|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 8, 2023 10:52:16 GMT
Seems that we cannot deport convicted violent felons because their mental health would suffer.. almost as daft as having a cat as a reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2023 12:03:49 GMT
And this has what to do with Human rights?
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) was a tribunal constituted in the United Kingdom with jurisdiction to hear appeals from many immigration and asylum decisions. It was created on 4 April 2005, replacing the former Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA), and fell under the administration of the Tribunals Service.
I agree he should be sent home but it is not a reason to leave the human rights act, what we need to do is clean up our systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 8, 2023 13:18:09 GMT
Seems that we cannot deport convicted violent felons because their mental health would suffer.. almost as daft as having a cat as a reason. Labour's HRA should have been scrapped by Cameron, sadly his hands were tied by Cleggy and his coalition. Since then the conservatives slow creep to the centre has continued. Scrapping Labours Human Rights Act, withdrawing from the ECHR and moving the conservatives back to the centre right would be very popular with the vast majority of sensible voters. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 8, 2023 13:57:35 GMT
I have not completed reading the 1998 act and cannot as yet state where the actual problems are with it.
I would suggest anyone proposing scrapping it at least tries to read it first to get an informed opinion of what is wrong with it, as it could be judges interpretations of it.
Anyway, I am still reading it and cannot say.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 8, 2023 14:48:50 GMT
I would suggest that in many cases it is our judges that are the problem. Indeed, they have oft been accused by the European courts of over-interpreting the legislation.
However, if they can't be trusted with it (and it seems that they can't) then it has to be taken away from them or at least amended with additional constraints as to where and it what circumstances it can be invoked.
Perhaps the Human Rights Act could be restricted purely to considerations of what happens in the UK rather than what might happen abroad.
For example, a foreign persons potential difficulties in their own country should not be our problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 8, 2023 18:57:36 GMT
And this has what to do with Human rights? The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) was a tribunal constituted in the United Kingdom with jurisdiction to hear appeals from many immigration and asylum decisions. It was created on 4 April 2005, replacing the former Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA), and fell under the administration of the Tribunals Service. I agree he should be sent home but it is not a reason to leave the human rights act, what we need to do is clean up our systems. You ask ‘what has this to do with human rights. The answer is a load of people of YOUR political persuasion make it that way. THEY say scum like this have rights which they all seem to enjoy denying tbe victims of scum like this. It is YOU and your political associates that are the problem here. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 8, 2023 19:39:34 GMT
Actually it's the ECvHR which says that such scum get to enjoy human rights as soon as they come under the jurisdiction of one of its 'high contracting parties' i.e signatories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2023 11:43:23 GMT
And this has what to do with Human rights? The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) was a tribunal constituted in the United Kingdom with jurisdiction to hear appeals from many immigration and asylum decisions. It was created on 4 April 2005, replacing the former Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA), and fell under the administration of the Tribunals Service. I agree he should be sent home but it is not a reason to leave the human rights act, what we need to do is clean up our systems. You ask ‘what has this to do with human rights. The answer is a load of people of YOUR political persuasion make it that way. THEY say scum like this have rights which they all seem to enjoy denying tbe victims of scum like this. It is YOU and your political associates that are the problem here. I think it is probably the Judges that interpret the 'rights' and the lawyers that defend them. Labour has nothing to do with it only in respect of honouring the law. It's odd that you should have such venomous hatred for a party that respects the law, don't you think. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 9, 2023 11:52:20 GMT
You ask ‘what has this to do with human rights. The answer is a load of people of YOUR political persuasion make it that way. THEY say scum like this have rights which they all seem to enjoy denying tbe victims of scum like this. It is YOU and your political associates that are the problem here. I think it is probably the Judges that interpret the 'rights' and the lawyers that defend them. Labour has nothing to do with it only in respect of honouring the law. It's odd that you should have such venomous hatred for a party that respects the law, don't you think. given the obscene amount one Cherie fucking Booth makes and in particular made every time her husband walked through the voting lobby you’re having a larf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2023 11:59:09 GMT
I think it is probably the Judges that interpret the 'rights' and the lawyers that defend them. Labour has nothing to do with it only in respect of honouring the law. It's odd that you should have such venomous hatred for a party that respects the law, don't you think. given the obscene amount one Cherie fucking Booth makes and in particular made every time her husband walked through the voting lobby you’re having a larf Human rights? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 9, 2023 19:19:32 GMT
Read the act people, none of us are that clued up on a subject we're getting quite passionate about.
We have to educate ourselves before pontificating.
I include myself in this as I am not familiar enough with the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 10, 2023 5:26:38 GMT
Perhaps the Human Rights Act could be restricted purely to considerations of what happens in the UK rather than what might happen abroad. For example, a foreign persons potential difficulties in their own country should not be our problem. It's difficult not to be sympathetic to the suggestion, particularly when considering the case of an overstaying, drug dealing, rapist. However, the Secretary of State might have been better off putting in place arrangements to deal with the concerns of the first tier tribunal and detailed in April 2022 rather than launching an appeal based on distinctly thin arguments.
The Appellant will only be given a short period of Restricted Leave as a result of our decision. That is likely, in our experience, to be no more than six months. As the FtT noted in its concluding remarks, it is open to the SSDS during that time to address the basis upon which the appeal was allowed, whether by obtaining specific assurances from the Gambian authorities or otherwise. (Strangely enough, not mentioned in the Mail's article.)
The cynic might say that the 'right kind' of press coverage was a racing certainty following an appeal that would clearly fail. Who knows?
|
|
