http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326
Foreign criminals may no longer be able to avoid deportation by claiming a "right to family life" under proposals announced by the home secretary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326
Foreign criminals may no longer be able to avoid deportation by claiming a "right to family life" under proposals announced by the home secretary.
I'm liking her
Maybe all my emails have paid offOriginally Posted by les_taxi
I'm liking her- sent her another one last week about the convicted Ukrainian sham marriage fixer who's walking the streets of Hastings.
I'll believe it when I see it - the problem is the deluded, tree hugging, limp wristed Lib Dems
i'd prefer it if they just deported all us innocent folk to Nevada
Good on you Dedworth, and good on Mrs May.
We are in total agreement on this.
I don't think any issue has made my blood boil so much, and made our once proud nation look so damned weak and helpless.
It IS the will of the people, for the greater good of the vast majority, and the (unelected) Judiciary must do what the government tells them !
Spot on Graham. I'd be looking at sacking the lilly livered, pillow chewing judges who favour foreign criminal scum and jeopardise the safety of the indigenous population. They are probably on jobs for life contacts - this needs addressing as a matter of urgency.Good on you Dedworth, and good on Mrs May.
We are in total agreement on this.
I don't think any issue has made my blood boil so much, and made our once proud nation look so damned weak and helpless.
It IS the will of the people, for the greater good of the vast majority, and the (unelected) Judiciary must do what the government tells them !
what would have happened to the poor little cat if its illegal immigrant owner could have been deported
Typical tory drama.
Nothing more than another knee jerk reaction.
The cat is fiction, and had nothing to do with the
deportation of this criminal.
All that is needed is for, Article 8 - privacy .
be tweaked to enable the UK to deport
those foreign nationals that break the law.
There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Let's not lose sight of what the human rights act is in place for.
We need it, the world needs it.
I agree that it needs to be tweaked, but not scrapped.
Not a drama ( wish they WOULD create some drama for once), but all that Mrs.May proposes to do, and yes, she answered the question about the mythical cat on the lunch-time politics programme....another lot of media crap.
So-called 'human rights' legislation creates more problems than it solves IMO.
OUR existing laws could teach a lot of other countries about human rights.
It's time for us to re-create OUR rights, rather than allow ourselves to be hamstrung by OTHER people's unelected committees and officials.
You only have to take out the half inch thick instruction manual in a dozen different languages for the quarter inch thick mobile phone to realise what a ridiculous nonsense this whole EU folly has become.
"Theresa May" and the word 'pussy' in the same sentence makes me sick
Keith - Administrator
I would have given him one of these with which to transport the thing back to his country of origin:
.
Perhaps a larger model could be produced for the illegals themselves.
I agree with Graham - not a drama, snake in the grass and Limp Dem trojan horse Ken Clarke started this puerile cat issue
Sack him now Cameron, anything decent and smelling slightly of common sense he did is ancient history - he's just a time server waiting to pitch up in the House of Lords and cop his Ł300 per day
Mrs May made the remark during a speech in which she repeated her belief that the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, "needs to go".
Her comment.
"We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."
But a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said the pet had "had nothing to do with" the judgement allowing the man to stay.
The case at the centre of the row occurred in 2008 and involved a Bolivian student who said he could show he had a proper permanent relationship with his partner and should not be deported.
The Bolivian man eventually won his case on appeal because the Home Office had ignored its own immigration rules on unmarried couples.
She urgently needs to get her facts straight."
Amnesty International said Mrs May's comments only fuelled "myths and misconceptions" about the Human Rights Act.
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, told the BBC: "The cat surprised me. I cannot believe anyone was refused deportation just because they owned a cat."
And he said repealing the UK Human Rights Act would mean "all the cases go back to Strasbourg", adding: "I think it is a good idea that we remain adhering to the Convention on Human Rights and the cases are heard here by British judges."
Its all about facts.. This guy was an immigrant, there is no evidence of any wrong doing.
Mrs May comment only serves to link immigrants with criminals, again.
In my opinion dangerous, she has a loose mouth.
She is in fact a very good reason to keep the human rights act.
You need to take an objective view, step back, and think, at this time we have tory government, end of term who knows ? in 10years it could be National Front.
The human rights act was put in place to try and prevent future atrocities, such as genocide, torture, forced labour, slave labour,
It may not be perfect or ideal, but then again nor is the world.
Well if we want such future atrocities in OUR country, we have certainly been going the right way about sowing the seeds for it.
The National Front have a lot of support not because what they and other right-wingers espouse is considered totally acceptable, but because of the increasing frustration and disenfranchisement felt by the MAJORITY of ordinary British people over many years.
In any case you weaken your argument by the knee-jerk throwing in of that organisation's name.
He was an overstayer therefore in my opinion a criminal illegal immigrant. The Judge accepted the purchase of a cat as part evidence of the Bolivian having a long term same sex relationship.
In my lifetime the atrocities you mention haven't been an issue in the UK, we have criminal laws to deal with them - there is no need for us to have this bizarre loose legislation which allows terrorists, criminals, and general scum to remain in this country putting law abiding citizens at risk.
Maybe you should get out more,
Human trafficking is the fastest growing form of slavery today and is prohibited under international law, as well as under the criminal laws of the United Kingdom and other countries. Yet thousands of women, children and men are trafficked to the United Kingdom each year.
The UK is a major destination for trafficked women. Police believe that about 4,000 have been brought in to the country and forced to work as prostitutes.
Victims are found "all over the UK, not just in metropolitan areas", police say.
The gangs behind the trade buy and sell the women for between Ł2,000 and Ł8,000. Some have been forced to work 16 hours and have sex with 30 men a day.
Slavery still exists in 21st century London with an estimated 5,000 people trafficked to the UK at any one time. Whilse some are forced into prostitution, increasing numbers are forced to work in construction, domestic work, cleaning, the restaurant trade, care, on farms and in factories. Many, including children, are forced to beg, commit street crime or cultivate cannabis.
Hundreds of men, women and children are trafficked each year to the UK. Research carried out for the Home Office estimates that the number of women trafficked into the UK is between 4,000 and 10,000.
The trade in human persons constitutes a shocking offence against human dignity and a grave violation of fundamental human rights.
This is going on all around you as we speak, and in your lifetime and in the UK. Slavery, and forced labour.
As for the cat owner, it states he was in an relationship with his girlfriend
for around 4years. and based on that he was allowed to stay. The details were restricted and there is no evidence to suggest he was an convicted criminal.
We can only specualte as there are no documented details available.
My point is, Mrs May tried to Sensationalism and dramatise the need to scrap the human rights act based on an absurd notion of a man owning a pet.
And in the process, lost her credibility.
The fundamental reason for the act, is to protect the innocent.
I do agree it needs some changes, but we are part of the EU
if it was scrapped, the european courts would make the decision.
And we have no say in the matter at all.
As it stands now, it is at least put before a court and judge in the UK,
I don't see the UK leaving the EU any time soon, and as such we are subject to many european laws.
It was my view, that we should have made our exit decades ago.
As a nation we could have still cooperated with the rest of europe
but remained outside.
Ted Heath lead us into the European common market in 1973,
which later became the EU.
We as a nation were not prepared then, and are still not today.
yes i know the cat bit was a joke by the judge
Toneec - Am I understanding you correctly ? Your post gives the impression that you feel anyone who has been trafficked into the UK is entitled to permanently reside here.
Once apprehended these people should be treated decently and then transported back to their country of origin at the earliest opportunity. The pimps and traffickers involved should have their assets seized, receive substantial jail sentences and then if foreign nationals be deported.
By mentioning the cat Mrs May hasn't lost any credibility - the judiciary has and due to farcical human rights judgements they lost it long ago. I think you're the one who needs to get out a bit more.
- And WHO are the people-trafficking gangs ?
Foreigners and illegals !
It is all down to WEAK and ineffectual politicians and the way they are governing this country !
No Dedworth you are not understanding me. you claimed ( In my lifetime the atrocities you mention haven't been an issue in the UK, we have criminal laws to deal with them - there is no need for us to have this bizarre loose legislation which allows terrorists, criminals, and general scum to remain in this country putting law abiding citizens at risk.)
I merely pointed out it is an issue.
I actually agree with you, those that are found, should be treated in a decent manner, and sent home. Infact that is all the majority of them want, to just return home. However there are a vast number , especially children, that are never seen again.
Like the present shower you mean !!
Not all are foreigners.
The politicians were voted in. Its called democracy.- And WHO are the people-trafficking gangs ?
Foreigners and illegals !
It is all down to WEAK and ineffectual politicians and the way they are governing this country !
YES, including the present 'shower'.
I judge people by their deeds, not by what badge they wear. 'If the cap fits' etc.
What happened to our referendum ?
The ones that ARE foreigners....and a large proportion of them ARE should be deported, including the ones(on today's news) who have been running bogus colleges and printing out bogus degrees.
We have quite enough home-grown criminals without entertaining the scum of other countries thankyou.
I agree, my sentiments exactly.
Which referendum ?
I firmly believe our main problems lie in our membership to the EU.
Its time to get out.YES, including the present 'shower'.
I judge people by their deeds, not by what badge they wear. 'If the cap fits' etc.
What happened to our referendum ?
The ones that ARE foreigners....and a large proportion of them ARE should be deported, including the ones(on today's news) who have been running bogus colleges and printing out bogus degrees.
We have quite enough home-grown criminals without entertaining the scum of other countries thankyou.
That's something we are definitely in agreement on.
if i may just lighten up this topic...
reading today about human rights and the group called sanctury international... say they will fight any moves to have a tibetan asylum seeker deported..
Mr yeti a 46 year old..and a lecturer at kings college and the only living example of the legendary abominable snow man ever recoreded is accused of council tax fraud and housing benefit fraud..and of been unfairly critical of miles davis album blue moods in his review for the east acton gazette.
a spokes man for sancturay explained that MR yeti is been singled out because of his status as a missing link between humans and apes.. and is not been granted fair or equitable treatment by the uk immigration authorities.
They have handed a petition with both their uk members to the primeminister mr cameron.. WHO said "i have also been mistaken for a missing link between humans and plankton..and i can fully appreciate and sympathise with Mr yeti for his situation ....
purely satire of course
Isn't people traffic more green than car traffic?
Keith - Administrator
Im certainly keen to see the rules adjusted and the words Mrs May has used are to spark a positive note for the party.
However we have a big problem with the current legislation and it needs fixing asap.
Tone
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
Interesting post Toneec
Mrs Cherie Blair QC has made a nice living out of the Human Rights game - I can only think that she and the rest of the judiciary choose to line their pockets by ignoring Paragraph 2 and going down the discretion route
Question time very interesting apart from the Alcoholic and failed singer two total tosspots
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
