Should the UK have the power to send back criminals?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....ls-say-EU-judges.html

Well thanks to The European Court of Human Rights it looks as if the UK will never again be able to send their foreign criminals back to where they came from.

Not only that but these two Somalis criminals, Abdisamad Adow Sufi and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, were awarded, 14,500 euros and 7,500 euro respectively for costs and expenses in bringing the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Oh the joys and advantages of being in Europe, (for some that is).

[New Judge]

The solution was as cheap as chips, jno. It cost the Greek taxpayers absolutely nothing.

No, I’m not advocating summary justice by the police. The situation is slightly more complex than I outlined and I believe effectively the family was given the choice of getting out of Greece pronto, or the brothers being arrested, kept in custody until they were tried and then thrown out after they had been convicted and served their sentence. There was also the possibility that had their activities continued they may have found themselves victims of violence from the locals.

What I am trying to illustrate is the difference between the approach taken by the Greek authorities (in respect to “Human Rights”) and that here in the UK. There was never any possibility of the brothers successfully pursuing a claim to remain in Greece on Human Rights grounds. In the UK they would have contended that, as they had family here, they were justified to pursue a claim under Article 8 and their rights in that respect would not be jeopardised by their reprehensible behaviour.

Yesterday there was a Supreme Court ruling that effectively ruled out the UK’s right to send foreign criminals back to their country of origin. It was stated that, whatever their behaviour, foreign nationals could not be deported if they were under threat of mistreatment at home. This is patently absurd as it gives free rein for such miscreants to remain here however bad their criminality or even if they had no entitlement to enter the UK in the first place.

Residency in the UK for non-UK nationals is a privilege not a right. But it is being converted to a right courtesy of too liberal and sometimes perverse use of the Convention. The people of the UK deserve better than to be subject to this ludicrous nonsense.

[New Judge]

And just t make it clear, Ankou asks at the start of this question “...so you think that "the UK's [absolute] duty to protect people against torture or inhuman treatment" is abhorrent ?”

The UK does not have a duty (absolute or otherwise) to protect people from torture, degrading or inhumane treatment doled out by other nations. It only has a duty to ensure that such treatment is not imposed under the auspices of State Agencies of the UK. The notion that subscribers to the ECHR have a duty to protect people from the activities of non-subscriber states was not the intention of the convention’s architects. Such protection has developed as a result of “mission creep” courtesy of a range of rulings by European and UK judges.

What the UK government does have is an absolute duty to protect its citizens from the activities of serious criminals. Where those criminals are foreign with no right of abode, the easiest way to afford that protection is to chuck them out.

[emmie]

New Judge, thank you, its what i said. A friend told me a while back, who lives and works in Greece, that there has long been a problem with Albanian criminals, involved in racketeering, prostitution, etc, and
the actions taken here are right in my opinion, others have theirs, according to the same person, they are sick of these lowlifes, and how they have brought their criminality to the mainland, and beyond, and maybe this time someone has done something about it.