UK: Home Secretary to end immigrant 'abuse' of family rights

reply to post by supamoto


Excuse me, you don't continue to attack my position when I have withdrawn from the thread.

That's bad manners.

Perhaps I'll have you deported for that ?

You all seem under the impression that foreign people are almost immune from the consequences of their crimes. That isn't the case. They'll be charges, tried, convicted & punished in the same way as English people are.

What EHCR says though is that if you have family bonds to England, perhaps have children there, that you can't be deported for your crime. Perhaps because the disruption caused to your family life & the expense caused to the public finances by deporting you for a parking ticket or a speeding offence might exceed any benefit to the state/public opinion.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
That's expressly against the European human rights convention. It's verboten. It's illegal and it's wrong.

But you think it's OK to do that ? And to deport people to countries where they can be tortured ?

I think it's ok to do that and i am not afraid to say it.

Laws should be changed on basis of misuse and abuse of those same laws by bad people and their lawyers.
All crimes are not the same so of course someone smoking crack is not the same as someone hating on atheists, Jews, gays, women, children, dogs and other innocent animals.
You lose your 'human rights' in some cases, like van der Sloot for example - torture in Peru, why not?

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
You think it's fair to proceed with a trial where the defendant isn't in the dock to defend themselves, or represented in any capacity whatever ?

Do you think it is fair that the British public has to live a man wanted on terrorism charges in 8 countries?

The British public don't think so.

That is the problem with the ECHR. All they seem to worry about is the rights of convicted terrorists, violent drug dealers and war criminals.

I am surprised that the ECHR cannot see the damage it is doing to human rights in Europe.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by supamoto

 

Excuse me, you don't continue to attack my position when I have withdrawn from the thread.

That's bad manners.

So, if you've withdrawn from the thread, why check back and check in...and continue?

I think you really wanted to come back, but were too proud to back down after you'd said you were withdrawing from the thread...and this is a little bit of gameplaying...

Come back in, the water's lovely and warm!

What do you think of the ECHR as a system to protect those that the UK is 'abusing'?

reply to post by ollncasino


You as OP ... and all the Little Sir Echoes who parrot their agreement with you ... think it's a great thing to deport these people. I point out some inconsistencies. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

There's very little virtue in this thread, really, is there ? Other than as a popularity contest where you Daily Mail/Telegraph readers seek to outdo each other in your squalid haste to relinquish all the rights for which your ancestors lay down their lives.

There's no conversation here at all.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity

Seeing that you're back in the conversation, go to their country & see how much human rights you have.
Human rights need putting into persrective. If you break the laws, rules or regulations deliberately you should loose your human rights accordingly.

Originally posted by supamoto
Seeing that you're back in the conversation, go to their country & see how much human rights you have.
Human rights need putting into persrective. If you break the laws, rules or regulations deliberately you should loose your human rights accordingly.

That is a very good point.

The ECHR was designed to further European human rights.

Was it really designed to allow a convicted Arab terrorist who is wanted in 8 countries on terrorism charges to remain in the UK?

All at the UK taxpayers expense?

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
You as OP ... and all the Little Sir Echoes who parrot their agreement with you ... think it's a great thing to deport these people. I point out some inconsistencies. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

There's very little virtue in this thread, really, is there ? Other than as a popularity contest where you Daily Mail/Telegraph readers seek to outdo each other in your squalid haste to relinquish all the rights for which your ancestors lay down their lives.

There's no conversation here at all.

Strange that you treat convicted terrorists with such respect but can't bring yourself to do the same with posters on this thread who you disagree with.

reply to post by ollncasino


I treat convicted terrorists with respect ?

OK. I think you win the race to the gutter. Adieu.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by ollncasino

 

edit on 8-4-2012 by LeBombDiggity because: corrected a possessive, attibutative adjective

What's attibutative?

If you're trying to come across as someone who is intellectually superior by trying to illustrate command and understanding of the workings of the English language...I'd vote fail due to that one tiny point.

However, given that it is potentially your second language, I really do applaud you. That's an honest compliment.

To maintain your higher ground, you may have to go back and edit your edit.

As to the comment about "no conversation", I'd say that was misplaced.

There's conversation, but conversation you just don't like...

I am absolutely sick of the abuse of laws which are designed to protect those who are truly worthy of protection.

Should we have given sanctuary to Radovan Karadzic, to ensure his human rights were protected? How about Saddam Hussein? Both those men cited their own 'human rights' in their defence proceedings.

There are worthy refugees. People who are absolutely genuine in their need for protection.

Then there are cynical, legal manipulators who exploit every hole in the legal system for their own ends and are destructive parasites who devalue a noble process.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by ollncasino

 

I treat convicted terrorists with respect ?

OK. I think you win the race to the gutter. Adieu.

You refer to Abu Qatada in a much more respectful manner than you have the posters on this thread who disagree with you.

But then, isn't your attitude a reflection of the attitude of the ECHR?

Originally posted by selfharmonise
There are worthy refugees. People who are absolutely genuine in their need for protection.

Then there are cynical, legal manipulators who exploit every hole in the legal system for their own ends and are destructive parasites who devalue a noble process.

You've got it spot on, exactly what i wanted to say before someone called me a parrot, essentially
It blows my mind how people (a lot of people, not just two posters on this thread) say 'well, it's the law, people have rights'
Didn't we the people made those laws, can't we change them when we discover abuse and exploitation of the legal system by people who are doing it for the $$ and don't care about justice?
Times change, society's also so laws should change accordingly.

One of the most gruesome examples must be infanticide when both parents are involved. If there is not enough evidence pointing in one direction and if no one confesses they both get acquitted. Is this justice i ask, is this how laws were meant to be?

Not to mention a gazillion other examples where the law protects an individual who is a threat to society as a whole. This makes me angry and it is not just. No way.

I hope and pray this actually comes into force.

It is clear that individuals who should not be in this country in the first instance, should not have their "right" to a family life, overide the right (as said above) for us not to live amongst criminals.
We have enough criminals already in this country - we do NOT need to import any more.

stories like this one
Right to Family life stops criminal being deported

Ibrahim, now 33, arrived in Britain hidden in the back of a lorry in January 2001.
His application for asylum was refused and a subsequent appeal in November 2002 failed, but he was never sent home.
In 2003, while serving a nine-month driving ban for not having insurance or a licence, he ploughed into Amy near her mother’s home in Blackburn.
He ran away, leaving her conscious and trapped beneath the wheels of his black Rover. Six hours later her father had to take the heartbreaking decision to turn off her life-support system. But despite leaving Amy to die, Ibrahim was jailed for just four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.

What about the family who lost their daughter? There right to a family life is now gone, because this individual who was ALREADY an illegal immigrant should never have still been in this country to deprive that poor family of their beloved daughter.

The sooner this comes into force the better.

Agreed. It's not a secret anymore and its beyond racist. People need change and the current changes are not being liked. The entire system needs a reboot

Seven new human rights cases against Britain every day... and Strasbourg court's judgments are already costing the taxpayer £2billion a year

On average, more than 50 new actions a week were lodged against the UK at the Strasbourg court. The rate of cases being brought is rising five times more quickly in Britain than in the rest of Europe.

This helped to increase the court’s overall backlog of cases by 17 per cent last year to a staggering 140,000 – up from 120,000 the previous year.

The soaring number of cases against the UK is hugely unwelcome at a time of financial strictures. Research by the TaxPayers’ Alliance suggests that the cost of complying with the court’s judgments is already running at more than £2billion a year.

Daily Mail

£2billion a year? We could buy an aircraft carrier for that.

Hoorah! However, I bet the UK get told by the European Union that this is a breach of the rules. If I were still living in the UK, I would vote UKIP every single time.

Let's see Canada follow this idea. There are so many immigrants here on welfare it's ridiculous. The immigration rules of Canada state that you must be able to support yourself if you come to this country. This should be the same for ANY family members that you bring along. No welfare, for ANY reason, for three years (personally, I believe it should be 10 years).

However, the rules also state that your sponsor is liable for all debts that you incur for up to three years, and many people who are tricked into sponsoring immigrants (ie through marriages of convenience etc) are completely unaware of this provision. I wonder if the UK has the same thing?

Human rights laws cost Britain £42bn in rulings and payouts

Membership of the European Court of Human Rights has cost UK taxpayers more than £42billion, according to a report.

Controversial rulings include a transsexual serving time for manslaughter and attempted rape being allowed to move to a woman’s prison even though he committed the offences while a man. The court has also prevented the deportation of foreigners found guilty of serious offences.

The cost of complying with judgments under the convention is £17.3billion to date, the report said. In addition, the growth of a compensation culture fostered by the court has added a further £25billion in costs.

Daily Mail

In a recession, how can it be justified to spend £42bn on protecting the rights of criminals and foreign asylum seekers?

Meanwhile pensioners don't have two pennies to rub together.

I glad to see countrys stand up for there rights,if these people would commit crimes in their home countrys,the probley have harsher laws than most hst countrys.