howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
From Next Two Years thread....
Courtesy Independent.......
A `betrayal`of British values;Tories accused of damaging UK`s reputation on Human Rights.
Government attacks on human rights legislation were condemned tonight as an "unhinged" betrayal of British values, destined
to destroy the country's reputation on the world stage.
As the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary separately threatened to draw back from the European Court on Human Rights,
the Conservative Party was accused of being in disarray and caving in to the right after its humiliating defeat in the Eastleigh by-
election.
Leading lawyers and human rights advocates said ministers risked making the UK a pariah state alongside Belarus - the only
European country that has not signed the European Convention on Human Rights. On a day when David Cameron claimed
there would be no "lurch to the right" in the wake of the Eastleigh result, both Chris Grayling and Theresa May were accused of
pandering to the far right of their party. - See more at:
http://www.dover.uk.com/forums/dover-forum/the-next-two-years?p=32#sthash.6fbwxwrb.dpufGuest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Ditto.................
Courtesy The Independent.............
Friday morning House of Commons Charlie introduces private members bill....UK would cease to
recognise EU Human Rights.
Every speaker was Tory none of which support the EUcourt.......prolonged one sised rant turned into
an irrelevant Philosophical battle between Rory Stewart and the `strange` Jacob Rees-Mog over the
concept of ``absolute`` human rights ......yawn.....for the rest you have to go to `Hansard`......
.........was it worth it ? - See more at:
http://www.dover.uk.com/forums/dover-forum/the-next-two-years?p=31#sthash.sJurBNUr.dpufhoward mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i'm with charlie on this one the current situation is untenable with terrorists, murders, paedophiles and rapists allowed to stay here. a u.k. bill of rights based on our values must be the order of the day.
not one red has spoken on this as far as i can see which does not put them in a good light.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"Before 1998, the United Kingdom had a home-grown human rights settlement that worked well."
Does anybody have any idea what this was?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Common sense possibly Tom, where the offended against were more important than the offender.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I'll live to regret commenting on this thread
I thought that the debate in the Commons was not only about rights, but about pairing rights with responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities being a charter for the criminal.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that is what most people have said all along neil, why should someone have a right to a family life if they have destroyed another family by a criminal act.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 5...agree....or do we want this government to write UK`s Human Rights policy......bearing in mind all their other ill-conceived
policies?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
You should not have to regret what you've said Neil, nor Howard or Jan.
This should have nothing to do with political parties, but fairness and rightness. It does - as Howard said, seem odd that no one on the left (Labour or Lib-Dem) has has come out in favour - as far as I am aware, they have just said no, no, no. The general public won't like that I'm sure.
Roger
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
This from April 2012...
Judges ordered to end 'right to family life' farce
"Mrs May said in an interview with this newspaper: "By the summer, I will have changed the immigration rules so that we can end the abuse of the right to a family life."
She added that she believes the measures will be "widely supported" both by politicians from all sides and the public and adds: "Believe you me, I get as frustrated as anybody when I see somebody who should not be in this country remaining in this country." "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9192270/Judges-ordered-to-end-right-to-family-life-farce.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
nothing surprises me about our current home secretary, just a catalogue of statements that are never backed up by deeds.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Well Howard. I have attempted to search for something, anything, associated with deportations prior to 1998 and found nothing.
Perhaps your Mr. Elphicke or one of his number could expand on the rosy past he claims we enjoyed prior to our adoption of the pan-Europe human rights legislation.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
I am often genuinely taken aback by some of what you print here Brian. Something for which I am truely grateful.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
something to do with enshrinement in uk law tom, could be another charlieism though - the parliamentary equivalent of alex, gets a head of steam up and nothing will stop him.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Not quite Howard. He says we used to do a bang-up job all on our lonesome, the incorporation of the European act into our law was, he claims, a step too far.
He has not yet said just what we were doing right way back when, nor has he said anything about what the future would look like IF he got his way.
All we know is that if things go well it will have been all his idea.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
judging by that last line tom you have been following his career closely.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Welded rather than riveted Brian?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Please don't interpret Charlie's Bill merely in the light of tabloid headlines and party dogma. This is a synopsis of the Bill's provisions.
"......... my first principle is that the UK Supreme Court should be the final court in UK law for human rights matters.
Secondly, serious foreign criminals and persons in the UK illegally should not be able to avoid deportation by using human rights claims, as has happened in the past.
Thirdly, the right to family life should not be available as a tool to avoid justice and escape answering criminal charges.
Fourthly, suspected foreign terrorists should not be able to subvert national security or our personal security, or avoid deportation, by using human rights claims.
Fifthly, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion should be protected to a greater extent than they are today. We have seen too many attacks on people's thoughts, feelings and beliefs. There has been too much aggressive secularism, which has sought to attack the Church and people who have deeply held religious beliefs. We have seen that in the case of the Plymouth Brethren and the Charity Commission, and in the constant attacks on the Church and on religion both in Parliament and outside it. We must ensure that there is a space for people to have religion and religious beliefs in this country, and that people should be able to set out and preach what they think. Their right to free speech should be better protected
The sixth pillar is that the right to vote should not apply to convicted prisoners, a matter on which this House has expressed concern.
The seventh is that legislation passed by Parliament should be changed only if Parliament so decides. Courts believing that legislation breaches human rights should declare their opinion, yet Parliament should make the final decision on whether laws ought to be changed.
The eighth pillar is that public authorities should not be penalised for applying legislation that is approved by Parliament, because that has happened too often, creating uncertainty and making their lives extremely difficult. They think they are doing what they have been told to do by Parliament and suddenly end up with a human rights claim and a member of the Bar pursuing a compensation claim, not only on his or her client's behalf but on his or her own behalf, to get money out of the taxpayer.
The ninth is that UK law should not be automatically interpreted in line with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. In deciding human rights cases, UK cour ts should take into account centuries of common law rulings from the UK and elsewhere in the common law world.
Finally, the UK social contract is not just about rights. It is about responsibilities and the contract should include responsibilities as well as rights."
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Sounds like the 10 Commandments - and I agree with all of them.
Roger