Control Orders breach human rights, law lords rule

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BuggerAll, Jun 10, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    The Law Lords have ruled that Control Orders on foreign terror suspects breach human rights. See Grauniad.

    Difficult one this. On the one hand a suspect should have the right to know what he is accused of. On the other hand there is a need to protect int sources.

    On the other hand these are people who are foreign and who we would like to throw out but who are claiming that that would breach their human rights. We wanted to detain them until they left but that breached their human rights. They are always free to leave. All they have to do is get on a plane.

    My view is that the Government should be able to say to any foreigner that they are not behaving in a way that is compatible with their status as a visitor/immigrant/refugee/asylum seeker therefore you are no longer welcome to remain.

    If at this point chummy can't/won't go then I cannot see why he should not be detained until such time as he is willing/able to leave. Failing that control orders are very much second best.

    Now if chummy wants to try and argue that he is the sort of person we want in the country then he is free to do so.
     
  2. Are shallow graves against Human Rights Laws?

    Yes they are, but reversing the decision is a lot harder :D
     
  3. As one of the appelants is an Iraqi who came here in 2002 prior to the downfall of the regime, do we not have a good case to deny his application for asylum on the following:

    1. He did not declare asylum in the first non oppressive country on fleeing Iraq.
    2. The regime in Iraq has been changed at major cost to the UK, therefore he could be handed back with no problem
    3. He is obviously involved in something nasty or he wouldnt have come to the attention of the security services, therefore remove him from our shores as being someone whose presence represents a threat to the security of the land, and give him a one way ticket back to Baghdad. If they need someone to escort him to the airport and put him on the plane I'm available at very reasonable rates.
     
  4. not always true. They can have a british born wife with british born kids, be unable to leave because of that, but also, there is one case where the individual cannot leave as he doesn't have a passport and needs a document from the home office which they wont provide.

    the accused (although they do not know what they are accused of) can be under house arrest for years on end. they are not alllowed a phone or computer and neither is anyone else who comes in there home, which must be very difficult for the children.

    control orders are basically internment but it also effects the family. If, after several years, the government cannot find evidence to bring a prosecution, they should drop the order, but they don't.

    control orders are a national disgrace ... any they could happen to anyone - not just foreigners!
     
  5. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Ski Carver: I agree that it is not desirable but if their behavior is not compatible with their status as visitors/immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers then they should leave the country. Until they do so they should eb detained or subject to control. I don't care if they are married to Brits, or anything else. If people wish to stay in this country then they should behave in a way that is friendly to it.

    There is a difficulty with the 'evidence' of their activity but I'm happy that if a judge (or panel of judges) is satisfied with evidence and the person cannot demonstrate their friendliness then out they go.

    Now you may feel that I'm trampling all over the right to a fair trial and innocence before being proven guilty but we are not talking about a trial: we are talking about a foreigner and whether they should be allowed to stay in the country. It is more of a civil matter where we are looking at the balance of probabilities and we should be placing the onus on the foreigner to demonstrate why they are a fit person to remain in the country.
     
  6. Its about time this was sorted out.

    It's quite simple really. If people are thought to have done something then charge them and give them the chance to answer their charges in court. If there is insufficient evidence then let them go.

    We stopped internment in Northern Ireland, this is much worse.
     
  7. No British Passport, should mean that you can be asked to leave the country at ANY time, for any reason, disclosed or otherwise.
     
  8. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    They are being asked to go. Its them who are refusing to go. If you are a foreigner you are in a country under sufferance. If the country wants you gone then out you go.
     
  9. fcuk em

    Buggerall - spot on mate
     
  10. Their presence here is "not conducive to good public order" they should be removed.
     
  11. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    It has just been mentioned that one of the chaps who has gone to court has duel British and Libyan nationality. This is a different matter. As a Brit he cannot be deported therefore he should not be subject to a control order.

    If he is a naturalised Brit and has behaved in a way that is not compatible with that then he should be stripped of his nationality but I think in that instance he must be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations about his behavior.

    Foreigners coming to this country and people becoming British subjects should be told in no uncertain terms what is expected of them and what types of behavior will not be tolerated. Far too many people have abused the hospitality given to them.
     
  12. just to reiterate.

    control orders can happen to anyone, including british nationals. The government can put any of us on an order for the next twenty years and they do not have to tell us why. Yes, that includes you or me.

    There are people on control orders who cannot leave. they have tried but the home office won't give them the paperwork to do so. they are trapped and do not know what they are accused of, so they cannot make a case against it. this is not justice.

    so, we have indefinate detention without trial, based on secret evidence and it can happen to any of us. we should all be concerned.
     
  13. If that's true then that's sh:te, there doesnt seem to be any actual point in that.

    I assume the control order applicable to British nationals you refer to is of the type of house arrest, not the detained til you decide to sod off type?
     
  14. "after how many years"/

    Does that mean anyone can arrive on british shores then rape/pillage/fuuck/jolly on any female and then have automatic "RIGHT" to live in the uk?

    edited to add.

    yes, over the past 2000 years that has been the norm "norm" = frecnch poisen.
     
  15. the 'foreigners' part was deemed to be discriminitory by the uk courts, so it was changed to cover everyone.

    If there is a case, charge and prosecute. if they are an undesireable foreigner, remove them, but control orders are serious breach of basic rights. everyone deserves their day in court and to speak against the 'evidence' against them.