I do a lot of reading, and conduct research into many diverse subjects.
I find it interesting to note, that of all the member states in the EU, that we are the only one's that appear to have any difficulty with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This shows that the HRC is fundamentally sound, we did after all, play a large part in the drafting of the Convention.
The problem area seems to lie within our judiciary, and their interpretation of
Article 8,
It clearly states in Paragraph 2: There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Which is why it seems the other member states do not have the problem, they simply lock them up, and then deport convicted criminals, without question.
The HRC works both ways, if it is interpreted correctly.
It allows protection for the innocent, as well as provision to punish
the guilty.
It does of cause, depend on each individual case, and the discretion of the judge.
No cats were harmed in making this post
