I thought leaving one's country would be forbidden if on parole?

Posted by MustavaMond on May 30, 2010 09:51

When entering a country - they normally have laws prohibiting people with criminal records entering the country. Surely, Thailand operates something like that as well. Obviously, not so strict as most countries but should be enforceable.

Posted by Tbs on May 30, 2010 10:58

inform the bride to be and then lets see how she feels about him

Posted by yds on May 30, 2010 12:37

Brittish Police should seize his passport, for the safety of all children, remember what happened to a man called Garry Glitter.

Posted by Anonymous on May 30, 2010 17:40

It is obvious why this person is going to THAILAND, let's hope that if he gets up to his old tricks he will end up in a Thai prison or it would be better if the Thai Immigration stop him entering the kingdom, better for everyone

Posted by David Hindhaugh on May 30, 2010 17:55

Surely if he is on parole he shouldn't be allowed to leave the country?

Someone needs to contact the bride and fill her in.

In addition why is he allowed to live with a family with a young child?? Surely all this should have been covered off in the parole conditions?

Posted by Tasz on May 30, 2010 19:27

This piece of TRASH should never be allowed out in public, let alone allowed in Thailand. If he arrives there he should immediately be arrested and put in prison to rot with all the other cockroaches.

Posted by Disgusted on June 1, 2010 04:35

Ah how I love the cries of the lynch mob...One part of me wonders how many say they are Christian, another how many are Jacko fans.

I also love the way you trumpet the assessment of that respected moral compass and source of accurate reporting The News of the World. The newspaper that singlehandedly caused chaos by publishing the details of supposed paedophiles that resulted in arson attacks and violence against innocent people, including one unfortunate paediatrician. A series of articles that set back law enforcement efforts to track really dangerous offenders by years.

Y see unlike the lynch mob I have actually worked on paedophile cases including Operation Cathedral (try googling Wonderland Club). So I know that just like all the criminals paedophiles come in many shades of grey, and this muppet sounds like the lower level of offender and thus not subject to travel restrictions.

So please, as an ex-law enforcement officer, can I ask that you in the lynch mob save your hatred for the real dangers, put aside the pitchforks and tar and feathers, and try seeing things in shades rather than just black and white. You do the law enforcement community no good with this.

And to you Mr Editor may I suggest you try relying on better sources than a discredited cheap shabby scandal rag like the NOTW. You are better than them, don't drag yourselves down to their level eh?

Editor: Thanks for the advice, Sandman, but we'll do what we think is best. Mr Meehan may be fully reformed by the time he steps off a flight on Phuket but he probably should tell his new love about his sordid past, don't you think? And we have the good old News of the World to thank for telling us he could be in the neighborhood soon. The US equivalent, the 'National Enquirer,' may win a Pulitzer for revealing the truth about Tiger Woods when so many ''quality'' journals could only find nice things to say about him. Tabloid journalism has its place.

Posted by Sandman on June 1, 2010 15:25

So what exactly were these "child porn charges"? Downloading videos from the internet? He is 24 and so is she.

Remember where this story came from - "The News of the World". I agree totally with Sandman - the first poster.

As for the Editor... what do you mean "reformed"? Reformed from what? What EXACTLY was he convicted of?

You don't know and neither do I but keep on implying he is some kind of serial rapist of four year olds as opposed to possibly someone caught downloading a child porn video - the same sort of stuff regularly offered to any man visiting Pantip Plaza.

Editor: Are not suggesting that, because child porn videos are on offer in Thailand, there's no harm in letting in a sex offender from another country? What's being ''implied'' is that he should tell his bride-to-be about his past. A quick search online will tell you more about this man's convictions, and feel free to look up the word ''reformed'' as well.

Posted by Mike Boyd on June 2, 2010 19:14

Dangerous, very dangerous for a news organisation to set themselves up as moral arbiter ('We'll do what we think is right'), which is what this publication appears to be doing. His actions are despicable, but Meehan's served his time and it would appear that he is entitled to leave his home country without restriction - else British Authorities would probably have stopped him; one can be sure that they have advised their Thai counterparts.

As for his fiancee, the decision to tell her of his crime is up to him, not you. And no, you have not actually called for her to be informed, nor have you called for him to be denied entry to here. What you have done is stirred things up needlessly (let the authorities deal with Meehan) and unpleasantly, allowing you to sit back and watch the hits on your site climb as the lynch mob gets ready.

Editor: What the News of the World has reported is of public interest on Phuket and in Thailand. We have been damned for reporting the case . . . and we would have been damned if we didn't. Phuketwan has been even-handed and will remain fair to all. Fortunately this article has not excited many to the degree it seems to have excited you. If news organisations do what they think is wrong, rather than what they think is right, will it make you happy?

Posted by Liz Canning on June 2, 2010 20:41

And now you're attempting to be a victim! (the damned if you do, damned if you don't remark). It has "excited" of people; read your own site and you are stirring things up. You wouldn't be able to get away with this style of journalism in many countries, thankfully. I suppose that's why you're here.

Editor: I'm interested to hear more about what we ''wouldn't be able to get away with'' as journalism, Liz. For a while there, I thought you lived in a democracy. Now you tell me that I was ''stirring things up'' by advising you not to get too excited. Are you sure you're not confusing journalism with comment?

Posted by Liz Canning on June 3, 2010 03:49

I can't figure out why Thailand is claiming they can't stop this guy from entering:

A: Section 12 of the Immigration Act for the Kingdom of Thailand describes the characteristics of Aliens that are or may be prohibited from entering the Kingdom and are outlined as those:

6)Having been convicted by judgment of a Thai court or a foreign court and imprisoned, except for petty offenses or offenses committed by negligence.

source:http://thailawforum.com/blog/entering-the-kingdom-of-thailand-with-a-criminal-record.html

I guess possession of child porn is a petty offense in the UK?

For those that have asked about parole, it appears he has met his obligations to the court and is off parole/probation.

It's strange it wasn't mentioned here, but I am more concerned about his involvement in the disappearance of his girlfriend's 9 year old daughter.

Posted by NG on June 3, 2010 13:47

It was becoming an interesting discussion, yet that ceased when you evaded the issue. Your "comment" could, in many countries, verge on the acceptable side of incitement. Democracies and their legal systems tend to prefer to prevent such inflammatory stances by a news outlet. Laws - criminal and civil - exist, I am afraid to tell you, to both protect free speech and to prevent said incitement. You would be on shaky legal ground in the UK, US or other democracies (viz. Sandman's comments) acting in this manner and could have an injunction served and successfully enforced on you; it has happened in other cases. Look them up. I wonder about your experience in journalism. I, sadly, am only a junior partner in a law firm and have at best three years' experience in media, slander and libel cases. Further, although I deplore what Meehan has done, he has been punished and while all steps must be taken by the authorities to protect the innocent, he has yet, if at all, to commit any further crimes. The law, in most countries is, on that basis, clear: he, too, requires protection.

Editor: Liz, I've worked around the world, including in Britain, and what you are saying is news to me, and I suspect most other seasoned professionals working in the media and the law. I'm pleased for Mr Meehan that you are acting as his unpaid legal adviser in this matter, but as a lawyer in training, the kind of comments you've made here indicate that you are quick to jump to conclusions while ignoring the facts, and inclined to express opinions that have no evidence to support them. No judge would be impressed. If you want to know more about my background, I suggest you do what good lawyers and journalists are supposed to do: establish the facts for yourself first. In my experience, the best media lawyers are the ones who encourage freedom of speech. The worst ones try to shut it down. Which kind are you?

Posted by Liz Canning on June 3, 2010 18:55

What an absolute total beat up. The guy was sentenced for possessing child porn. Must be a bloody quiet news week in Phuket for this sort of trash and crusading to go on.

Hey Alan, see that guy in the checked shirt coming through immigration? He was convicted of drunk driving and manslaughter for running over a kid. Guess you better tell Immigration to make sure he doesn't rent a car or motorbike and go drinking in bars. Geeeez.

Sad to see PhukeyWan trolling to the depths of Pattaya People and Thaivisa.com

Posted by John L on June 12, 2010 17:21