ChatterBank2 mins ago
Is it time to change this law?
31 Answers
One more legacy passed on by that dreaded Labour government, the European Convention, which was passed into British law by the previous Labour government, and particularly Article Eight – the “right to private and family life”.
This piece of legislation is the cause of these foreign criminals being allowed a safe and comfortable life here in Britain all at our expense.
Isn't it now time for this protection to be removed, so that we can then send them all back to where they came from?
This piece of legislation is the cause of these foreign criminals being allowed a safe and comfortable life here in Britain all at our expense.
Isn't it now time for this protection to be removed, so that we can then send them all back to where they came from?
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.
It's well past time - why is Cameron chasing round saving pennies when we could get rid of thousands of spongers who have no interest in this country?
http://www.guardian.c...mminent-david-cameron
http://www.guardian.c...mminent-david-cameron
This is Article 8:
----------------
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
----------------
Which bit don't you like?
I couldn't say why judges are making the decisions they are, but it seems to me that Article 8 gives them every opportunity to act against criminals.
I can see why newspapers don't like Article 8 because it hinders them cashing in on people's private lives. Not saying the Telegraph has a vested interest in turning people against this legislation ...
----------------
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
----------------
Which bit don't you like?
I couldn't say why judges are making the decisions they are, but it seems to me that Article 8 gives them every opportunity to act against criminals.
I can see why newspapers don't like Article 8 because it hinders them cashing in on people's private lives. Not saying the Telegraph has a vested interest in turning people against this legislation ...
Article 8
does that mean i can ask the local council to take down the thousands of CCTV cameras installed in our borough, which infringes on my rights as a citizen, not to have my picture and family members, being watched, and recorded. Or for that matter any mail, e mail, telephone calls to be monitored, in the name of what exactly.
The usual whine i hear is, well if you have done nothing wrong, not right surely?
Whilst giving rights to British and foreign criminals the right to private and family life.
does that mean i can ask the local council to take down the thousands of CCTV cameras installed in our borough, which infringes on my rights as a citizen, not to have my picture and family members, being watched, and recorded. Or for that matter any mail, e mail, telephone calls to be monitored, in the name of what exactly.
The usual whine i hear is, well if you have done nothing wrong, not right surely?
Whilst giving rights to British and foreign criminals the right to private and family life.
The newspapers campaign against Article 8 is motivated by their wish to report on footballers private lives and thus sell more newspapers. The foreign criminals they can't deport is just ammunition.
It is everyones Human Right to know who Ryan Gíggs is sleeping with this week, and the press deserve it to their bank balances to be able to tell us without super injunctions.
It is everyones Human Right to know who Ryan Gíggs is sleeping with this week, and the press deserve it to their bank balances to be able to tell us without super injunctions.
The issue about Article 8 and the super-injunction fiasco is that, as has been pointed out, Article 8 restricts the behaviour of public authorities. As far as I am aware newspapers are not public authorities, but the judges have unilaterally extended the law to include them.
There's nothing about Article 8 I don't like. I just don't believe any of the ECHR or the HRA is necessary in the UK as we have adequate protection from more specific criminal and civil llegislation. The very vague Human Rights legislation is often used inappropriately and not in the spirit for which it was framed.
There's nothing about Article 8 I don't like. I just don't believe any of the ECHR or the HRA is necessary in the UK as we have adequate protection from more specific criminal and civil llegislation. The very vague Human Rights legislation is often used inappropriately and not in the spirit for which it was framed.
> As far as I am aware newspapers are not public authorities, but the judges have unilaterally extended the law to include them.
This was following the Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd case in 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.o...ki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd
This was following the Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd case in 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.o...ki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd
Yes A.O.G. this is after all, the laughing give away our money country, the one 2 weeks ago in our are, killed a child, sped off, when they put him in court he pleaded that his family would suffer if they deported him "EH" yes, that is right, what about that little girl he killed? the bsd deprived her family of seeing her grow up, deprived her Grandparents seeing her, deprived her when she grow up to have a family, Britain, they know where to come don't they?
Yes, Ellipsis, thanks for pointing out the origin of this travesty.
Their Lordships’ reasoning is very circuitous and leads me to believe that they decided what their ruling would be and then devised their reasoning to fit. Without the benefit of the Human Rights legislation they would not have had the luxury of such a decision and Ms Campbell would have had to take her chances via “defamation of character” or something similar. Effectively newspapers have been prevented from printing the truth.
In the case of the prisoner released in order to care for his children (again courtesy of Article 8) the judges have extended the boundaries even further. Not only have they ignored the proviso”... except such as is in accordance with the law... for the prevention of disorder or crime...” but they have extended protection to the miscreant’s children. This effectively gives anybody with dependants a crack at very early release via Article 8.
The ECHR was devised to prevent persecution by over-zealous states. There is nothing over-zealous about locking up burglars, nor is there anything outrageous about a newspaper publishing the fact that a famous model is a drug addict or that a Premiership footballer cannot keep his trousers on.
The Human Rights Act is being so widely interpreted (because it is so loosely framed) that it is bringing the law into (even further) disrepute. The issue needs to be addressed urgently.
Their Lordships’ reasoning is very circuitous and leads me to believe that they decided what their ruling would be and then devised their reasoning to fit. Without the benefit of the Human Rights legislation they would not have had the luxury of such a decision and Ms Campbell would have had to take her chances via “defamation of character” or something similar. Effectively newspapers have been prevented from printing the truth.
In the case of the prisoner released in order to care for his children (again courtesy of Article 8) the judges have extended the boundaries even further. Not only have they ignored the proviso”... except such as is in accordance with the law... for the prevention of disorder or crime...” but they have extended protection to the miscreant’s children. This effectively gives anybody with dependants a crack at very early release via Article 8.
The ECHR was devised to prevent persecution by over-zealous states. There is nothing over-zealous about locking up burglars, nor is there anything outrageous about a newspaper publishing the fact that a famous model is a drug addict or that a Premiership footballer cannot keep his trousers on.
The Human Rights Act is being so widely interpreted (because it is so loosely framed) that it is bringing the law into (even further) disrepute. The issue needs to be addressed urgently.
