Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

The worrying thing I mentioned earlier is that his deportation cancellation wasn't based on him not standing trial.

Do I think he should have been deported? Only if he'd been tried properly and found guilty.
So for me, the result was the right one, but how it was reached was not the right path.
We should not be trying to deport anyone who is not guilty of a crime, and we should be deporting anyone who is guilty of a serious crime no matter how they may be treated in their own country.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

Because we're the good guys. End of story.

Mind you, we're perfectly happy deporting people to Iraq, Iran and Zimbabwe even now, so if you're worried that we aren't deporting enough people to dangerous or murderous regimes, rest assured we probably are and you can leave the HRA alone, thanks.

-- edit --

Er, you're forgetting stage 2.5, 'spend 40 years in jail without a sniff of parole'. Not sure the argument stands up.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

We aren't forcing them to comit serious crimes.

But you said we're the good guys. Wait a minute! If you're wrong about that, maybe you're wrong about everything else you've said.
After all, I made the comment that when it comes to deportation, human rights can't be removed, which you tried to suggest wasn't the case, yet dear Auntie reported today that someone's deportation cannot go ahead not because they hadn't had a fair trial, but because their human rights cannot be removed. Looks like you were wrong with that too then.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

A bit of good news to come from the Lib-Con coalition, I know that Ken Clark was always against his party withdrawing from the act.
Now lets wait for the barrage of vilification from the Express, Mail and Sun.:rolleyes:

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

Funny how so often being the "good guys" ends up translating to being a doormat.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

What parts would you re-write?

---------- Post added at 12:55 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

Because more often than not the stories are lies or exaggerations of the truth. Most of the stories' headlines are reporting that the human rights act is responsible for many decisions in a court, when they are simply not. It is not until later that we find that it is another piece of legislation, most likely contractual law and nothing to do with human rights. Or indeed, no story at all because applications fail at the first stage.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

Another personal favourite is the 'report someone's attempt to use HRA to do something silly as if it succeeded'. Dennis Nilsen's attempt to get hardcore gay porn supplied to him is the classic example here, without the corresponding fact that it was thrown out immediately as being idiotic.

This is an isotope of the 'so and so's in court charged with a crime, therefore they're guilty' press mindset*, which if you think about it completely inverts the meaning of what a court is for.

On the deportation thing, I note that our new Government has pledged to...

* 'A man was a vicious murderous killer who should be locked up forever, a court heard today' is the usual form of words, omitting until later the obvious fact that this is the prosecution case rather than the court's judgement on the evidence.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

Which rules out Malawi, presumably

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

What if they're found guilty of being a vicious murderous killer?
If they are willing to kill someone with the knowledge that they'll be deported to a country where their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution, then they have accepted that risk, just as if they'd jumped on a plane home of their own accord.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

Then that is how it should be reported, but not until they have been proven, by conviction, of being so.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

Why do we have to actually deport people back to a specific country?
Surely it would be enough to say that they are no longer welcome in the UK and leave it to them to decide where they go. I believe in ancient times it was called 'banishment'. Where somebody is a serious criminal or security risk the court should be able to say that they have a set amount of time to leave this country. Leave it to them where and how as that is really not our responsibility.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

That's not quite what you were saying about the 'murdering' SPG was it?

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

Well, seeing as we will never know, as there won't be any trial, all we have is our own conclusions.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

The problem with that is if the destinaton country doesn't want them, they can just refuse them entry and force them back onto the vehicle which brought them.
Quite often we have to try and find other countries willing to take them simply because if they go back to where they were born they'd have their human rights infringed. Makes the whole thing cost a hell of a lot more and last a hell of a lot longer than it needs to.

Re: Human Rights Act to be retained
 

But that's my point. It should not be *OUR* responsibility to find a country to take them. If you had a guest in your house that abused your hospitality you would require them to leave. In exactly the same way, if someone abuses our country's welcome we should require them to leave. The logistics of where and how they go should not be our concern.