Parley Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 As much as a basket case that she sounds she has been here a long time, probably a lot longer than a few on here, the technicality that she never obtained citizenship doesn't really make it ok, I would be a little surprised if it actually did happen It is hardly a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wa7 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 It is very much a technicality..............been here since 2yrs old, and has been eligible for citizenship for over 20yrs, if she had simply ticked a few boxes years back this conversation wouldn't be happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calNgary Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Hardly a good role model for her kids and they are probably going to be better off without her but it would seem there is no reason she couldn't take her kids with her. Cheerio! She probably wouldn't get permission to take them from the kids 'guardians/ grandparents/ father who they live with. Cal x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 It is very much a technicality..............been here since 2yrs old, and has been eligible for citizenship for over 20yrs, if she had simply ticked a few boxes years back this conversation wouldn't be happening. she is not a citizen and presumably would have failed the character test if she had applied. She has been imprisoned 11 times too so has had plenty of chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wa7 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 she is not a citizen and presumably would have failed the character test if she had applied. She has been imprisoned 11 times too so has had plenty of chances. "presumably ".......................so your not sure yourself. I don't think the character test would of been hard to pass back then, and as young girl I wouldn't of thought she was a hard Core criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 "presumably ".......................so your not sure yourself. I don't think the character test would of been hard to pass back then, and as young girl I wouldn't of thought she was a hard Core criminal. Well she murdered her step father as a child, so that is about as hard core as you can get. But if she applied as an adult she would no doubt have been rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wa7 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 How old ? Yes as I have earlier stated she sounds a basket case, but she still been here a long log time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoll Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 She probably wouldn't get permission to take them from the kids 'guardians/ grandparents/ father who they live with. Cal x The father of 3 of them is dead so she could probably move with them - who knows, though, the court probably deemed her an unfit parent from the get go but on the face of it I don't know that the FC listens much to the rights of grandparents in relation to relocation. It'd be awful for the kids though so I'm not saying she should get them BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Be interesting what the Daily Mail's stance would have been if the offender had been a migrant living in the UK. The bit I don't understand is why she would be returned without her children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Be interesting what the Daily Mail's stance would have been if the offender had been a migrant living in the UK. The bit I don't understand is why she would be returned without her children. None of the children were in her custody prior to her imprisionment from what i understand. They are all cared for by relatives of the fathers in the case of three children. One of them lives with his father and the youngest by her grand mother. She has been comiting crimes for a long time. Why did she not consider her children then? I think she's using the fact she has children as means to stay. Yes she had a terrible time apparently growing up with abuse from her stepfather who she ultimatey killed with the help of a friend. Many have abusive childhoods but don't kill or go on to have a life of crime..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 This woman has been very badly abused. Why should it come as a surprise that she has a long criminal history as a result? Australia, one could argue, let her down at a child, so now it just gives up on her and kicks her out? For the law to be equitable it means it should not treat everyone equally. Some won't get this, but it is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderDrinkingCoder Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 And ignorance of the law is no excuse. She chose not to take citizenship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 And ignorance of the law is no excuse. She chose not to take citizenship. She may have been ignorant of the law. However, does that then excuse the law being ignorant in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 She chose not to take citizenship. I think we would all agree that she is not a strategic thinker. But should she be penalised because of it? It seems to me that we have many people on here who like the concept of de facto - as in fulfilling the criteria of being married but not actually married. Why can't we accept a similar criterion of de facto Australian - someone who is on a permanent visa, who is fully established in Australia and would (at some point) have been eligible for citizenship? We don't have to like the person or approve of them, but we do have to treat them equitably. We have a criminal law, we have penalties for breaking the criminal law that are set by judges. Why should one person suffer an additional penalty just because they were not born here? I don;t know the individual circumstances, I don't need to, but I do recognise that this is a person who is a part of the Australian community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calNgary Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 This woman has been very badly abused. Why should it come as a surprise that she has a long criminal history as a result? Australia, one could argue, let her down at a child, so now it just gives up on her and kicks her out? For the law to be equitable it means it should not treat everyone equally. Some won't get this, but it is a fact. How / Why did Australia let her down, when she was a child ? Cal x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 How / Why did Australia let her down, when she was a child ? Because she was abused by her stepfather - as evidenced by the fact that when she killed him, she was only given a good behaviour bond. She is a damaged person. This does not offer an excuse for her ongoing offending but does, perhaps, explain it. Nor does it/should it impact on whether she should be allowed to remain in Australia - that should be a given because she has only ever known life in Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 I'd send her back in a shot. All actions have consequences. This is the latest of the consequences of her shocking actions. Nothing else has worked to make her change her ways. Maybe this will. And there are plenty of people out there who are abused as a child and still manage to not get into drugs and crime. As for the kids, if she were a fit mother she could take them with her. But it doesn't sound like she's anywhere near close to being a fit mother. They are probably better off without such an influence in their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 I'd send her back in a shot. All actions have consequences. This is the latest of the consequences of her shocking actions. Nothing else has worked to make her change her ways. Maybe this will. And there are plenty of people out there who are abused as a child and still manage to not get into drugs and crime. As for the kids, if she were a fit mother she could take them with her. But it doesn't sound like she's anywhere near close to being a fit mother. They are probably better off without such an influence in their lives. Yes, there are people who were abused, but who manged to have a good life. Statistically, most do not. Vicious circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulip1 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 I'd say send her back although I'm sure the UK don't want her! She has made a choice to be a bad person. Sorry she had a bad start but so have many. It is still all about choices. If she is saying she'll never do anything wrong again then she's saying she can control what she does so no excuses, actions do have consequences. Kids not with her anyway thankfully so no big difference there. She's blaming her past and blaming the drugs but she's done nothing to address them or stop. Now suddenly she's going to play nice, sounds like she's had plenty of chances. The law is the law, whether she should stay or not should have nothing to do with the fact she's had kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 I'd say send her back although I'm sure the UK don't want her! She has made a choice to be a bad person. Sorry she had a bad start but so have many. It is still all about choices. If she is saying she'll never do anything wrong again then she's saying she can control what she does so no excuses, actions do have consequences. Kids not with her anyway thankfully so no big difference there. She's blaming her past and blaming the drugs but she's done nothing to address them or stop. Now suddenly she's going to play nice, sounds like she's had plenty of chances. The law is the law, whether she should stay or not should have nothing to do with the fact she's had kids. Ok, then look at it from another perspective (take her 'chances' out of the equation). She has been here since she was two years old, this is her country, her home. The UK is a foreign country to her. What then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miw54 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 I feel sorry for her five children. She may be a rubbish member of the community but just for the sake of her children, let her stay. Hear hear - there are enough foreign criminals in the UK already, let her stay in Oz !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Hear hear - there are enough foreign criminals in the UK already, let her stay in Oz !!!!Hope your not the next person she robs at knife point then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulip1 Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 What then? Then she may well feel scared and frightened, just like many of her innocent victims. I may seem harsh but the facts are she was given a visa to live and stay in Oz. She never got citizenship therefore they have the right to revoke her visa. Why on earth would they want her to remain there? Their descent citizens are being hurt by her. Yes she has lived there all these years but she surely cannot use the it's my home and country bit, she has treated it appallingly. She's learnt a hard lesson, if you don't look after something you may well lose it. I'm thinking more of the many poor victims effected by her rather than her. She made choices that put her in prison or certainly could off. If she couldn't imagine living without her kids then she shouldn't have risked going to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.