic because they are not counter balanced by a Human Wrongs act.

    When one's actions seriously broach another’s human rights - such as when one murders them; then one has willfully opted out of the Human Rights act and another revised set of rights should apply. ( The Human Wrongs Act? )

    Why should those behaving in a fundamentally 'inhuman' way be automatically granted Human Rights? Why not have them earn their Human Rights by proving that they understand and respect them?

    Certain pre-conditions should apply - fulfilling a prison sentence is not enough.

    Such an opt back in, MUST include, at the highest level, those whose rights have been abused, or their immediate family, close friends etc.

    We need to treat Human Rights with greater respect and not undermine them.
    If we regard Human Rights transgressions with overt and legislative disdain then we enhance that respect. If we do little but whine, then we dilute respect for humanity and the law.

    These are only my humble first thoughts on the matter but there are those in our society who receive large salaries for their expertise in such areas.

    Can your listeners come up with some suggestions for our Law Lords, top civil servants and politicians to mull over?

    George Robert Mackay

  81. At 11:38 AM on 21 Aug 2007, BJ wrote:

    It seems that the majority of us do not understand the Human Rights Act and why should we?

    The majority of us do not need protecting, comfortable as we sit in relative affluence to the rest of the world. Such legislation is in place to protect precisely those such as Learco Chindamo ... those who have been let down by society and are most vunerable.

    Lets hope that those who are so quick to be "appalled" and "disgusted" never REALLY need the Human Rights Act to protect them or those they love.

    For clarity's sake; Not deporting Learco would not infringe on ANYBODY'S human rights.

  82. At 12:04 PM on 21 Aug 2007, d.croft wrote:

    I cannot believe the human right's of a murderer count for more than the human right's of the murder victim and their family.

    Any person who commits murder or other violent offences should be automatically deported if they are not a UK citizen.

    We are sending out the wrong message.

  83. At 12:05 PM on 21 Aug 2007, UpthTrossachs wrote:

    Listened to Mrs Lawrence this morning on Today and it would appear that her shock and dismay is as a result of the expectation she had(which was derived from advice and opinion from lawyers and the home office) that Chindamo would probably be deported only to be confronted with the reality that he probably won't.
    Sometimes, in the long run, it is better to manage people's expectations by presenting them with a worst case scenario rather than telling them what we think they might want to hear.
    I thought the interview was handled extremely sensitively by James Naughtie

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_lawrence_20070821.ram

  84. At 12:28 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    I agree with several that the sentence should not be kept to the minimum. A recommended minimum of 12 years is the problem. Maybe the shortage of prison places is the reason why release as soon as possible is being discussed.

  85. At 12:31 PM on 21 Aug 2007, RJD wrote:

    UpTheTrossachs (82) - I heard it as well and can't be just so much in admiration of James Naughtie. Sensitive perhaps, but there are times when his questions are so long-winded and convoluted that I wonder if he is making a speech or seeking a response. By the time he gets to the actual question I can have forgotten what he started off talking about.

  86. At 01:00 PM on 21 Aug 2007, UptheTrossachs wrote:

    RJD (84) - I said he handled it sensitively, I didn't say it was a brilliant interview ;0)
    Yes, I do know what you mean about his style, it can be a bit rambling. Sometimes, I think it's a case of him trying to be diplomatic to the point of obscurity. At one point he asked her "So you can forgive him intellectually but not... viscerally?" - which she agreed with. Then, when he was making a similar point about her agreeing with the rationale of the legal decision but not necessarily accepting it, he got Mrs Lawrence so confused that she lost her thread.

    At risk of incurring the wrath of those who are apalled and aghast - I did find myself shouting at the radio "But what do you actually want?!"

  87. At 01:09 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Helen wrote:

    BJ

    So Chindamo is the one who has been let down and is vunerable?

    Hmmmmm, try telling that to the Lawrence family....................


    Helen

  88. At 01:44 PM on 21 Aug 2007, BJ wrote:

    d.croft (82) - Once again ... the human right's of the murder victim and their family are not being infringed by a decision not to deport so are therefore not held in any less regard than that of a murderer.

  89. At 01:58 PM on 21 Aug 2007, mac wrote:

    Lots of realy engrossing and engaging posts. But Fifi at (4) hasn't been answered. (Roger Sawyer only commented at Glass Box, Monday and not about that))

    Her's is surely a devastating critique of 'SHOCK, HORROR' methods,

    The shock and horror removed, Brian Perkins repeated it in the headlines.
    'On this programme... ' is an intro programme makers love to feed their newsreaders when a programme interview updates the news.
    But not in this case. Because 'on this programme..' shock-horror was REDUCED rather than increased?

    Does PM agree with the critique? It might argue that unless it runs a sensationalist headline it couldn't run a reasonable interview 'cos it would be labelled as woolly liberal in advance and beyond the pale before it starts?

    Or is it the liberal mask slipping a bit?

    Si and RJD:

    Each of you, buy a Snicker bar and a Twix bar. Carefully open the Twixes. Eat the bars. Put the Snickers bars in the Twix wrappers and seal. Each send the new bar to the other. 'Cos you both evidently love getting your Snickers in a Twix.

  90. At 02:00 PM on 21 Aug 2007, RJD wrote:

    UpThe Trossachs (86) - Yep, I noticed that and she told him that she had lost the thread. He didn't seem to learn though because he then rambled on with another interminable query. I must admit that at that point I was so busy shouting at him to shut up, that I lost the thread myself.

    I would love to have heard Eddie Mair handling that interview. I bet there would have been more from Mrs Lawrence and less from the interviewer.

    There were a couple of superb discussions that Eddie got involved in last week. Anthony Gormley and Tim Smit on art, but more especially with Val McDiarmid and somebody whose name happily escapes me. Talk about lighting the blue touch paper and retiring! Brilliant radio presenting by knowing when to stay quiet.

  91. At 02:01 PM on 21 Aug 2007, mac wrote:

    Re: Previous.

    Hers.

  92. At 03:02 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Robert Malcolm wrote:

    When any person violates the human right of another (the right to live in this instance) they should automatically be stripped of the human rights.

  93. At 03:15 PM on 21 Aug 2007, John Hind wrote:

    The very fact that Mr. Chindamo places his own human rights above those of the family of the man he murdered proves that he is not contrite about this crime and is not a reformed character.

    Therefore he should not be granted parole and should be kept in prison for the maximum, rather than the minimum term set at his trial. This might also discourage other lawyers from cynical use of the Human Rights Act to undermine the administration of justice!

    Deportation is a red herring here and the real problem is that most people, including the Lawrences, think that twelve years it not enough for murder. I must say I was quite shocked to see this described as a "life sentence". If the criminal justice system obeyed the Trades Descriptions Act there might be more public confidence in it!

  94. At 04:15 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Fifi wrote:

    Just to clarify, JonG (40) and Mac (76 & 89) :

    I haven't expressed any opinion about either life sentences or deportation. I'm not going to here, because I happen to believe that both are very complex matters and require a proper face to face discussion adequately to thrash them out ... postings here need to be brief. (So I'll try to be!)

    My point was, and still is, that headlines read out during a programme, 'after' the story has been explored in depth, should reflect what emerged during the piece.

    Either that, or leave THAT headline out of the immediately-following summary.

    Apologies; feelings are quite rightly running high on the issues on this thread. I'll hie me to the Glass Box where I won't be misconstrued or need defending!

    Friendly greetings to all, whatever your views.

    Fifi

  95. At 04:18 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Barry Noakes wrote:

    John Hind (93) - Exactly how is Mr. Chindamo placing "his own human rights above those of the family of the man he murdered"? Without this premise it seems you have no objections to him being considered for parole.

    By using arguments as logically accurate as yours, I reckon you and the "string em up" gang; Robert Malcolm (92), Catherine (59) etc. could be locked up within the week.

  96. At 04:20 PM on 21 Aug 2007, BJ wrote:

    John Hind (93) - Exactly how is Mr. Chindamo placing "his own human rights above those of the family of the man he murdered"? Without this premise it seems you have no objections to him being considered for parole.

    By using arguments as logically accurate as yours, I reckon you and the "string em up" gang; Robert Malcolm (92), Catherine (59) etc. could be locked up within the week.

  97. At 04:53 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Guy Reynolds wrote:

    The Human rights act will always appear to be used in this distorted manner because of the way our legal system works and is paid for.

    In this instance it is 'The Crown' vs 'Chindamo', whilst the outcome may affect the Lawrence family thay are not party to the case.

    If the Lawrance's could get legal aid funding as Mr Chindamo most probably is, they too could take the case to court on gounds of infringment of their Human Rights. This would be an interesting case and a true measure of the Human Rights Act as is would weigh the rights of the victim against those of the perpetrator, rather than as it is now a measure of the perpetrator's rights in isolation.

    Whilst it is always the state vs the perpetrator, the perpetrator will always win and the the victim will always loose.

  98. At 04:58 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Jo wrote:

    What a fascinating, if somewhat depressing, thread, topped off quite amazingly by John Hind at (93) using a logic worthy of the very best medieval witch hunters!

    I am in agreement with Jonathan (19), Kay (22), Making Myself Unpopular (36), Mark (46), M Clark (48), 81 (BJ) and all those who made comments about why should Italy pick up the pieces of our lousy society.

    Points I want to make most are:

    It is the crown that prosecutes not the victim or the victim’s family. Learco Chindamo was punished on behalf all of us, not just Philip Lawrence’s family.

    Human Rights are absolute; we get them for being human not because we’re a particular type of human.

    The punishment for his crime was prison, and whilst the length of time he’s in prison is fair game for discussion, his punishment for murder was set at a prison sentence, not the removal of his humanity. Just from my own philosophical point of view, it is treating every one, no matter how heinous their crime, as a human that is a mark of my and our own humanity. We diminish that and we diminish, not the person whose rights we have removed, but ourselves.

    Remember, he has yet to be released and if considered a danger to society he will not be released. This means that there will not be a dangerous criminal walking around just someone who has served their proscribed sentence.

    If Learco Chindamo is freed and remains in this country it will not be infringing anybody’s, including Mrs Lawrence’s, Human Rights. Therefore Learco Chindamo’s human rights are not being placed above anybody else’s.

    It is depressing to see how so many other bloggers do not seem to understand this and want our legal system to deliver revenge rather than justice. My only consolation is that Sarah (44, 51) is thinking of giving up the law…

  99. At 05:10 PM on 21 Aug 2007, JonG wrote:

    BJ wrote:

    "It seems that the majority of us do not understand the Human Rights Act and why should we?

    The majority of us do not need protecting, comfortable as we sit in relative affluence to the rest of the world. Such legislation is in place to protect precisely those such as Learco Chindamo ... those who have been let down by society and are most vunerable."


    Chindamo was let down, more than anyone else, by Learco Chindamo himself. To blame society is insulting to those decent people in society who live in poverty and continue to live decent lives despite this.

    For Chindamo and his legal team to claim violation of his human rights cheapens the entire concept in a world where so many have far more basic rights violated regularly.

    Chindamo was, in my view, condemned by his own lawyer: He is, we were told, a reformed character, evidenced by the time he spends telling younger prisoners what a waste he has made of his life so far. His own life, note, not a word about the worthwhile life he wasted 13 years ago. If he gave a stuff, if he had an ounce of contrition, he would not be so keen to have his own devalued human rights made a priority over the feelings of his victim's family. His only concern is what he has suffered himself, as a result of his own actions.

  100. At 05:13 PM on 21 Aug 2007, BJ wrote:

    Thankyou Jo.

    FIN

  101. At 05:46 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Colin wrote:

    Human/civil rights brigade; just wondering, how are they financed ? I would hate to think I am having anything to do with funding them !!

  102. At 06:01 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Rachel G wrote:

    Jo (98) Your points are well made and I agree with you entirely.

    Trossachs (dunno but ages back!) "At risk of incurring the wrath of those who are apalled and aghast - I did find myself shouting at the radio "But what do you actually want?!"

    Me too. She seemed very torn between her admirable compassion for a young man who has done her so much harm, and her understandable desire to have him as far away from her and her family as possible.

  103. At 07:52 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Edward Wheatley wrote:

    Like everyone I have the deepest sympathy for Mrs Lawrence.

    And I am almost ashamed to suggest this at such a sensitive time, but her noble and thoroughly decent response puts her along with the many Chindamo sympathisers as part of the problem.

    She and her late husband were obviously members of the middleclass left who supported immigration and multiculturalism. They have sewn the wind of liberalism and have reaped a most terrible tragic whirlwind.

    But while these elitists set the agenda violence increases daily: we are all at the mercy of thousands of thugs from similar backgrounds to Chindamo and things can only get worse.

    It is time for us, the silent majority who do not contribute to smart’rs’d blogs and message-boards, to claim back our rights.

  104. At 08:49 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Rachel G wrote:

    Are you Edward Wheatley of Norfolk by any chance?

  105. At 11:25 PM on 21 Aug 2007, Philip wrote:

    I am deeply offended by the prospect of the release of this man into the UK, even though he would be on licence for the rest of his life. Consequently he would not be free in the way the rest of us are, and for that I am grateful.
    The public interest raised by this case, and in particular the significant amount of negative feelings expressed, are hardly likely to result in this man's early release, are they? Keep on talking about the case and you'll probably keep him locked up!

  106. At 11:53 PM on 21 Aug 2007, mittfh wrote:

    Whether or not Chindamo himself poses a threat to society is unknown.

    Whether or not Chindamo's presence in the UK as a 'free' man poses a threat to society is more certain, courtesy of the UK tabloids.

    It's a shame no-one can find a third party country for him to be released to. Italy is well-known for a certain organisation frequented by criminals - I'm sure we wouldn't want them to gain a new member, and the UK tabloids would ensure he wouldn't get much (if any) peace if allowed to settle here.

  107. At 12:12 PM on 22 Aug 2007, Robin wrote:

    What would be the outcome if Mrs Lawrence counter appealed to the same court for them to recognize her human rights!! What would happen if everybody countered for the Judges to recognize their human rights? This would make an interesting Test Case. As our law works on precedence, what would be be the outcome?

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.