Brexit or Britin

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm happy to see the back of the ECHR if it's replaced with a British bill of human rights that means we are effectively in control of our own judicial processes.

Other than the fact that European Court of Human Rights (which presumably can try violations of the Convention) is beyond British control, what to you find objectionable in the Convention itself?

[Bijou Bob]

I find it highly objectionable that we can't deport terrorist sympathisers or for example, those who enter illegally, commit offences and then claim the right to a family life ( or, if we believe the Daily Heil, because they have a cat).

[Prufrock]

We can. We literally can.

Not only can we, but in a delicious irony, it's because of the EU that we can.

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... ion-policy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Freedom of movement for 'essential workers'

[Hoboh]

I'm happy to see the back of the ECHR if it's replaced with a British bill of human rights that means we are effectively in control of our own judicial processes.

Other than the fact that European Court of Human Rights (which presumably can try violations of the Convention) is beyond British control, what to you find objectionable in the Convention itself?

Prisoners entitled to vote for one!

[bedwetter2]

We can. We literally can.

Not only can we, but in a delicious irony, it's because of the EU that we can.

I'm genuinely interested in your interpretation of the legal processes. This is not a trap by the way.

As you know, a number of Home Office officials and Home Secretaries (both Tory and Labour) have at least implied that it is difficult for the 'dog to see the rabbit' in cases where the wish to deport persons back whence they came have occurred. Courts in the UK and ultimately the ECHR have apparently stymied actions to remove undesirables on the grounds of what? Reasons quoted have been 'the right to a family life', possible infringements of liberty and worse once they are returned to their native country, etc. Known criminals entering from another EU state have been allowed in, whether through Border Force incompetence or EU migration open borders rules I don't know.

You say we can (meaning the UK state, presumably). I don't doubt that the Government has spent a lot of taxpayers money to not only fund prosecutions to remove but also through legal aid has funded the civil liberties lawyers who have defended the cases (you're not one of those ambulance chaser type legal bods are you?). Neither you nor I deliberately voted for taxpayer funds to be wasted if indeed they have been wasted.

So, what is your view?

[Prufrock]

We write a law that says we can. When we joined the eu, the act was written so that, in the case off a conflict, EU overrides UK law. Realising the difficulties this has caused, we were careful to draft the human rights act so that uk law is interpreted in line with ECtHR rulings only as far as it can be. If uk law contradicts ECHR, UK law prevails.

Yet no politicians ever do it, because it's politically awkward, and they like having the excuse that they can blame the ECtHR for things.

[Rjs37]

It's one thing already having laws in place that contradict ECHR (not something I'm aware of but I don't doubt it), but introducing brand new ones? I'm not sure they'd let us get away with that/enforcing them, even if we had the balls to do it.

Though on the example of prisoners being entitled to vote, I think that decision was eventually made by the ECJ. Leaving the ECHR without leaving EU would not impact that.

[bedwetter2]

We write a law that says we can. When we joined the eu, the act was written so that, in the case off a conflict, EU overrides UK law. Realising the difficulties this has caused, we were careful to draft the human rights act so that uk law is interpreted in line with ECtHR rulings only as far as it can be. If uk law contradicts ECHR, UK law prevails.

Yet no politicians ever do it, because it's politically awkward, and they like having the excuse that they can blame the ECtHR for things.

Yes but why would they want to hide behind an ECHR excuse when 'trying' to remove a high profile case such as Abu Quatada? It doesn't make much sense to waste resources on keeping the c*nt under house arrest if we could have just put him on the next leaky dinghy to Jordan.

[TANGODANCER]

We write a law that says we can.

And in that simple statement much of why the government have us all by the bollox is expained and clarified. .

[Worthy4England]

We write a law that says we can. When we joined the eu, the act was written so that, in the case off a conflict, EU overrides UK law. Realising the difficulties this has caused, we were careful to draft the human rights act so that uk law is interpreted in line with ECtHR rulings only as far as it can be. If uk law contradicts ECHR, UK law prevails.

Yet no politicians ever do it, because it's politically awkward, and they like having the excuse that they can blame the ECtHR for things.

Yes but why would they want to hide behind an ECHR excuse when 'trying' to remove a high profile case such as Abu Quatada? It doesn't make much sense to waste resources on keeping the c*nt under house arrest if we could have just put him on the next leaky dinghy to Jordan.

Because it's easier than acknowledging that the Right to a Fair Trial, is a fairly fundamental human right and one we take for granted? We could of course head down the route of right to a fair trial (unless we say so) but once you establish that right to a fair trial isn't at all necessary that would be a really strange acknowledgement from a civilized society, no?

[bedwetter2]

We write a law that says we can. When we joined the eu, the act was written so that, in the case off a conflict, EU overrides UK law. Realising the difficulties this has caused, we were careful to draft the human rights act so that uk law is interpreted in line with ECtHR rulings only as far as it can be. If uk law contradicts ECHR, UK law prevails.

Yet no politicians ever do it, because it's politically awkward, and they like having the excuse that they can blame the ECtHR for things.

Yes but why would they want to hide behind an ECHR excuse when 'trying' to remove a high profile case such as Abu Quatada? It doesn't make much sense to waste resources on keeping the c*nt under house arrest if we could have just put him on the next leaky dinghy to Jordan.

Because it's easier than acknowledging that the Right to a Fair Trial, is a fairly fundamental human right and one we take for granted? We could of course head down the route of right to a fair trial (unless we say so) but once you establish that right to a fair trial isn't at all necessary that would be a really strange acknowledgement from a civilized society, no?

What?

[bedwetter2]

We write a law that says we can. When we joined the eu, the act was written so that, in the case off a conflict, EU overrides UK law. Realising the difficulties this has caused, we were careful to draft the human rights act so that uk law is interpreted in line with ECtHR rulings only as far as it can be. If uk law contradicts ECHR, UK law prevails.

Yet no politicians ever do it, because it's politically awkward, and they like having the excuse that they can blame the ECtHR for things.

Yes but why would they want to hide behind an ECHR excuse when 'trying' to remove a high profile case such as Abu Quatada? It doesn't make much sense to waste resources on keeping the c*nt under house arrest if we could have just put him on the next leaky dinghy to Jordan.

Because it's easier than acknowledging that the Right to a Fair Trial, is a fairly fundamental human right and one we take for granted? We could of course head down the route of right to a fair trial (unless we say so) but once you establish that right to a fair trial isn't at all necessary that would be a really strange acknowledgement from a civilized society, no?

I was under the misapprehension that the rule of law (as in real written laws) held sway, not some nebulous ideal of whether the accused was not a bad person/not all that bright/was an animal lover/got on with some lawyers.

[Worthy4England]

We write a law that says we can. When we joined the eu, the act was written so that, in the case off a conflict, EU overrides UK law. Realising the difficulties this has caused, we were careful to draft the human rights act so that uk law is interpreted in line with ECtHR rulings only as far as it can be. If uk law contradicts ECHR, UK law prevails.

Yet no politicians ever do it, because it's politically awkward, and they like having the excuse that they can blame the ECtHR for things.

Yes but why would they want to hide behind an ECHR excuse when 'trying' to remove a high profile case such as Abu Quatada? It doesn't make much sense to waste resources on keeping the c*nt under house arrest if we could have just put him on the next leaky dinghy to Jordan.

Because it's easier than acknowledging that the Right to a Fair Trial, is a fairly fundamental human right and one we take for granted? We could of course head down the route of right to a fair trial (unless we say so) but once you establish that right to a fair trial isn't at all necessary that would be a really strange acknowledgement from a civilized society, no?

I was under the misapprehension that the rule of law (as in real written laws) held sway, not some nebulous ideal of whether the accused was not a bad person/not all that bright/was an animal lover/got on with some lawyers.

The Right to a Fair Trial is indeed written down in the Human Rights Act 1998. By that body of august folks that pass laws on our behalf in the UK. This formed the basis of somè of Quatda's appeals as he contended he couldn't possibly get a fair trial in Jordan.

As it happens, I'm not sure he's ever been actually convicted of anything in any country...(I'm in the "well shut of the fckr camp btw)

[bobo the clown]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Montreal Wanderer]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where exactly did pencil biter post?

[Bruce Rioja]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where exactly did pencil biter post?

Elsewhere. Obviously.

[bobo the clown]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where exactly did pencil biter post?

His Facebook. Why ?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where exactly did pencil biter post?

His Facebook. Why ?

Because I wanted to read it if he said something of substance beyond your quote. Thank you.

[thebish]

The Right to a Fair Trial is indeed written down in the Human Rights Act 1998. By that body of august folks that pass laws on our behalf in the UK. This formed the basis of somè of Quatda's appeals as he contended he couldn't possibly get a fair trial in Jordan.

As it happens, I'm not sure he's ever been actually convicted of anything in any country...(I'm in the "well shut of the fckr camp btw)

he was cleared of all charges in Jordan - then released...