FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > European Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"S e" There isn't an "e" in rights. | |||
| |||
| |||
"the only bit i have an issue with is that the "right to family life" bit take presedent over someone who isn't a uk national being extridited after serving jail time...... i don't see if you have committed a crime hear why you should get to stay here because of kids which you neglected by committed said crimes..." That Right does not state it takes a precedence, in fact it provides a lot of examples where you can lose that right. | |||
| |||
"I dont object to any of them at all. I think the problem is how people sometimes choose to interpret them." I agree with that. To pull out scrap these rights because of a failure in the execution of the rights because of interpretation is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. | |||
"Like any law the ones who deserve it don't need it and the ones who don't deserve it abuse it" ** that should have read the ones who deserve it don't get it | |||
 | |||
" That Right does not state it takes a precedence, in fact it provides a lot of examples where you can lose that right. " there are some classic examples of this..... Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a failed asylum seeker, won a human rights case in the domestic courts to block his deportation. In Blackburn, Lancs, in 2003 Ibrahim struck schoolgirl Amy Houston when he was driving an uninsured car, and left the 12-year-old trapped under the wheels. She died later in hospital. Ibrahim served only two months in jail for driving while disqualified and failing to stop. The Court of Appeal ruled that the killer driver should be allowed to stay in this country indefinitely, because since the offence he had fathered children here and to throw him out would breach his "right to a family life" if you want a newer case... here is one from just 3 months ago... A postman who stole dozens of letters and parcels as part of a £500,000 credit-card fraud cannot be deported to the Ivory Coast because he has children in Britain. he was jailed for 3 years.... Despite committing what both a judge and the Home Office described as “a serious breach of trust”, Harnault Hospice Kassi convinced an immigration tribunal that his removal would breach his right to family life. | |||
| |||
" That Right does not state it takes a precedence, in fact it provides a lot of examples where you can lose that right. there are some classic examples of this..... Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a failed asylum seeker, won a human rights case in the domestic courts to block his deportation. In Blackburn, Lancs, in 2003 Ibrahim struck schoolgirl Amy Houston when he was driving an uninsured car, and left the 12-year-old trapped under the wheels. She died later in hospital. Ibrahim served only two months in jail for driving while disqualified and failing to stop. The Court of Appeal ruled that the killer driver should be allowed to stay in this country indefinitely, because since the offence he had fathered children here and to throw him out would breach his "right to a family life" if you want a newer case... here is one from just 3 months ago... A postman who stole dozens of letters and parcels as part of a £500,000 credit-card fraud cannot be deported to the Ivory Coast because he has children in Britain. he was jailed for 3 years.... Despite committing what both a judge and the Home Office described as “a serious breach of trust”, Harnault Hospice Kassi convinced an immigration tribunal that his removal would breach his right to family life." . Law breakers should forfeit the right to family life . If family life is that important to them , they should not break the law . The fact that they also get legal aid does not help. | |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. " So is it the European Court of Human Rights you object to (along with all other things European) or the Rights? | |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. " actually i left out the Abu Qatada case for a reason... his was more awkward as it wasn't a family life issue... it was that Jordan allowed evidence in trials that was gained by torture..... and NO country allows that type of extridition if was when Jordan said they wouldn't use that evidence and put it in writing that he was allowed to be extridited..... actually funny enough... he was actually found not guilty in his trial in jordan last week.... and he hasn't committed any crimes here in the UK, and never been charged with anything in the UK despite everyone believing he is a dispictable person.... sothere is a legitimate question as to why he can't be allowed back? | |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. actually i left out the Abu Qatada case for a reason... his was more awkward as it wasn't a family life issue... it was that Jordan allowed evidence in trials that was gained by torture..... and NO country allows that type of extridition if was when Jordan said they wouldn't use that evidence and put it in writing that he was allowed to be extridited..... actually funny enough... he was actually found not guilty in his trial in jordan last week.... and he hasn't committed any crimes here in the UK, and never been charged with anything in the UK despite everyone believing he is a dispictable person.... sothere is a legitimate question as to why he can't be allowed back?" Yet Theresa May says he will not be allowed back. | |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. So is it the European Court of Human Rights you object to (along with all other things European) or the Rights?" Both to be fair, for the reasons explained in my comments. I think we'd be better off out of it, and having a fair and just society ruled by British law without the constant interference from Europe. | |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. So is it the European Court of Human Rights you object to (along with all other things European) or the Rights? Both to be fair, for the reasons explained in my comments. I think we'd be better off out of it, and having a fair and just society ruled by British law without the constant interference from Europe." Even though we wrote it and created the Court? | |||
| |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. So is it the European Court of Human Rights you object to (along with all other things European) or the Rights? Both to be fair, for the reasons explained in my comments. I think we'd be better off out of it, and having a fair and just society ruled by British law without the constant interference from Europe. Even though we wrote it and created the Court? " Yes, its mutated into something different now, far too bossy for its own good, and if it is meant to be on a par with our own British law, then why are they always seeking to interfere and over-rule us? | |||
"Anyone should lose all human rights the moment they take away the rights of peace or safety of others. " . Excellent point . Far too many excuses for law breakers   | |||
"Anyone should lose all human rights the moment they take away the rights of peace or safety of others. . Excellent point . Far too many excuses for law breakers "What about those that are then proven innocent, even though they have been convicted and locked up? At the moment they are given about £50 as they leave and no support. Unlike someone on parole they are entitled to nothing. | |||
| |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. actually i left out the Abu Qatada case for a reason... his was more awkward as it wasn't a family life issue... it was that Jordan allowed evidence in trials that was gained by torture..... and NO country allows that type of extridition if was when Jordan said they wouldn't use that evidence and put it in writing that he was allowed to be extridited..... actually funny enough... he was actually found not guilty in his trial in jordan last week.... and he hasn't committed any crimes here in the UK, and never been charged with anything in the UK despite everyone believing he is a dispictable person.... sothere is a legitimate question as to why he can't be allowed back? Yet Theresa May says he will not be allowed back. " If he hates the west and Britain as much as he says he does, then why does he want to come back here? | |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. actually i left out the Abu Qatada case for a reason... his was more awkward as it wasn't a family life issue... it was that Jordan allowed evidence in trials that was gained by torture..... and NO country allows that type of extridition if was when Jordan said they wouldn't use that evidence and put it in writing that he was allowed to be extridited..... actually funny enough... he was actually found not guilty in his trial in jordan last week.... and he hasn't committed any crimes here in the UK, and never been charged with anything in the UK despite everyone believing he is a dispictable person.... sothere is a legitimate question as to why he can't be allowed back? Yet Theresa May says he will not be allowed back. If he hates the west and Britain as much as he says he does, then why does he want to come back here?" I haven't seen anything saying he wants to return. Immediately after his acquittal Ms May announced he would not be allowed back yet, as pointed out, he has not broken any UK law. | |||
"Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other nasty terrorists and criminals have played the "right to a family life" here card. It stinks and costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money fighting the European court of human rights to get these scumbags deported. Not only this but the EU human rights laws are seeking to allow our prisoners the right to vote, which i don't agree with. Also challenging our own British court rulings on a regular basis, which is out of order, suggesting that judges should not be allowed to give life sentences for the most despicable crimes. Our own British law is fair without the interference from the EU and the european court of human rights. actually i left out the Abu Qatada case for a reason... his was more awkward as it wasn't a family life issue... it was that Jordan allowed evidence in trials that was gained by torture..... and NO country allows that type of extridition if was when Jordan said they wouldn't use that evidence and put it in writing that he was allowed to be extridited..... actually funny enough... he was actually found not guilty in his trial in jordan last week.... and he hasn't committed any crimes here in the UK, and never been charged with anything in the UK despite everyone believing he is a dispictable person.... sothere is a legitimate question as to why he can't be allowed back? Yet Theresa May says he will not be allowed back. If he hates the west and Britain as much as he says he does, then why does he want to come back here? I haven't seen anything saying he wants to return. Immediately after his acquittal Ms May announced he would not be allowed back yet, as pointed out, he has not broken any UK law. " Did he get freedom for turning Supergrass? | |||
| |||
"While I am sure everyone can pick out a number of those cases that do manipulate the rules. What about the 507,400,000 that are protected by it. The laws on drink driving get abused by those that can afford to pay for top class barristers to find a loophole. Tax laws get the same treatment. You cant just throw away all your laws, because a few have found a way to use them in the wrong way. The basic principles are good rules,its just a few that manage to use them to their advantage. SPOT ON "  | |||
"While I am sure everyone can pick out a number of those cases that do manipulate the rules. What about the 507,400,000 that are protected by it. The laws on drink driving get abused by those that can afford to pay for top class barristers to find a loophole. Tax laws get the same treatment. You cant just throw away all your laws, because a few have found a way to use them in the wrong way. The basic principles are good rules,its just a few that manage to use them to their advantage. " Thank you for this post. | |||
"S e" Oops, I meant Article 5 e. | |||
"S e Oops, I meant Article 5 e. " Which is, of course, one of the exceptions to the right to liberty. That is the thing with the rights, there are caveats written in that can be used and in most cases would avoid some of the annoyances people seem to have that others are getting away with something they are not happy about. | |||
| |||
"Anyone should lose all human rights the moment they take away the rights of peace or safety of others. . Excellent point . Far too many excuses for law breakers
What about those that are then proven innocent, even though they have been convicted and locked up?
At the moment they are given about £50 as they leave and no support. Unlike someone on parole they are entitled to nothing.". Excellent point . Still too many miscarriages of justice . Some members of the public and those doing jury service place far too much reliance on forensic evidence when can be misintrepeded or contaminated. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Anyone should lose all human rights the moment they take away the rights of peace or safety of others. " Agree with this. Fully. Applying the rule of good old-fashioned common sense to make a judgement of situations, which is sadly lacking in today's society. And in protecting my own, I will act first and worry about consequences later. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I believe this issue it totally overexadurated. Britain was a world leader in human rights. We protected those rights long before the European courts set up their version. The E.U. have allowed their bill to be manipulated and twisted and not allowed common sense to prevail. If we leave the human rights bill we won't be going back to the stone age but we will have our own human rights legislation that hopefully will have more common sense added to it." | |||
"I believe this issue it totally overexadurated. Britain was a world leader in human rights. We protected those rights long before the European courts set up their version. The E.U. have allowed their bill to be manipulated and twisted and not allowed common sense to prevail. If we leave the human rights bill we won't be going back to the stone age but we will have our own human rights legislation that hopefully will have more common sense added to it. "Yep! - & if you don't believe this, just ask Gandhi! .....anyone wanna buy some tripe? - it's getting late, special price!! | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think every human should have the right to die if they are terminal in order to avoid a ling painful death. Seems on this animals have more rights that we do. Are we not animals too that deserve this right as an intelligent being" A damn good point on human rights, but it's fine in parts of Europe, but not here, evidently!! History has taught me; a modern collective Europe would have to have better human rights than just one, - evidently! | |||
| |||
"I think every human should have the right to die if they are terminal in order to avoid a ling painful death. Seems on this animals have more rights that we do. Are we not animals too that deserve this right as an intelligent being A damn good point on human rights, but it's fine in parts of Europe, but not here, evidently!! History has taught me; a modern collective Europe would have to have better human rights than just one, - evidently! " My daughter bought the subject up the other day saying animals have more rights do a dignified and humane death than we do. We had a nice discussion about it and she said if she were going to die like that she would rather be allowed to be put down like an animal | |||
"I believe this issue it totally overexadurated. Britain was a world leader in human rights. We protected those rights long before the European courts set up their version. The E.U. have allowed their bill to be manipulated and twisted and not allowed common sense to prevail. If we leave the human rights bill we won't be going back to the stone age but we will have our own human rights legislation that hopefully will have more common sense added to it. "Its a real pity that despite numerous corrections of many years the above fallacy is still rolled out and is promptly agreed with. Fact is the European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up by The Council of Europe chaired by a British lawyer and signed into law in 1949 at the Hague Congress. The EU started life as the European coal and Steel community and was formed in 1951. The only link between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights is that you have to be a signatory of the ECHR to be a member of the EU (Treaty of Lisbon signed by Gordon Brown in 2009.) I believe that if there is anything wrong with the ECHR it is not with the the 18 articles of the original convention but with the additional protocols that have been added over years. | |||
"I believe this issue it totally overexadurated. Britain was a world leader in human rights. We protected those rights long before the European courts set up their version. The E.U. have allowed their bill to be manipulated and twisted and not allowed common sense to prevail. If we leave the human rights bill we won't be going back to the stone age but we will have our own human rights legislation that hopefully will have more common sense added to it.
Its a real pity that despite numerous corrections of many years the above fallacy is still rolled out and is promptly agreed with.
Fact is the European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up by The Council of Europe chaired by a British lawyer and signed into law in 1949 at the Hague Congress.
The EU started life as the European coal and Steel community and was formed in 1951. The only link between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights is that you have to be a signatory of the ECHR to be a member of the EU (Treaty of Lisbon signed by Gordon Brown in 2009.)
I believe that if there is anything wrong with the ECHR it is not with the the 18 articles of the original convention but with the additional protocols that have been added over years. "Here, here. And the fact that the EU should be for trade, and not a Europe-wide government. | |||
