26 1 min 9 yrs

Such a tragedy.

The family of a couple killed by an illegal immigrant drink-driver have blamed Britain’s shambolic border controls.

 Failed asylum seeker Eduard Mereohra, 26, was kicked out of the country in 2009 but slipped back in just months later. On New Year’s Day, still drunk from a party the night before, he ploughed into a car carrying grandparents David and Dorothy Metcalf, killing them both and tearing a loving family apart.

Yesterday, after he was jailed for nine years, the couple’s family said they would still be alive today if the immigration system had not let them down. They demanded an official investigation into how the Moldovan national was able to make a mockery of our border controls.

Oh, I’m sure Theresa May has sorted that all out by now. My heart bleeds for the family of David and Dorothy Metcalf – horrendous for them.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

26 thoughts on “NO JUSTICE

  1. Well, while he shouldn’t have been in the country it was the drunk driving that killed them.

  2. Mahons – are you saying that if the failed asylum seeker had not been here, another drunk driver would have done the killing instead?

  3. I am saying that issues are being mixed. And that his immigration status is not relevant to the the tragedy any more than the color of his shirt.

    Drunk driving is a serious crime and deserves real punishment.

  4. Mahons – if the guy weren’t there, the old folks wouldn’t be dead. There is no issue regarding ‘immigration status’: he should not have been there.

  5. He didn’t only slip back in, he was issued a NI number. Well done the State, well up to its usual standards.

    Since it was just an ordinary couple killed then nothing will be done. It’s only when the ruling class begins to be damaged that anything will change.

  6. Allan – they aren’t dead because he was an illegal immigrant, they are dead because he drove drunk. There are 3000 people killed or seriously injured each year because of drunk drivers.

  7. Mahons – as on all matters, we shall have to agree to differ.

    Pete – the ruling class really does believe that it will be exempt from the carnage of the policies which it inflicts upon us all. By the time they are affected, the damage will be irreversible.

  8. Let me put it this way. If an illegal alien saved someone’s life, that doesn’t mean illegal aliens should be welcomed or not deported. See?

  9. illegal alien

    That’s such a dehumanising term. I never use the ‘i’ word in relation to immigration. Undocumented is more appropriate, IMO. And I would never refer to a human being as an alien!

  10. Mahons – if an illegal migrant who had saved somebody’s life had not been there, the person who had been rescued would have died in the second scenario if there had been nobody else there to perform the rescue.

    However, if the illegal who killed the elderly couple had been denied return to the UK, it is unlikely that the elderly couple would have been killed by another drunken driver simply because many more people are willing to save someone in trouble than to get drunk and drive a car into them.

  11. Alien is a term from many centuries ago meaning someone from another place. When one is undocumented and the lack of documents means they are breaking the law then they are doing something illegal.

    I find torturing the English language for political reasons is dehumanizing.

  12. I find torturing the English language for political reasons is dehumanizing.

    Well said. The long march of pc is restricting the language more and more. “Illegal alien” will probably be “undocumented human” within a few years, just as Petr Tarasov wishes.

  13. Peter,

    I usually like your comments. Here, you have presumed I want to restrict others. Not so, just stating my preferences and the reasons why.

  14. They didn’t forget to produce or obtain or renew some documentL The term ” undocumented ” is dishonest.

    They intentionally crossed a border illegally and they intentionally remain illegally, in many cases siphoning off resources that belong to a nation’s own people.

  15. Phantom,

    Remember I said drinking the ‘nation’ koolaid makes people less compassionate?

    Something to think about.

  16. I’m speaking rationally amigo.

    It is not cold hearted in the least to say that I own my house and that any country is owned by its people, and that noone else has any claim on it.

  17. Petr

    Do you under any circumstances have the right to move into someone else’s house against the owners wishes?

    The principle is identical.

  18. While you ponder that, I will ask another very basic question

    Do you under any circumstances have the right to take any of your neighbor’s property?

  19. No, they are two different things entirely. But since you raise the matter, I am opposed to private property.

    Communism is equality. A society organized around human need. No greed. No individualism. No longer will people see themselves merely as individuals under communism. Communism is collectivism. The common good. Sharing. Private property is eliminated under communism. Communism is altruism. As Marx said, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The ethic of “serve the people” will govern all human interactions.


  20. Do you under any circumstances have the right to take property, real or personal from another?

    If you are opposed to private property the answer would seem to be yes

    Since people otherwise will not give you their possssions jus because you think you need it or want it

  21. Communism is equality.

    Can you point to a single example of communinsm actually working to produce equality? We all know the failures – Russia, East Germany, China, Cambodia etc. I’m curious to know where you think it has succeeded in its declared aim.

  22. No there won’t, not in this country anyway.

    We won’t stand for such things., for reasons of simple morality and justice.

    I have more stuff than some others I know because I work twice as hard as some, and a hundred times harder than the Occupy sloth who we expelled from Zuccotti Square.

    Cheers, gotta go spend some money.

  23. Petr – given that Wall Street funded the Soviet Union and that Marx was funded by Nathan Rothschild, does this statement by a contemporary of Marx – What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank… – not ring any alarms? As you are aware, these ‘marxists’ don’t believe in private property for the masses but they certainly believe that they should own everything and use banking a la Marx/Rothschild to get it.

  24. Ho ho!

    Oh dear. Allan thinks he’s onto something good. Too many illusions, inaccuracies and general nuttiness in there to bother with I’m afraid.

  25. Petr – it is a fact that Wall Street funded the Soviet Union, and it is a fact that Marx was funded by rich bankers because ‘marxism’ needs a strong central bank owned by the same people who funded Marx. Yes, Petr – you are the Wolfie Smith of ATW 🙂


    – This, therefore, is an explanation that fits the evidence. This handful of bankers and promoters was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or Socialist, or Democrat, or even American. Above all else these men wanted markets, preferably captive international markets — and a monopoly of the captive world market as the ultimate goal. They wanted markets that could be exploited monopolistically without fear of competition from Russians, Germans, or anyone else — including American businessmen outside the charmed circle. This closed group was apolitical and amoral. In 1917, it had a single-minded objective — a captive market in Russia, all presented under, and intellectually protected by, the shelter of a league to enforce the peace.

    Wall Street did indeed achieve its goal. American firms controlled by this syndicate were later to go on and build the Soviet Union, and today [1974] are well on their way to bringing the Soviet military-industrial complex into the age of the computer.

    Today the objective is still alive and well. John D. Rockefeller [III] expounds it in his book “The Second American Revolution” — which sports a five-pointed star on the title page. [14] The book contains a naked plea for humanism, that is, a plea that our first priority is to work for others. In other words, a plea for collectivism. Humanism is collectivism. It is notable that the Rockefellers, who have promoted this humanistic idea for a century, have not turned their OWN property over to others. Presumably it is implicit in their recommendation that we all work for the Rockefellers. Rockefeller’s book promotes collectivism under the guises of “cautious conservatism” and “the public good.” It is in effect a plea for the continuation of the earlier Morgan-Rockefeller support of collectivist enterprises and mass subversion of individual rights.

    In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for self-aggrandizement by an elitist circle that pleads for world peace and human decency. But so long as the reader looks at world history in terms of an inexorable Marxian conflict between capitalism and communism, the objectives of such an alliance between international finance and international revolution remain elusive. So will the ludicrousness of promotion of the public good by plunderers. If these alliances still elude the reader, then he should ponder the obvious fact that these same international interests and promoters are always willing to determine what other people should do, but are signally unwilling to be first in line to give up their own wealth and power. Their mouths are open, their pockets are closed. –

Comments are closed.