Human Rights Act to be retained

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

He wasn't charged with anything and wasn't convicted of anything. These were, and indeed are, allegations which even his defence have not been privy to.

As Pierce says "If people have committed a crime, put them on trial."

It's starting to look like MI5/6 chinese whispers are what pass for due process and justice these days.

Time to start really worrying I think.

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.

[BBKing]

Why should that be our problem when it comes to deporting someone who's comitted a serious crime?

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 --

just thinking:
1. illegal immigrant.
2. build bomb in such a sloppy way the filth couldn't help notice.
3. get to stay in the country after arguing your life will be at risk if sent home.
4. result.

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

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

We aren't forcing them to comit serious crimes.

Originally Posted by BBKing

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.

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.

[frogstamper]

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.

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I don't think there are many people who would want a complete repealing of the HRA but a rewrite and some common sense brought into it would be very welcome. Right now this piece of legislation is responsible for some truly stupid rulings and waste of both public money and court time. Sorry but any legislation that can be used by criminals to profit for themselves after commiting a crime needs binning and rewriting but then maybe i am just being too intolerent and right wing .

What parts would you re-write?

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

Originally Posted by martyh

whats wrong with the press printing articles about criminals using the HRA to their benifit or illegal immigrants claiming that being deported is a breach of the same ,don't you think we have a right to know ?

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.

[BBKing]

ost of the stories' headlines are reporting that the human rights act is responsible for many decisions in a court, when they are simply not.

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...

...stop the deportation of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution.

* '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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by BBKing

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

Which rules out Malawi, presumably

[Xaccers]

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.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

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

[Dai]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Osem

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

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

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.

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.

[Dai]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

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.