British Conservative Patriots Protect us from Johnny Foreigner Human Rights Act

#2
So what's this meant to achieve? If we remove the reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights even if it does preclude UK judges using it in their decisions can't they then just appeal directly to the European Court of Human Rights under the article? As I understood things the whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 was so people could use the UK courts to get a decision rather than having to go all the way to Strasbourg. Granted I've never really studied law so maybe I'm missing something but it they can still appeal to Strasbourg using the article in question it all seems a little academic to me.
 
#4
So what's this meant to achieve? If we remove the reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights even if it does preclude UK judges using it in their decisions can't they then just appeal directly to the European Court of Human Rights under the article? As I understood things the whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 was so people could use the UK courts to get a decision rather than having to go all the way to Strasbourg. Granted I've never really studied law so maybe I'm missing something but it they can still appeal to Strasbourg using the article in question it all seems a little academic to me.
All correct. HRA just allows appeals to the High Court here. Can still go all the way to the ECHR if we repealed HRA. We would have to appeal HRA and withdraw from ECHR.
 
#5
It's amazing how other countries under the ECHR can deport people yet the UK can't?
 
#6
"It's amazing how other countries under the ECHR can deport people yet the UK can't?"

Yes the crux of the matter.

john
At one time German Law took precedence over Euro Law and I think the Frog just doesn't give a sh1t what it says.
 
#7
Its a shame people can be deported to America but criminals are safe...Peter can we deport you back to your cave in the Shetlands?
 
#9
It's amazing how other countries under the ECHR can deport people yet the UK can't?
Are you sure about that? Or are you just tub thumping?

June 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM
On Wednesday 60 Iraqis were forcibly returned to Baghdad from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. Next Wednesday more asylum seekers will be flown back.
or
Friday 17 June 2011
UK goes ahead with deporting 42 Sri Lankan asylum seekers.
Seems the UK does deport its fair share of people after all?
 
#10
Are you sure about that? Or are you just tub thumping?


or


Seems the UK does deport its fair share of people after all?
The UK does deport people , but her process seems to be much more lengthy and full of loopholes and catches.
I honestly don't know if I could see a UK court deporting a Nigerian women and her children as happened here a few weeks ago.
Maybe that means we are a bit more...cut throat and the UK has a more humane process. I'm not saying either is better.
 
#11
Some Years ago, say four, we used to have a UK Immigration Appeals Judge come out on Business/Holiday.
He sated more then once that he used to turn down over 90% of the appeals.
We asked what happened then?
Next Plane /Boat home ?

Nothing, in most cases they appealed, very few left.

john
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
My understanding is that the only legal way out of this is to withdraw from the ECHR entirely and then re-enter with appropriate national caveats based on what has gone so manifestly wrong in the last few years. The first step would of course be blocked by both the Liberals, and liberals like Cameron. So no hope there.
 
#13
Can we start by deporting all paddies and ozzies? ;-)
 
#14
Some Years ago, say four, we used to have a UK Immigration Appeals Judge come out on Business/Holiday.
He sated more then once that he used to turn down over 90% of the appeals.
We asked what happened then?
Next Plane /Boat home ?

Nothing, in most cases they appealed, very few left.

john
The problem there is that immigration cases will be funded by Legal Aid, even if there is virtually no chance of success. Lawyers will happily take on hopeless cases because they know that they'll be paid whether they win or not.

There are so-called "national interest" rules that apply to the convention. For example, this allows France to deport "undesirable" extremist preachers who would normally be protected from deportation by the ECHR. Britain does not exploit these rules. I don't know whether this is through choice or because these rules were not incorporated into the Human Rights Act.

The Act itself was, allegedly, largely written by Cherie Blair. It is so vaguely worded that it's capable of almost any interpretation. Hence the "right to life" provisions stopped the government from deporting the murderer of PC Sharon Beshenivsky because his life would be in danger in Somalia, while NHS patients can be left to die if their treatment is deemed to be too expensive.

Similarly, the fair trial provisions of the act are flouted by the government. Stop paying your Council Tax and the council can send the bailiffs in without even telling you, never mind allowing you a fair trial.

In the UK, the ambiguity of the HRA is combined with very large numbers of so-called "activist" judges that were packed into the Bench during the Blair and Brown years. The end result is that illegal immigrants get leave to remain in the UK because they've got a British girlfriend or, in one case, because the bloke had a cat that was "one of the family".
 
#15
is this the same Cherry Blur who had Her new Chambers set up from Day one when the ECHR came into force.
Shirley a spot of Insider trading there.

john
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#16
Some Years ago, say four, we used to have a UK Immigration Appeals Judge come out on Business/Holiday.
He sated more then once that he used to turn down over 90% of the appeals.
We asked what happened then?
Next Plane /Boat home ?

Nothing, in most cases they appealed, very few left.

john
Yup it's true the govt decides they have to go, they appeal and suddenly they can stay. They used to spend all day faxing solicitors when I worked in an immigration centre.
 
#17
Some Years ago, say four, we used to have a UK Immigration Appeals Judge come out on Business/Holiday.
He sated more then once that he used to turn down over 90% of the appeals.
We asked what happened then?
Next Plane /Boat home ?

Nothing, in most cases they appealed, very few left.

john
I'm currently living in Berlin, and its the same here. I know a number of cases, including but not limited to Aussies and septics as well as the usual non EU types.

I'm not defending the system in any way, but it really frsutrates me how we believe this is only a problem in the UK and somehow the rest of Europe dodges it. France receives more immigrants than we do, and I believe they make up a proportinately larger percentage of their population than our immigrant population does. Here in Berlin, pretty much every third person I see on the street is Turkish and everyone gets by just fine.

It should be controlled for sure, but in most cases its only a problem when you allow yourself to believe its this giant problem. not to say its all hunky-dory.. more that you only ever hear/read about the bad ones and as a country we need a little bit of perspective.

The EU is far from perfect, but if we can't punch at the same weight any longer then surely it makes sense to be involved and at the lead of an emerging force like Europe than fade into obscurity while making a disproportionate amount of noise. Like it or not, we are geographically part of it, and despite what the papers say not all politicans are stupid. You can bet that if EU membership was such a truly awful thing as everyone claims, the tories would have us out the door. Apparantly, they sound like any excuse at all would do. Right now, we are the childish whingers of Europe. Not co-operating, complaining about everything.. but not leaving and letting them get on with it.

Figures listed give Russia, Germany, France and even the Ukraine as receiving more immigrants to an already larger settled migrant population. You can find these figures in a number of places if you bother to look, but they are neatly summed here;

Immigration to Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#18
I'm currently living in Berlin, and its the same here. I know a number of cases, including but not limited to Aussies and septics as well as the usual non EU types.............................................................
Interesting post Zer0. However, I think the point the OP raises is getting rid of undesirables, which does seem a problem, not a general dig at immigrants to UK.
 
#19
"Right now, we are the childish whingers of Europe. Not co-operating, complaining about everything.. but not leaving and letting them get on with it."

Ah, and they do say Youth is wasted on the young.
Not only Youth but a bit of expireance of life, come back when ya've got some time in.

john
 
#20
The problem there is that immigration cases will be funded by Legal Aid, even if there is virtually no chance of success. Lawyers will happily take on hopeless cases because they know that they'll be paid whether they win or not.

There are so-called "national interest" rules that apply to the convention. For example, this allows France to deport "undesirable" extremist preachers who would normally be protected from deportation by the ECHR. Britain does not exploit these rules. I don't know whether this is through choice or because these rules were not incorporated into the Human Rights Act.

The Act itself was, allegedly, largely written by Cherie Blair. It is so vaguely worded that it's capable of almost any interpretation. Hence the "right to life" provisions stopped the government from deporting the murderer of PC Sharon Beshenivsky because his life would be in danger in Somalia, while NHS patients can be left to die if their treatment is deemed to be too expensive.

Similarly, the fair trial provisions of the act are flouted by the government. Stop paying your Council Tax and the council can send the bailiffs in without even telling you, never mind allowing you a fair trial.

In the UK, the ambiguity of the HRA is combined with very large numbers of so-called "activist" judges that were packed into the Bench during the Blair and Brown years. The end result is that illegal immigrants get leave to remain in the UK because they've got a British girlfriend or, in one case, because the bloke had a cat that was "one of the family".
Well done,A-M

This article lays bare how anti British Labour and specifically Cherie Blair is.A venal and traitorous parasite feeding off the taxpayers of Britain.

The Blair years have case a very long shadow over Britain and her freedoms,whilst Comrade Tony,his venal wife and the atrocious creature Mandleson creep off to make even further millions,much at the expense of the British taxpayer.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top