Should the UK have the power to send back criminals?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....ls-say-EU-judges.html

Well thanks to The European Court of Human Rights it looks as if the UK will never again be able to send their foreign criminals back to where they came from.

Not only that but these two Somalis criminals, Abdisamad Adow Sufi and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, were awarded, 14,500 euros and 7,500 euro respectively for costs and expenses in bringing the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Oh the joys and advantages of being in Europe, (for some that is).

[Ankou]

so you think that "the UK's [absolute] duty to protect people against torture or inhuman treatment" is abhorrent ?

[Zeuhl]

We have subscribed to the ECHR since we helped set it up in 1945.

Not sure what that has to do with <being in Europe> whatever that means?

[woofgang]

I think when you break the law here in such serious ways, you should forfeit that right....Its simple...if you want to stay here behave yourself.

[Brenden]

If they commit a serious criminal offence they should automatically be sent back to there homeland. Why should they seek refuge here then commit crimes against the state.

[Gromit]

Very sloppy piece of journalism from the Telegraph. I expect better of them

The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.

// the judges decreed that the UK's duty to protect people against torture or inhuman treatment is ''absolute''. //

I cannot argue with that. They are correct. It is such ideals that set us apart from the barbaric torturers in the first place.

[anotheoldgit]

This is the European Court of Human Rights.

/// The European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg fails on all these counts. Only one of its judges is British. All are political appointees from 47 countries, often quite ignorant of the law, and sometimes from countries with very low levels of freedom. We can’t put them in, and we can’t get them out. And when they opine, they do not stick to natural justice, but give their views, in accordance with all-embracing human rights doctrine, about everything under the sun. They clothe politics in legal robes. ///

Telegraph columnist Charles Moore.

[Gladeian]

What a load of bo££ocks this ECHR legislation is. We are a sovereign nation who should be able to decide to whom we offer the privilege of living here without the interference of this load of busy-bodies from some "european" court. Time to get out and the sooner Cameron has the bottle to do it the better.

[Gladeian]

Its actually time we defied this "court" - what can they do about it? It seems we are set to defy them over the rights to vote for prisoners so why not on an issue such as this?

[emmie]

Where are the human rights of the victims in all of this.

[emmie]

so they stay and commit further crimes, against you, your family, so that's ok then. Why should they be allowed anything other than a one way ticket out of Britain after they have served their sentences, don't we have enough home grown criminals to contend with. As to the victims of these criminals, wonder what they make of it all.

[jake-the-peg]

Human rights legislation protects the individuals from the State (technically manifestations of the state)

For example it has covered pensioners in attrocious conditions in state run nursing homes.

It does not cover them in attrocious conditions in private homes.

If the victims are victims of the state - it covers them

If they are victims of private individuals they have to rely on existing legislation.

IMHO HR legislation should be extended to cover people no matter whether the perpetrator is the state, big business or a private individual.

The answer to your question about victim's rights is more HR legislation - not less

[I.Don No]

the answer, without doubt, to the OP's question is 'of course '.

The fact that this is not the practice is due to successive governments being too lillie-livered to fight for our sovereign right to apply our own laws in our own country and not be swayed by any other nation's opinion.

When I have travelled beyond the borders of the UK, where I was born and raised, I treat the other country and its people with respect. If I had messed up while in another country why would I not expect to be deported.....their country, their rules.....simples.

[Zeuhl]

<<our sovereign right to apply our own laws in our own country and not be swayed by any other nation's opinion>>

Well we were instrumental in setting up ECHR in order to apply our standards and values on other parts of europe that had an inferior record of human rights - it was 1945 remember.

[emmie]

i obey the law, so should they, and if either one of us commits a crime, then we go to jail, but once released i go home, and so should they.

[emmie]

An African man, a criminal, and henceman of a despot, say Mugabe. He resides here, no one know who he is for a long time, as he has assumed a new identity. He was instrumental in the torture and murder of many of his own countrymen, on the orders of the despot, say Mugabe. When caught, he professes that if he is returned to his homeland, he might face persecution, torture, and even death, at the hands of the despot, so we don't send him back. Does that seem right to you, that we are harbouring a known torturer, murderer, or is it he didn't do those things in Britain. Britain seems to be harbouring any number of these people, why should they not be returned to their own countries to face their criminal justice system.

[rov1100]

The problem is we are suckers for not interpeting the ECHR rules more closely. It was pointed out that one law we choose to ignore is where immigrants should be returned if they are a threat to this country.

[New Judge]

I’ve just returned from a trip to Greece where I have friends. During the Spring in the small town near to where I stayed there was a crime wave (two burglaries, two muggings, the attempted theft of a boat and a shop theft). The police knew that two Albanian brothers were responsible. Within three days the two brothers and the rest of their family and friends (twelve people in all) were rounded up, deported back to Albania and their passports endorsed “entry to Greece not permitted”. Done, dusted. The crime ceased. None of them was tortured, falsely imprisoned or beaten up. None had their right to a “private family life” denied. None of them, as far as I know, had any other of their Human Rights (as set out in the ECHR) denied.

When I mentioned to my friends how such situations are dealt with (and the likely outcome) in the UK they told me that the Greek government sees the UCHR as “guidance” rather than legislation and that their overriding concern is the protection of the settled population. It does not, I was told, recognise the rights of foreigners to come to Greece and commit crime and the authorities take swift and decisive action to prevent it.

As I have said many times in threads of this nature, the architects of the ECHR designed it to protect individuals from over-zealous State executives. It was not designed to allow foreign burglars to plunder communities with impunity. It is now being incorrectly interpreted in the UK and the government needs to get a grip on the problem. This means repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing as signatories to the ECHR.

[jno]

"The police knew that two Albanian brothers were responsible."

How did they know? If they knew, why weren't they put on trial like anyone else?

Personally, I'd be wary of taking a policeman's word that he 'knows' who's guilty of a crime. Doing that results in too many jail sentences for innocent people and subsequent big payouts when they're freed. There must be cheaper ways of running a justice system than policemen's hunches.

[Ankou]

wow, so the locals run a crime scam, point the plod at some albanians and lo and behold problem removed (literally).