Review Of The Criminals Rights Act........

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55209269
lets hope it's scrapped and replaced by something that does not favour low life criminal scum.

[david small]

Hand wringers aside. We want them gone from our midst. It can be achieved with the right legislation and the will to do it.

[emmie]

Priti has her hands tied, NJ is good at explaining why

[naomi24]

Seems her hands are pretty much tied, grumpy.

[grumpy01]

When we get our "Brexit deal" her's and everybody else's hands will be tied even tighter.Seems all Boris's promises are not going to happen.

[emmie]

why?

[jim360]

It's sad, too, how the history has been twisted. The concept of Human Rights as it applies in Europe decidedly emerged in large part from a reaction against the rise of communism, and was an attempt to ensure that the citizens could be protected against an overzealous state. In the UK, the twin drivers of the ECHR were Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe. It's unfortunate that, later, Maxwell Fyfe clearly didn't understand that Human Rights applied to homosexual people, but nevertheless the concept arose from the right of politics. And that's still an important lesson: Human Rights are meaningless if they apply only to humans you happen to like, and luckily, therefore, the understanding has expanded beyond that envisaged by its creators.

Human Rights legislation serves to protect individuals against the whims of the State. Hopefully, there will never come a time when you're personally grateful of that protection. But be wary particularly of political leaders wishing to throw their own shackles off.

[emmie]

you don't know that Grumpy, and as i said why should our hands be tied all the tighter.

[grumpy01]

It seems to me that unless France (as usual) don't get what they want from us they will veto any deal.Therefore we will have no deal as of midnight 31st December.I voted to leave and am still happy with that decision but the fact the French,Spanish and others want to keep their cartel means that we are being used to dissuade others e.g. Holland from leaving.

[naomi24]

Jim, do you think those foreign criminals should have been deported?

[jim360]

// The fact is these are foreign criminals whose 'rights' are taking precedence over the safety of society. You might be happy with that, Jim, but I'm not. //

I never said I was "happy" with it. Not every consequence of laws and principles I prefer to keep makes me "happy". As far as I'm concerned, though, the alternative is worse. There is no way I can see that achieves what you want without destroying the rights in question: when you first introduce an exception to those rights, you are, after all, establishing the principle that exceptions can exist, and in particular you are establishing the principle that it is up to the State what human rights are. It should not be so.

[allenlondon]

You’re right, of course!

We lefties LOVE criminals! We want all prisons burnt down, all prison officers sacked, all laws repealed!

Laws? Scrap them all, particularly ones about fraud and company fiddles.

Make mass murderers heroes! Exhume the Great Train Robbers and put them on statues. Teach our children the stories of these marvellous men! Write ballads about them, praise their names.

Oh yes, us lefties know who our friends are...

[Togo]

You forgot to put a statue up. ^^

[pixie374]

Jim //Human Rights are meaningless if they apply only to humans you happen to like//

It isn't about like or dislike though. It's about keeping people safer from convicted violent criminals. It's a shame, that if they can't be deported, those countries aren't made responsible to pay for incarceration here.

[Togo]

//"Does anyone know why the celebrities and the Labourites who signed that petition to keep those foreign criminals in the country want them here?"//

But fair's fair guys. They do want all the Jewish to "go home".

[emmie]

as i pointed out some didnt have the correct paperwork, re the Windrush debacle, but had lived here for years. but going on the other posts they were crims, rapists, murderers and the like

[emmie]

some seem to want that Togo, but not all

[emmie]

it is time we had laws that reflected our nation, we seem to have adhered to the ECHR for too long. I personally would kick out crims, jihadis, sadly many of these seem to be home grown, so where should we send them

[jim360]

// Jim, do you think those foreign criminals should have been deported? //

Firstly, which criminals? The most recent deportation I'm aware of involved 13 criminals to Jamaica, but I can find nothing about them (at the moment) other than their being described as "serious foreign criminals".

Secondly, I'm confused why the "right to safety" of humans in Jamaica is an apparent non-issue, or why the matter is apparently considered dealt with once these criminals have been deported. If these people are still dangerous, then the safety of citizens in another country is put at risk; if, however, there is no evidential reason to worry about the safety of Jamaican citizens, then presumably the person in question has been judged to have served their time and is no longer a threat in the UK either (at least, no longer any more severe a threat than the average citizen).

As an example, there's this case: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9003697/Jamaican-criminal-won-battle-avoid-deportation-release-jail-charged-murder.html . If this man had been successfully deported to Jamaica, what chance that he'd have murdered somebody over there? Fairly high, I should think, if indeed he is found guilty of this second murder (given its recency I don't think he's been convicted yet). Therefore the assessment that he was ready for release was clearly premature, and *that* is the problem that needs fixing first.

As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is judged as a candidate for deportation on public safety grounds, then I'd prefer that they continue to remain in prison. Perhaps that requires longer sentences; perhaps, too, that requires higher standards for being eligible for parole. I should clarify that I am not recognising a "human right" to live in the UK. Rather, I am saying that if a person is judged a threat to the safety of citizens here, then it follows that they should be judged a threat anywhere else, and that deportation is no answer to that threat.

[pixie374]

Yes, Jim, I agree that it could be just moving a threat elsewhere, but if they stay locked up in a "foreign country", whose responsibility should it be to pay for them?

[jim360]

// It isn't about like or dislike though. It's about keeping people safer from convicted violent criminals. It's a shame, that if they can't be deported, those countries aren't made responsible to pay for incarceration here. //

To the second part, why should any State be made to pay for its prisoners? Jamaica is not making a deliberate point of "not sending their best, but sending us their criminals, drug dealers, rapists" (and, for that matter, neither are we when it works in the other direction). Maybe the two states can come to a mutual agreement, but we cannot "make" a State responsible.

And, to the first, as I've pointed out, what answer is that to the fact that a deported, but otherwise free, person is still a threat in the other country? It doesn't keep "people" safer, it only keeps *us* in the UK safer. That isn't enough.