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.

[Theland]

Not before time.

[Theland]

It cost £10m and ten years to deport Abu Quatada.

[emmie]

from your link

Labour called the review of human rights law "bonkers"

[emmie]

what a surprise.

[Theland]

Misp!aced loyalty.
Labour should listen to public opinion.

[ToraToraTora]

well, Emmie, lefties have always favoured criminals and terrorists over the law abiding citizen.

[emmie]

i bet little will change however, NJ is good on this i wonder if he is about and has any thoughts.

[naomi24]

The ruling in the Austrian blasphemy case a while ago demonstrated that ECHR isn’t fit for purpose. High time it was scrapped.

[rowanwitch]

All it needs is the simple phrase
If found guilty the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the crime with no mitigation.

[ToraToraTora]

well I think the lawyer soiree the other day when they prevented 37 rapists and murderers getting deported was the last straw. They've been taking the peace since the act was passed. Time for the law to favour the majority of law abiding citizens.

[naomi24]

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

[emmie]

some of those weren't crims to be fair, but caught up in this diabolical windrush scandal.

[emmie]

because violation of their human rights, being separated from families, etc. plus they objected to the fact that some might take covid 19 with them

[ToraToraTora]

Naomi: "Does anyone know why the celebrities and the Labourites who signed that petition to keep those foreign criminals in the country want them here?" - dunno but they should get to put them up in their own homes, see how charming these people are. I will never comprehend the left's love of scum.

[naomi24]

Nor me, TTT.

[jim360]

You can't comprehend it, presumably, because it doesn't actually exist. The consequence of ensuring that Human Rights are universal and inalienable is that, inevitably, they will apply to criminals, or to people you don't like*, but it's still worth preserving their universality. The only qualification that should be required to have access to Human Rights is being human.

This isn't about liking "scum", therefore, but about recognising that "scum" are still humans, however distasteful that is. But by protecting "their" rights, we are in fact protecting "ours".

*understatement.

[naomi24]

//But by protecting "their" rights, we are in fact protecting "ours".//

Not so. If we're obliged to allow these people to roam freely among us it isn’t protecting society's ‘right’ to safety.

[jim360]

That's a misunderstanding of almost everything related to the topic. Leaving aside that the "right to safety" doesn't actually exist (are you seriously proposing to be excessively in favour of 'Health and Safety'?), the Criminals also have the same rights. For example, the agreed-upon rights include a right not to be tortured, degraded, executed, enslaved, imprisoned without trial, and tried fairly. Notably, this does *not* include a right to perpetual liberty: criminals who are convicted can still be imprisoned.

[naomi24]

None of that applies. 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.

[grumpy01]

On the deportation subject,Pritti Hopeless has got to get tough on this and not just talk tough.