ChatterBank3 mins ago
How Much Longer Must We Be Ruled By This "be Kind To Criminals" Echr?
31 Answers
http://
Here we see a Ghanaian woman who came to this country on a student visa in 2000, now being granted anonymity and the right to stay in this country indefinitely, because she has a right to a family life although she has already killed one of her family.
/// The argument is that she is being separated from her kids but not only was she separated from them in prison but there were also care proceedings brought against her. ///
/// 'The children have also spent periods of time in Ghana so the arguments for not deporting her fall away. It shows how the judges have expanded and shifted the goalposts from human rights in a way that is pretty arbitrary and perverse. ///
Here we see a Ghanaian woman who came to this country on a student visa in 2000, now being granted anonymity and the right to stay in this country indefinitely, because she has a right to a family life although she has already killed one of her family.
/// The argument is that she is being separated from her kids but not only was she separated from them in prison but there were also care proceedings brought against her. ///
/// 'The children have also spent periods of time in Ghana so the arguments for not deporting her fall away. It shows how the judges have expanded and shifted the goalposts from human rights in a way that is pretty arbitrary and perverse. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
apologists like jno always bang on about why Human rights are a good thing and who could argue. the problem is that we don't have any, what we have is obscure rulings in favour of lowlife scum on the pretense of some violation if we carry out what is right and proper. So most of us have our human rights curtailed so that we can give the full measure of those rights to some lowlife. We have prisoners claiming all sorts under ECHR, with HR lawyers having a field day, it's getting out of hand. No one would disagree with fundemental human rights so lets get some and garnish them with common sense.
///The Home Office said it was seeking to appeal against the tribunal’s decision.
It added: ‘Through the recently passed Immigration Act, we are making it easier to remove people from the UK and harder for individuals to prolong their stay with spurious appeals, by cutting the number of appeal rights from 17 to four.
‘It will also ensure that judges deal with Article 8 claims in the right way — making clear the right to a family life is not regarded as absolute and unqualified.’///
Let's hope that THO is successful in its' appeal.
It added: ‘Through the recently passed Immigration Act, we are making it easier to remove people from the UK and harder for individuals to prolong their stay with spurious appeals, by cutting the number of appeal rights from 17 to four.
‘It will also ensure that judges deal with Article 8 claims in the right way — making clear the right to a family life is not regarded as absolute and unqualified.’///
Let's hope that THO is successful in its' appeal.
“The European Convention on Human Rights is a very fine Treaty which, as a country, we should be proud to have signed up to. “
No, jack. What we should have done was to have declined to sign up on the basis that none of the rights and fundamental freedoms conferred by that Convention were denied to people in the UK anyway and so our signature was unnecessary. That’s something we could have been proud of. As far as I know in 1950 nobody in the UK suffered torture (Article 3), nobody was subject to unfair trials (Article 6), nobody was denied the right to marry (Article 12 which, interestingly, still does not encompass same-sex marriages), nobody was denied the right to free assembly and membership of a trade union (Article 11), nobody was denied freedom of thought and religion (Article 9), nobody was denied the freedom of expression (Article 10). The few people that did feel these rights had been denied them had adequate recourse available to them via the domestic courts.
“The trouble is with the interpretation our senior legal-beagles place on these Articles.”
“that is why i said it needs amending, those legal eagles are causing this, shame on them.”
It is not the fault of the judges. It is the fault of the convention itself and the UK’s need to comply with it is the fault of successive governments from the one that was in power when it was signed up to today. Some of the Articles are deliberately vague and all encompassing. In particular “Family Life” (Article 8) is not defined and this is the clause that is most frequently criticised when used by people such as the subject of this question. The fact that judges have been able to interpret the law as it stands is not their fault That’s what judges do.
As far as the UK is concerned the Convention was unnecessary, unwarranted, not very useful and, because of its vagueness, open to wide interpretation way beyond its architects’ original intentions. These arguments are insoluble with the Convention in its current form and the only option for the UK is to withdraw its signature and for the 1998 Human Rights Act (which is largely a carbon copy of the Convention) to be repealed. There is no reason why killers such as “GHA” (we cannot even be told the identity of child killers living amongst us) should enjoy the “Right to a Family Life” when she has slaughtered one of its members. She can enjoy (what’s left of) her family life elsewhere.
No, jack. What we should have done was to have declined to sign up on the basis that none of the rights and fundamental freedoms conferred by that Convention were denied to people in the UK anyway and so our signature was unnecessary. That’s something we could have been proud of. As far as I know in 1950 nobody in the UK suffered torture (Article 3), nobody was subject to unfair trials (Article 6), nobody was denied the right to marry (Article 12 which, interestingly, still does not encompass same-sex marriages), nobody was denied the right to free assembly and membership of a trade union (Article 11), nobody was denied freedom of thought and religion (Article 9), nobody was denied the freedom of expression (Article 10). The few people that did feel these rights had been denied them had adequate recourse available to them via the domestic courts.
“The trouble is with the interpretation our senior legal-beagles place on these Articles.”
“that is why i said it needs amending, those legal eagles are causing this, shame on them.”
It is not the fault of the judges. It is the fault of the convention itself and the UK’s need to comply with it is the fault of successive governments from the one that was in power when it was signed up to today. Some of the Articles are deliberately vague and all encompassing. In particular “Family Life” (Article 8) is not defined and this is the clause that is most frequently criticised when used by people such as the subject of this question. The fact that judges have been able to interpret the law as it stands is not their fault That’s what judges do.
As far as the UK is concerned the Convention was unnecessary, unwarranted, not very useful and, because of its vagueness, open to wide interpretation way beyond its architects’ original intentions. These arguments are insoluble with the Convention in its current form and the only option for the UK is to withdraw its signature and for the 1998 Human Rights Act (which is largely a carbon copy of the Convention) to be repealed. There is no reason why killers such as “GHA” (we cannot even be told the identity of child killers living amongst us) should enjoy the “Right to a Family Life” when she has slaughtered one of its members. She can enjoy (what’s left of) her family life elsewhere.
"If it doesn't say that anywhere then why are senior judges interpreting it in a way that suggests they think it should? "
Because they can. The convention doe not restrict the rights to the UK and neither does it deny them outside the UK. Judges have interpreted the law as they think fit. When a law is interpreted in a way not intended by Parliament it is up to politicians to frame and pass the necessary amendments. The Convention is not UK law and cannot be amended by Westminster alone. That is why, since it does not suit us, the only way is out.
Because they can. The convention doe not restrict the rights to the UK and neither does it deny them outside the UK. Judges have interpreted the law as they think fit. When a law is interpreted in a way not intended by Parliament it is up to politicians to frame and pass the necessary amendments. The Convention is not UK law and cannot be amended by Westminster alone. That is why, since it does not suit us, the only way is out.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
News13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.