UK- ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT RAPES 9 YEAR OLD GIRL

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

February 23, 2008

February 23, 2008 -The horrific news doesn’t seem to be run by any newspaper in the UK. I found it on Hindustan Times, DNA and NRI World. IN.
Major Singh was living illegally in the UK since 1994. He was charged with sexually assaulting a 9-year old girl. Singh was sentenced to 6-years in prison by the Leicester Crown Court for assaulting the girl on September 24, 2007, and will hopefully be deported immediately after ending his jail sentence. After his arrest, Singh admitted that while drunk, he forced the child to sexual act against her wish. During this dishonorable act he was caught by local youths who took the matter in their hands and beat him. Singh was able to flee from the crime scene only to be arrested by the police shortly after. No details about the girl’s ethnicity were revealed.
BBC news is dead silent about Singh’s crime, but it’s running the story of John Ruth (”safe” name) who has admitted raping a girl aged 10 in a house in Shettleston November 18, 2007.

What I found about Major Singh is simply outrageous: according to the JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR AND A CHAIRMAN OF THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL, and the OPINION OF LORD NIMMO SMITH in the petition of MAJOR SINGH, Petitioner dated 7 March 2000, Singh entered the United Kingdom illegally in October 1994. On November10, 1994 he applied for political asylum, claiming to be a supporter of the Khalistan Liberation Front and a member of the Sikh Student Federation. In the above mentioned review we can read: ”The appellant was born on 21 March 1965 and is of Indian nationality. According to the appellant, he left India in August 1994 and travelled by air via the United Arab Emirates to the Czech Republic where he remained for approximately 9 weeks. From there he entered the United Kingdom clandestinely by lorry in October 1994. He made an application for asylum on 10 November 1994. This application was refused by the Secretary of State in a letter of June 1996. On 16 August 1996 the appellant was served with directions for his removal from the United Kingdom to India.”

At interview the appellant said he joined the latter organisation in 1989 but the documents at annex E of the main Home Office bundle said that he joined in 1990. The letter of 23 March 1996 at Annex E was written in English, although the appellant claimed to have needed an interpreter for the purposes of his appeal. If the appellant was part of any organisation it was at a very low level. He said at interview that he had not attended rallies or demonstrations but just put up posters and gave food to members of the party. He claimed to have been detained once for four hours on suspicion of hiding guns and sheltering terrorists but he said he was not ill-treated and said he was never tried or sentenced. His family were not harassed or detained. AISSF was not a banned organisation but a mainstream political party. It did contain the Bittu Faction which was banned because of involvement in terrorism. If the appellant was part of this faction the police might want to question him in their role of maintaining law and order. The appellant did not leave India until nearly a year after he claimed to have been detained. It was unlikely that the police had any interest in him, if they did he would have a fair trial. His passport was issued in 1993 and he said he had waited one year for his passport to be issued which suggested that he had applied for it in July 1992. This suggested that he intended to leave India before his alleged difficulty started. At interview he said he had no trouble leaving India. This was despite the evidence of the US State Department report which said that the government of India might deny a passport or prevent travel by those advocating Sikh Independence. The appellant claimed to have spent 10 weeks in the Czech Republic but had made no application for asylum there. His actions were not consistent with someone fleeing for his life as in Manga Singh (11175). If he was concerned that he could not remain in Punjab he could move elsewhere in India, as in Mohan Singh (9151) and Dupovac (11846).”

This is the man who raped a 9 year old girl, destroying her innocence.
This is the man protected by media and an irresponsible PC policy.
This is the man who was not supposed to be in the UK.
Someone should get the balance right.

Posted by Madi Lussier at 6:30 AM  

0 comments:

Post a Comment