Will they or won't they?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news /law-lords-overturn-ruling-on-rebel-cleric-162 5167.html

The Law Lords also ruled in favour of the Government over its attempts to deport two other men to Algeria.

At last among this everlasting doom and gloom, I thought 'good news at last'

That is until I read this,

All three men could now take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Will they ever be sent back?

[VHG]

Wouldn't it be nice if somebody worried about OUR human rights, those of us born and brought up in the UK who dont want to to share their country with scum like this.

But of course these EU law lords ALWAYS side with the rebel clerics and terrorists rather than the silent majority.

Maybe it is time to stop be so "silent".

[brionon]

Nothing to do with the EU. But you'd rather believe 'It's all the fault of Europe innit.''

[Quinlad]

"this everlasting doom and gloom"

That speaks volumes about your outlook on life. Not exactly surpirsing, mind you.

[New Judge]

No, it�s not directly �to do� with the EU brionon, but there is a connection.

The beginning of this stretches way back to 1950 when the UK was one of the original signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This well meaning document set out to curb the excesses of over-zealous states when dealing with its citizens. It provided for (among other things) the right to a fair trial and the right not to be tortured. Of course at the time, UK citizens were not, on the whole, denied fair trials, and I have not seen documented that too many of them had been tortured. Nonetheless, the UK signed up to show that it wanted its citizens protected the same as others were. All member states of the EU are required to be party to the Convention.

Fast forward to 1998 and the Labour Party saw fit to embrace the ECHR into UK law, and the 1998 Human Rights Act was born.

The problem is that the Convention and the 1998 Act are so vague that virtually anything that a citizen does not like about his treatment by the State can potentially fall foul of the law. This means that almost all contentious issues finish up with lengthy appeals to high courts of law.

Worst of all, though, is the fact that the 1998 law has been interpreted to protect all people resident here (whether here legally or not) and that protection is extended to guard them against all government agencies worldwide.

So we frequently see situations such as that mentioned whereby the rights of a foreigner not to be abused in his home country by his home government effectively �trump� the rights of UK citizens to live in peace and go about their business unmolested.

It will not change until and unless the UK repeals the 1998 Act and withdraws from the ECHR. Since the latter would force our withdrawal from the EU this is most unlikely.

Hence the connection.

[rov1200]

I think someone should stand up and ignore their human rights claims. Some years ago an illegal immigrant was repatriated to Germany and she had to make her claim froim there, which failed. Why can't they do the same with this scum and send them to Jordan, etc to make their claims.