Crosswords2 mins ago
Deport Lawyers Joy
i find this rather disgusting, it's an insult to the british tax payers...
https:/
https:/
Answers
These bottom feeders need paying in their own coin. Breaching National security in interest of personal gain. Publish their names and addresses with photos. Undermining the firms that employ them by fair means or foul. Make life very difficult for them, legally of course.
15:40 Sat 05th Dec 2020
//...why don't the government ammend the laws that pertain to this kind of judgements?//
Most of these legal challenges are based on the responsibilities on the government conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK is a signatory to that convention and it will remain so even after we have "properly" left the EU as it is nothing to do with the EU. The UK government has no control over that convention or its terms and its only option is to withdraw from it. It has said categorically that it has no intention of doing so because it would damage the UK's standing on the world stage. That means, boys and girls, that whatever Pritti Patel (or anybody else) says she will do will make absolutely no difference. Judges interpret the law, they do not formulate it. The ECHR is deliberately vague in its terms and many actions a government may take could be seen as contrary to it.
Most of these legal challenges are based on the responsibilities on the government conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK is a signatory to that convention and it will remain so even after we have "properly" left the EU as it is nothing to do with the EU. The UK government has no control over that convention or its terms and its only option is to withdraw from it. It has said categorically that it has no intention of doing so because it would damage the UK's standing on the world stage. That means, boys and girls, that whatever Pritti Patel (or anybody else) says she will do will make absolutely no difference. Judges interpret the law, they do not formulate it. The ECHR is deliberately vague in its terms and many actions a government may take could be seen as contrary to it.
European Convention on Human Rights
The UK government has no control over that convention or its terms and its only option is to withdraw from it. It has said categorically that it has no intention of doing so because it would damage the UK's standing on the world stage.
So be it. The UK’s standing is already damaged beyond redemption. We are a laughing stock globally.
Kick out the trash, re define ourselves, we could achieve vast improvements to the nation’s psyche.
The UK government has no control over that convention or its terms and its only option is to withdraw from it. It has said categorically that it has no intention of doing so because it would damage the UK's standing on the world stage.
So be it. The UK’s standing is already damaged beyond redemption. We are a laughing stock globally.
Kick out the trash, re define ourselves, we could achieve vast improvements to the nation’s psyche.
Any sovereign state that makes it easy for a set of individuals to enrich themselves by seeking out tenuous EUSSR "laws" to enrich themselves, whilst at the same time satisfying their hate fuelled personal contempt for the said sovereign state and its tax paying citizens deserves all the contempt and ridicule that it deservedly attracts. In a Country with just a vestige of self pride or determination they would certainly not be able to advertise their willingness to do such things, to maintain High St premises in various cities in the Country, and certainly not be so assured of our indifference that they could celebrate wildly when they thwart the will of an elected administration. We must be mad. At least now you all know why Stalin and Hitler both had the judiciary shot.
You're preaching to the converted, fender.
I have said for many years that believe the ECHR is an outdated convention and has not moved on to accommodate the world we now live in. It was originally designed just afterWW2 to prevent citizens becoming victims of the excesses of an over-zealous State. The Article which gives most of the people this thread is concerned with is Article 8 - The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life. It says this:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. 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."
Paragraph 2 provides ample exceptions to enable the government to expel people on the grounds of public safety or crime prevention. But as soon as that is invoked, up pops Article 2 - The Right to Life:
"1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one
shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of
a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which
this penalty is provided by law."
Many of the people under threat of expulsion argue successfully that their life may be in danger if they are expelled. This is either because they may suffer government persecution because of their religious beliefs or perhaps they face execution because of their criminal activities.
I have said for many years that believe the ECHR is an outdated convention and has not moved on to accommodate the world we now live in. It was originally designed just afterWW2 to prevent citizens becoming victims of the excesses of an over-zealous State. The Article which gives most of the people this thread is concerned with is Article 8 - The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life. It says this:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. 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."
Paragraph 2 provides ample exceptions to enable the government to expel people on the grounds of public safety or crime prevention. But as soon as that is invoked, up pops Article 2 - The Right to Life:
"1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one
shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of
a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which
this penalty is provided by law."
Many of the people under threat of expulsion argue successfully that their life may be in danger if they are expelled. This is either because they may suffer government persecution because of their religious beliefs or perhaps they face execution because of their criminal activities.
"Perhaps it would also be like a Third World country where the accused does not have the right to have legal representation?"
A good try TCL, but ultimately you've failed. Still, good for you for having a go.
These people aren't "accused" - they're guilt, for rape and murder amongst other things, has already been proven, they've served their sentences, and now, because they aren't citizens, we want to get rid.
What's wrong with that?
Don't think for a minute the lawyers involved are involved through any lofty ideals; they aren't. They're involved for no other reason than they know they'll get paid vast amounts of taxpayers money in their weasly ways to keep murderers and rapists in this country.
Let's just hope these murderers and rapists, if they're allowed onto British streets again, don't go on to murder and rape other people.
A good try TCL, but ultimately you've failed. Still, good for you for having a go.
These people aren't "accused" - they're guilt, for rape and murder amongst other things, has already been proven, they've served their sentences, and now, because they aren't citizens, we want to get rid.
What's wrong with that?
Don't think for a minute the lawyers involved are involved through any lofty ideals; they aren't. They're involved for no other reason than they know they'll get paid vast amounts of taxpayers money in their weasly ways to keep murderers and rapists in this country.
Let's just hope these murderers and rapists, if they're allowed onto British streets again, don't go on to murder and rape other people.
hands are tied
looks that way
thx for confirming
Think reader - think dear reader - what a hullaboloo there would have been if - we are bound by treaty had been said four or five years ago!
the screaming ! 00 man rights act I seem to recollect was a favourite - the wailing, the buffoonery!
and now - its a treaty we have to abide by it....
very good sir
( and so four years trump HAS done some good!)
looks that way
thx for confirming
Think reader - think dear reader - what a hullaboloo there would have been if - we are bound by treaty had been said four or five years ago!
the screaming ! 00 man rights act I seem to recollect was a favourite - the wailing, the buffoonery!
and now - its a treaty we have to abide by it....
very good sir
( and so four years trump HAS done some good!)
The lawyers will never let us change it peacefully Fender, there is too much easy dosh for them to hoover up. The more "success" that they have and crow about, the more murderers, rapists, and drug dealers will head our way. ... Errr Because they are in danger of being punished "at home", even executed, instead of being treated as the victim and rewarded as they are here. Heard the latest? The lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie, of Mckenzie, Beute And Pope Limited is now protesting that the centre used to detain these criminals has poor mobile phone signal and inhibits their activities. No kidding. This is the lady.
https:/
https:/
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.