|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 1, 2023 11:05:49 GMT
It is long overdue time the Government erased it and replaced it with our own version ASAP A convicted terrorist who is now back on our streets and who is probably still a danger to us cannot by Monitored by the Police or MI5 nor can we deport him, we all know that is is difficult enough to deport convicted criminals, due to the ECHR and the Human Rights Lawyers . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11588805 |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 1, 2023 13:46:13 GMT
I fear this may not be a straightforward matter
Ten years before the six countries that signed the 1957 Treaty Of Rome and the Euratom Treaty, the UK joined together with various post war victors to form the Council of Europe.
It is THAT organisation, which has sod all to do with the scurrilously named ‘European Council’ invented by the federalists of Brussels and named to spread confusion and steal credit not due to the EU, which is behind much if not all of the Human Rights doctrines and the European Court of Human Rights is theirs, not the EUs.
The European Court of Justice is also quite separate.
Now, you may already know this and I may be preaching to the choir but I think it important to lay this down at the start.
The issue I fear is that we cannot remove the power of the EHCR over us without also leaving the council of Europe, an act that is within our power, but which would have us labelled the North Korea of Western Europe
Or we could precipitate our expulsion by, well, a number of ways come to mind but switching sides and helping Putin bomb Ukraine should do it, as the Council ejected Russia after they commenced their invasion.
So I’m sorry but I don’t thing removing ourselves from the influence of the EHCR is now possible. What I feel may have mileage is a review of what has changed since our joining the council and looking to backpedal or ameliorate some of its more recent demands
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 1, 2023 14:40:46 GMT
I fear this may not be a straightforward matter Ten years before the six countries that signed the 1957 Treaty Of Rome and the Euratom Treaty, the UK joined together with various post war victors to form the Council of Europe. It is THAT organisation, which has sod all to do with the scurrilously named ‘European Council’ invented by the federalists of Brussels and named to spread confusion and steal credit not due to the EU, which is behind much if not all of the Human Rights doctrines and the European Court of Human Rights is theirs, not the EUs. The European Court of Justice is also quite separate. Now, you may already know this and I may be preaching to the choir but I think it important to lay this down at the start. The issue I fear is that we cannot remove the power of the EHCR over us without also leaving the council of Europe, an act that is within our power, but which would have us labelled the North Korea of Western Europe Or we could precipitate our expulsion by, well, a number of ways come to mind but switching sides and helping Putin bomb Ukraine should do it, as the Council ejected Russia after they commenced their invasion. So I’m sorry but I don’t thing removing ourselves from the influence of the EHCR is now possible. What I feel may have mileage is a review of what has changed since our joining the council and looking to backpedal or ameliorate some of its more recent demands Post WW2 reconstruction and law in general was really governed by the Americans. No doubt the Europeans had a bit of a say, but our problem was that we had the biggest empire the world had ever seen at this point because we gained land from WW2. We thought America was our friend, but it would turn out they would stab us in the back. One such occasion was over Egypt. America was looking to get what we had, and it managed it, so post WW2 we declined and America expanded. By the 60s we were completely under their thumbs so our prime ministers were just taking their orders, and one order would be to do with the currency and would lead to the destruction of our manufacturing industries. Our empire said it wanted independence, but it was no coincidence the new leaders of independence were US puppets, hence the American Empire became invincible, much like the British Empire late 19th century. Of course the European Union was likewise under their thumb but we were the bigger slave. You can see this by the EU adopting immigration policies and woke policies. Farage said it was all from the EU as master villain, but of course he would say that. Farage is pretty much up Uncle Sam's arse, so we get misled as usual (keep the proles dumb - it always works). Now the US is losing power as Asia grows in power and influence.
Perhaps we need a total rethink. Perhaps we should reorientate everything to bring it so it is good for current times. This is like old code.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 1, 2023 14:55:47 GMT
It is long overdue time the Government erased it and replaced it with our own version ASAP A convicted terrorist who is now back on our streets and who is probably still a danger to us cannot by Monitored by the Police or MI5 nor can we deport him, we all know that is is difficult enough to deport convicted criminals, due to the ECHR and the Human Rights Lawyers . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11588805What John said and this: the problem isn't the ECnHR, the problem is only sentencing someone that conspired and attempted mass murder to just 8 years behind bars. 80 might have been closer to the mark esp as his actions did actually have a strong link to the death of de Menezes the next day. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 1, 2023 17:55:59 GMT
It is long overdue time the Government erased it and replaced it with our own version ASAP A convicted terrorist who is now back on our streets and who is probably still a danger to us cannot by Monitored by the Police or MI5 nor can we deport him, we all know that is is difficult enough to deport convicted criminals, due to the ECHR and the Human Rights Lawyers . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11588805What John said and this: the problem isn't the ECnHR, the problem is only sentencing someone that conspired and attempted mass murder to just 8 years behind bars. 80 might have been closer to the mark esp as his actions did actually have a strong link to the death of de Menezes the next day. Good point Steve. The story highlighted has a small passage that shows your point perfectly. This guy has a (foster) brother who got 40 years for his part. Not for the first time I read a story and think it is our sentencing judges who are the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 2, 2023 9:24:39 GMT
Wahabi Mohammed was sentenced to 17 years but that was reduced to 13 years on appeal, I posted this not because of his sentence which I think is too lenient but the fact we cannot deport this Terrorist who may still be a threat to us, as it would breach his human rights
Nor can the Police or MI5 keep surveillance on him because Lawyers have argued that would be classed as torture, again a breach of his Human Rights , that is why I advocate we put in place our own Human Rights Act in place which our Courts to oversee it and make decisions on what happens to people like this that no Court outside the UK can interfere with or over rule
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 2, 2023 12:15:18 GMT
Wahabi Mohammed was sentenced to 17 years but that was reduced to 13 years on appeal, I posted this not because of his sentence which I think is too lenient but the fact we cannot deport this Terrorist who may still be a threat to us, as it would breach his human rights Nor can the Police or MI5 keep surveillance on him because Lawyers have argued that would be classed as torture, again a breach of his Human Rights , that is why I advocate we put in place our own Human Rights Act in place which our Courts to oversee it and make decisions on what happens to people like this that no Court outside the UK can interfere with or over rule But if you struck out the human rights angle you're still only going to find a small % of criminals we can deport (because they happen to have dual or foreign citizenship) yet you'd destroy human rights for at best a marginal improvement? We don't know the family connections he has argued for all we know he has a wife and kids here dependent on his earnings. I would certainly argue that as a general case once someone has completed their sentence we should not lightly destroy a family IE only if continuing criminality was occurring. I repeat the issue here is our weak sentencing, he was as guilty as the would be bombers yet got only 1/3 of their sentences. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 2, 2023 12:31:06 GMT
Wahabi Mohammed was sentenced to 17 years but that was reduced to 13 years on appeal, I posted this not because of his sentence which I think is too lenient but the fact we cannot deport this Terrorist who may still be a threat to us, as it would breach his human rights Nor can the Police or MI5 keep surveillance on him because Lawyers have argued that would be classed as torture, again a breach of his Human Rights , that is why I advocate we put in place our own Human Rights Act in place which our Courts to oversee it and make decisions on what happens to people like this that no Court outside the UK can interfere with or over rule But if you struck out the human rights angle you're still only going to find a small % of criminals we can deport (because they happen to have dual or foreign citizenship) yet you'd destroy human rights for at best a marginal improvement? We don't know the family connections he has argued for all we know he has a wife and kids here dependent on his earnings. I would certainly argue that as a general case once someone has completed their sentence we should not lightly destroy a family IE only if continuing criminality was occurring. I repeat the issue here is our weak sentencing, he was as guilty as the would be bombers yet got only 1/3 of their sentences. The act of incarceration is basically against the right to a family life in any event. The act of deporting does not negate that right his family can go or stay and the family life right can be maintained in another country. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 2, 2023 12:35:30 GMT
But if you struck out the human rights angle you're still only going to find a small % of criminals we can deport (because they happen to have dual or foreign citizenship) yet you'd destroy human rights for at best a marginal improvement? We don't know the family connections he has argued for all we know he has a wife and kids here dependent on his earnings. I would certainly argue that as a general case once someone has completed their sentence we should not lightly destroy a family IE only if continuing criminality was occurring. I repeat the issue here is our weak sentencing, he was as guilty as the would be bombers yet got only 1/3 of their sentences. The act of incarceration is basically against the right to a family life in any event. The act of deporting does not negate that right his family can go or stay and the family life right can be maintained in another country. No If you actually read the HRA (and not what some tell you is in it) there is no breach of human rights in jailing criminals. You will also know full well that requiring UK citizens guilty of no crime to go live in violence and plague torn Somalia just to keep their family together is hardly acting decently. |
|
