Film, Media & TV2 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.
Quite true, Ellipsis, the judges do have plenty of scope.
However, but for Article 8 m’Learned friends would not have had any decisions to make at all. It is only because of Article 8 that the burglar had the opportunity to seek release; it is the same legislation which led to the Campbell decision you highlighted.
With regard to the burglar’s release, other nations (including those who are signatories to the ECHR) must be laughing down to the bottom of their boots. Unfortunately it is no laughing matter for victims of such crimes who, quite frankly, deserve something a little better. They are already victims of crime; there is no reason why they should also be made victims of a ludicrous Criminal Justice system.
However, but for Article 8 m’Learned friends would not have had any decisions to make at all. It is only because of Article 8 that the burglar had the opportunity to seek release; it is the same legislation which led to the Campbell decision you highlighted.
With regard to the burglar’s release, other nations (including those who are signatories to the ECHR) must be laughing down to the bottom of their boots. Unfortunately it is no laughing matter for victims of such crimes who, quite frankly, deserve something a little better. They are already victims of crime; there is no reason why they should also be made victims of a ludicrous Criminal Justice system.
How so, Ellipsis?
In my last post I suggested that but for Article 8 the burglar would have had no recourse to the court. He had been properly convicted and properly sentenced. Bar an appeal against conviction or sentence based on either points of fact or points of law (relating solely to his offence) he should have no such recourse. It is the ridiculously wide interpretation of Article 8 which gave him his “Get Out of Jail” card.
I have no issues with Article 8 or the ECHR in general. It is a fine Convention for countries where citizens are oppressed by the State; it is fine for countries where basic rights are not generally upheld and where no proper recourse exists where oppression is evident. That is what it was designed for. (Though quite how it is imagined that countries which behave like that towards its citizens will take heed of the Convention is unclear).
But, it is not and never has been necessary or desirable in the UK (or indeed many other European countries). Here we have a system of criminal and civil legislation which prevents citizens suffering at the hands of the State in the manner the ECHR was designed to combat. But, since its incorporation into UK law, liberal interpretation by UK judges has seen some ridiculous decisions, some of which have been the subject of this question.
It cannot be right that this idealistic convention overrides the laws which the UK Parliament has deemed fit for the country and which our MPs have passed. The conflict between domestic law and HR legislation is entirely avoidable. All that is needed is a repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act and the UK’s withdrawal from the ECHR.
I see no conflict in my two posts and I’m sorry if you do. In short, the ECHR is fine for countries that need it. The UK does not.
In my last post I suggested that but for Article 8 the burglar would have had no recourse to the court. He had been properly convicted and properly sentenced. Bar an appeal against conviction or sentence based on either points of fact or points of law (relating solely to his offence) he should have no such recourse. It is the ridiculously wide interpretation of Article 8 which gave him his “Get Out of Jail” card.
I have no issues with Article 8 or the ECHR in general. It is a fine Convention for countries where citizens are oppressed by the State; it is fine for countries where basic rights are not generally upheld and where no proper recourse exists where oppression is evident. That is what it was designed for. (Though quite how it is imagined that countries which behave like that towards its citizens will take heed of the Convention is unclear).
But, it is not and never has been necessary or desirable in the UK (or indeed many other European countries). Here we have a system of criminal and civil legislation which prevents citizens suffering at the hands of the State in the manner the ECHR was designed to combat. But, since its incorporation into UK law, liberal interpretation by UK judges has seen some ridiculous decisions, some of which have been the subject of this question.
It cannot be right that this idealistic convention overrides the laws which the UK Parliament has deemed fit for the country and which our MPs have passed. The conflict between domestic law and HR legislation is entirely avoidable. All that is needed is a repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act and the UK’s withdrawal from the ECHR.
I see no conflict in my two posts and I’m sorry if you do. In short, the ECHR is fine for countries that need it. The UK does not.
New Judge, I think we agree that it's not Article 8 that allows foreign criminals a safe and comfortable life here in Britain, or burglars to be released, it's the judges.
If the judges we have are so keen to allow foreign criminals a safe and comfortable life here in Britain or burglars to be released, despite the legislation giving them every opportunity to do otherwise, then isn't it the [attitude of the] judges we should seek to change?
I read Article 8 and I can't seen anything wrong with it. It all seems perfectly fine and reasonable. So then my ears prick up when somebody suggests that we throw it out because it's not designed for "countries like ours" ...
If the judges we have are so keen to allow foreign criminals a safe and comfortable life here in Britain or burglars to be released, despite the legislation giving them every opportunity to do otherwise, then isn't it the [attitude of the] judges we should seek to change?
I read Article 8 and I can't seen anything wrong with it. It all seems perfectly fine and reasonable. So then my ears prick up when somebody suggests that we throw it out because it's not designed for "countries like ours" ...
I suppose we could compromise by saying that these situations arise because of Article 8, aided and abetted by over-zealous judges (so we replace over-zealous governments with over-zealous judges).
AOG’s question asked whether there was need for a change to the law to prevent occurrences such as this from arising. There clearly is a need and the easiest way I can see is to repeal the HRA and withdraw from the ECHR. Neither is necessary in the UK. As I have said, adequate protection exists against all the transgression that any errant UK government might commit. Ordinary domestic law (that is, non-HR related law) is perfectly adequate (and in fact more suitable) to address individual issues.
The UK signed up to the ECHR in the aftermath of WW2. The convention was hastily drawn up, broadly worded and the UK was keen to sign to show accord with its other European Allies. Nobody then could have realised that it would be used to allow people to sidestep the laws to which the rest of the population are subject and this situation has evolved for many reasons, too numerous to go into here.
The last administration made it considerably easier for such decisions to be made by incorporating the ECHR into UK Law and I believe this was a mistake. They sold it as an “easier pathway to justice” for the oppressed. But nothing could be further from the truth as no injustice or oppression usually exists. These decisions are not about justice; they are about intellectual exercises between like minded advocates (who, incidentally, are considerably enriched by taking part in them).
There is a need for change and it needs to be made urgently. However it will not trouble the minds of this administration as the third-placed LibDems hold sway in this area and they prefer the status quo.
AOG’s question asked whether there was need for a change to the law to prevent occurrences such as this from arising. There clearly is a need and the easiest way I can see is to repeal the HRA and withdraw from the ECHR. Neither is necessary in the UK. As I have said, adequate protection exists against all the transgression that any errant UK government might commit. Ordinary domestic law (that is, non-HR related law) is perfectly adequate (and in fact more suitable) to address individual issues.
The UK signed up to the ECHR in the aftermath of WW2. The convention was hastily drawn up, broadly worded and the UK was keen to sign to show accord with its other European Allies. Nobody then could have realised that it would be used to allow people to sidestep the laws to which the rest of the population are subject and this situation has evolved for many reasons, too numerous to go into here.
The last administration made it considerably easier for such decisions to be made by incorporating the ECHR into UK Law and I believe this was a mistake. They sold it as an “easier pathway to justice” for the oppressed. But nothing could be further from the truth as no injustice or oppression usually exists. These decisions are not about justice; they are about intellectual exercises between like minded advocates (who, incidentally, are considerably enriched by taking part in them).
There is a need for change and it needs to be made urgently. However it will not trouble the minds of this administration as the third-placed LibDems hold sway in this area and they prefer the status quo.
--------------------
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.
--------------------
I think throwing that out would send the wrong message. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. As I said earlier, "Which bit don't you like?"
Since (as you said earlier) "other nations (including those who are signatories to the ECHR) must be laughing down to the bottom of their boots" at the decisions being made here, it's clear that the problem is not with the act (which those other laughing signatories to the ECHR also live with) but with our judges, who don't seem to be able to behave as sensibly as theirs.
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.
--------------------
I think throwing that out would send the wrong message. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. As I said earlier, "Which bit don't you like?"
Since (as you said earlier) "other nations (including those who are signatories to the ECHR) must be laughing down to the bottom of their boots" at the decisions being made here, it's clear that the problem is not with the act (which those other laughing signatories to the ECHR also live with) but with our judges, who don't seem to be able to behave as sensibly as theirs.
I think we have some fundamental points of agreement but one or two fundamental points of difference, Ellipsis.
I agree with the principles of the ECHR but think that UK domestic law adequately covers those principles. In short I believe we do not have (and never have had) any need of it here in the UK. It simply complicates what is already complicated enough.
Perhaps we'd better wind up for fear of getting told off by AOG for hijacking his question !!!!
I agree with the principles of the ECHR but think that UK domestic law adequately covers those principles. In short I believe we do not have (and never have had) any need of it here in the UK. It simply complicates what is already complicated enough.
Perhaps we'd better wind up for fear of getting told off by AOG for hijacking his question !!!!
