Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Peter Dow Disciple, Jul 18, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
MP seeks to stop criminals using human rights to avoid deportation - Telegraph
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.
Stuff ECHR and ECHR and everything with the word 'Europe' in it!
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 Can still go all the way to the ECHR if we repealed HRA.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.
It's amazing how other countries under the ECHR can deport people yet the UK can't?
"It's amazing how other countries under the ECHR can deport people yet the UK can't?"
Yes the crux of the matter.
At one time German Law took precedence over Euro Law and I think the Frog just doesn't give a sh1t what it says.
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?
Why, are you worried about getting a one-way ticket?
Can you give up breathing, Ta very much...
Are you sure about that? Or are you just tub thumping?
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.
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.
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.
Can we start by deporting all paddies and ozzies?
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".
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.
Separate names with a comma.