ChatterBank1 min ago
"Human Rights"?
http://news.sky.com/h...tics/article/16204721
Is this further evidence that the HR laws are anything but?
Is this further evidence that the HR laws are anything but?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by d9f1c7. 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 only in the UK that people can evoke Human Rights, that seems to take precedence over all common sense. If you land in a boat from Africa in the Canary Islands, they feed you, give you a quick medical check, then send you right back. They don't give you a plastic folder and a train ticket to Croydon (as happened here in Dover at one time) - I wonder how many never arrived in Croydon?!
There is a crucial second clause to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
The Article begins with the words "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Fair enough, we would all accept that but judges seem to focus on this when handing down perverse rulings in favour of foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.
The second clause states "There shall be no interference by a public authority wiht 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 wellbeing 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."
So there we have it. An illegal immigrant drives without insurance or a valid licence and kills a child - breach of the public safety bit as he will most certainly do the same again. Foreigners come to our country having never contributed to the system and claim benefits, occupy massive houses that nearly all of us could never afford - this is contrary to the economic wellbeing of the country. Foreigners with HIV or other such disease come here illegally to take advantage of free healthcare - again contrary to the economic wellbeing of the country but also a threat to public health.
How many instances are needed to be outlined which, under Article 8, can result in the perpetrators being thrown out of the country? Is it just that the judiciary have a short attention span and can't read past the first seventeen words of Article 8? Are they too stupid to interpret the second clause in their cosseted world?
If the government were really serious about ridding OUR country of such persons then this is the Act which gives us most backing to do so.
The Article begins with the words "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Fair enough, we would all accept that but judges seem to focus on this when handing down perverse rulings in favour of foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.
The second clause states "There shall be no interference by a public authority wiht 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 wellbeing 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."
So there we have it. An illegal immigrant drives without insurance or a valid licence and kills a child - breach of the public safety bit as he will most certainly do the same again. Foreigners come to our country having never contributed to the system and claim benefits, occupy massive houses that nearly all of us could never afford - this is contrary to the economic wellbeing of the country. Foreigners with HIV or other such disease come here illegally to take advantage of free healthcare - again contrary to the economic wellbeing of the country but also a threat to public health.
How many instances are needed to be outlined which, under Article 8, can result in the perpetrators being thrown out of the country? Is it just that the judiciary have a short attention span and can't read past the first seventeen words of Article 8? Are they too stupid to interpret the second clause in their cosseted world?
If the government were really serious about ridding OUR country of such persons then this is the Act which gives us most backing to do so.
in my small experience human rights and "rights" are used by people who want to abuse other peoples "rights" to get their own way........ If they have committed crimes hell yes kick them out and don't let them back. I have enough to pay for already thank you and there is not enough room in our jails for criminals who get measly sentences !
Agreed, aog, the judges not only won't but ought not to take notice of governments telling them anything ('separation of powers' comes to mind). If the government wants the law to be different , it must change the law, not complain because, as it is, the judges interpret it in a way that the government doesn't like. The answer lies in judges being overruled by the appellate courts, or by 'guidance' ( a nice euphemism for 'orders') coming from those courts if the law is being misapplied or misinterpreted in a particular case.
It plainly is being misinterepreted in some cases, if newspaper reports are correct. As pointed out above, the 'right to family life' is not absolute. However, the popular press doesn't report those cases where the law is applied correctly; these are to be found in the Times Law Reports and in the formal law reports which lawyers use, and are, of course, cases where the applicant has been told his 'right' is denied because one or more of the provisos to Article 8 (cited above) apply, and appeals (without success in the ones I've read)
It plainly is being misinterepreted in some cases, if newspaper reports are correct. As pointed out above, the 'right to family life' is not absolute. However, the popular press doesn't report those cases where the law is applied correctly; these are to be found in the Times Law Reports and in the formal law reports which lawyers use, and are, of course, cases where the applicant has been told his 'right' is denied because one or more of the provisos to Article 8 (cited above) apply, and appeals (without success in the ones I've read)
1 to 7 of 7
