Human Rights Act to be retained - Page 4

Xaccers · 17-05-2010, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Yes, that's why no one's ever deported from the UK.

Oh hang on. They are. Quite a lot of them. Often in circumstances that would appal the flintiest heart.

Section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007 details those who are exempt from the provisions of automatic deportation. There are six exemptions, such as where an individual raises a claim for Asylum and Human Rights

Tezcatlipoca · 17-05-2010, 23:15

Does an exemption from automatic deportation due to raising a claim regarding Asylum or Human Rights = therefore never get deported at all?

If someone raises a claim regarding Asylum or Human Rights, what is wrong with halting auto-deportation & allowing that claim to be heard?

**Maggy** · 17-05-2010, 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

I was wondering that ....

Why ?

There is nothing stopping you making laws that restrict the rights of some - prisoners, terrorists, whatever - take your pick.

Restrict not remove...and even then the restrictions must follow human RIGHTS of sorts...

Xaccers · 17-05-2010, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D

Does an exemption from automatic deportation due to raising a claim regarding Asylum or Human Rights = therefore never get deported at all?

If someone raises a claim regarding Asylum or Human Rights, what is wrong with halting auto-deportation & allowing that claim to be heard?

So you agree that their deportation can be stopped on human rights grounds?

Angua · 17-05-2010, 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So you agree that their deportation can be stopped on human rights grounds?

Stopped PENDING investigation - Yes! Then provided the law is followed and they have no grounds to stay they should be deported.

Xaccers · 17-05-2010, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua

Stopped PENDING investigation - Yes! Then provided the law is followed and they have no grounds to stay they should be deported.

I think I have understood what you've said, ie what you believe should happen, and I agree, if someone has comitted a serious crime they should be deported, even if their an asylum seeker or risk injury/death on their return to their home land.
However at the momeent, if they can show it will breach their human rights, they can prevent deportation, ergo their human rights cannot be removed despite committing awful crimes.

BBKing · 18-05-2010, 01:02

Quote:

If someone raises a claim regarding Asylum or Human Rights, what is wrong with halting auto-deportation & allowing that claim to be heard?

That's exactly what happens - claim rejected, these days you're very quickly in handcuffs and down Yarls Wood, then on a plane.

What people tend to mix up in this are the cases where deportation would lead to a likelihood of the country deported to taking action against the individual which would violate the ECHR, in which case there's a presumption on basic 'don't be an idiot' grounds not to deport. The problem isn't the ECHR, the government or the courts but the repressive regime at the other end.

For extra brownie points, under what circumstances can the UK legally deport EU citizens?

Derek · 18-05-2010, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Really? Provide a link to the relevant section of the Human Rights Acts that permits that please.

Or maybe even this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8688501.stm

Quote:

A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative.
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," the judgement said.

Excellent. The court admits he is a terrorist yet his human rights trump any of his potential victims.

Xaccers · 18-05-2010, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

The problem isn't the ECHR, the government or the courts but the repressive regime at the other end.

Why should that be our problem when it comes to deporting someone who's comitted a serious crime?
You don't think that such action (to be returned to their original country where they may face torture and death) would be an additional deterrent to comitting a crime?
If it's not, then they're accepting the outcome when they comit the crime, just as anyone who breaks the law accepts the punishment that is likely to result from being caught.

Osem · 18-05-2010, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why should that be our problem when it comes to deporting someone who's comitted a serious crime?
You don't think that such action (to be returned to their original country where they may face torture and death) would be an additional deterrent to comitting a crime?
If it's not, then they're accepting the outcome when they comit the crime, just as anyone who breaks the law accepts the punishment that is likely to result from being caught.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Or maybe even this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8688501.stm

Excellent. The court admits he is a terrorist yet his human rights trump any of his potential victims.

hmmm... that sounds about right yup.....

Neil22 · 18-05-2010, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Maybe other Euro countries don't have the rabid over the top tabloid press that will exaggerate, blatantly make things up and generally print everything they see fit if they think it'll sell a few more papers.

Like the Sun??

Xaccers · 18-05-2010, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil22

Like the Sun??

and the Mail, although I have to say the worst for inventing things in general is the Mirror.

At the moment though we have the Beeb (not known for being a rabid tabloid although known for making news up or misreporting it) stating that deportations have been denied, not because there hasn't been court cases brought against the accused, but because sending them back to Pakistan (where their cohorts have already returned of their own accord mind you) would be against their human rights.

deadite66 · 18-05-2010, 18:05

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.

Xaccers · 18-05-2010, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadite66

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.

Thing is, if you can successfully argue your life would be at risk if sent home, you can just claim asylum.

What I think is a reasonable agreement is that if you wish to move here you do not comit any serious crimes.

I know the analogy has been used before, but if you let a tramp into your home to eat and wash, and he then smashes up your furniture, why is it unreasonable to boot him out onto the street where he has no food/shelter and could die?

Mr Angry · 18-05-2010, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Or maybe even this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8688501.stm

Excellent. The court admitshe is a terrorist yet his human rights trump any of his potential victims.

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.