Jobs & Education3 mins ago
Britain falls foul of the ECHR, because we didn't ban slavery.
18 Answers
http://
How much longer are we to allow the world's undesirables into this country?
/// But the Strasbourg judges ruled that the woman, whose identity they shielded, suffered a breach of her rights as there was no UK law at the time specifically banning slavery. They ordered the Government to pay her £23,500, made up of £7,000 in compensation and £16,500 in expenses and costs. ///
/// The judgement marks another case in which Britain has been told that Acts of Parliament and common law have been inadequate to meet European demands. ///
Should we now alter all our Acts of Parliament and common law, so as to meet European demands?
How much longer are we to allow the world's undesirables into this country?
/// But the Strasbourg judges ruled that the woman, whose identity they shielded, suffered a breach of her rights as there was no UK law at the time specifically banning slavery. They ordered the Government to pay her £23,500, made up of £7,000 in compensation and £16,500 in expenses and costs. ///
/// The judgement marks another case in which Britain has been told that Acts of Parliament and common law have been inadequate to meet European demands. ///
Should we now alter all our Acts of Parliament and common law, so as to meet European demands?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
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 is administerred by Europeans "
>>>"Get out of the lot I say"
Youngmafbog seems to be linking the EHCR to our membership of the EU, whereas the organisations are unrelated.
Our agreement to be bound by the rulings of the EHCR arises through the UK's membership of the Council of Europe, which was founded (by, among others, the UK) in 1949, nine years before the EEC (which has become the EU) even came into existence.
The EU only has 27 member states, whereas the Council of Europe has 47, all of which have agreed to be bound by the rulings of the EHCR. Perhaps Youngmafbog is suggesting that we should no longer be bound the same minimum standards that countries such as Turkey and the Russian Federation have signed up to? I hope not!
>>>"Get out of the lot I say"
Youngmafbog seems to be linking the EHCR to our membership of the EU, whereas the organisations are unrelated.
Our agreement to be bound by the rulings of the EHCR arises through the UK's membership of the Council of Europe, which was founded (by, among others, the UK) in 1949, nine years before the EEC (which has become the EU) even came into existence.
The EU only has 27 member states, whereas the Council of Europe has 47, all of which have agreed to be bound by the rulings of the EHCR. Perhaps Youngmafbog is suggesting that we should no longer be bound the same minimum standards that countries such as Turkey and the Russian Federation have signed up to? I hope not!
We should not automatically amend or alter our Acts of Parliament and/or common law to meet European demands.
We should be willing to alter or amend Acts of Parliament or the law if our existing laws are deficient, or outdated, or inadequate though. In this instance, as JtH mentioned, we implemented a law in 2009 expressly outlawing slavery. A good thing surely, AoG.
I only skimmed the story, but from what I read, she was not "let in" - she deceived immigration by using a false passport. I am all for tightening up procedures, but no system is perfect.
We should be willing to alter or amend Acts of Parliament or the law if our existing laws are deficient, or outdated, or inadequate though. In this instance, as JtH mentioned, we implemented a law in 2009 expressly outlawing slavery. A good thing surely, AoG.
I only skimmed the story, but from what I read, she was not "let in" - she deceived immigration by using a false passport. I am all for tightening up procedures, but no system is perfect.
Perhaps we should wait for the full report, or The Times law report summary. The Daily Mail version makes no sense at all, which is not to say it isn't an accurate summary of a judgment that makes no sense. What did the court decide? That she was a slave, notwithstanding that we only have her untested assertion of that? That our procedure for dealing with such allegations is unsatisfactory? That our common law did not forbid slavery or treat it as a crime but the recent Act merely recites that? (Keeping a slave has been unlawful for about 300 years,we have long had laws, apart from common law, preventing trafficking in slaves, and a slave keeper anyway would be prosecuted under various Acts for assault, false imprisonment etc)
McMouse
/// This woman entered UK on a false passport, thus she was not "let in". ///
Er, of course she was let in, how else is she here?
But yes that is correct she came through pass-port control on a false pass-port, which goes to prove that pass-ports should be made less easy to forge.
Also when persons are coming in from certain countries, they should be more systematically scrutinised.
/// This woman entered UK on a false passport, thus she was not "let in". ///
Er, of course she was let in, how else is she here?
But yes that is correct she came through pass-port control on a false pass-port, which goes to prove that pass-ports should be made less easy to forge.
Also when persons are coming in from certain countries, they should be more systematically scrutinised.
sp1814
/// They are not only bleeding us dry, but are also responsible for a large amount of crime. ///
/// Errant nonsense. ///
Or is it, you have not provided me with any proof otherwise.
Those statics that you provided only shows, the percentages of foreign nationals claiming benefits.
It does not show how many have been found out un-lawfully claiming benefits, or all the other crimes and scams that they are responsible for.
/// They are not only bleeding us dry, but are also responsible for a large amount of crime. ///
/// Errant nonsense. ///
Or is it, you have not provided me with any proof otherwise.
Those statics that you provided only shows, the percentages of foreign nationals claiming benefits.
It does not show how many have been found out un-lawfully claiming benefits, or all the other crimes and scams that they are responsible for.
1 to 18 of 18
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.