Human Rights Act fails us all again

Human Rights Act fails us all again

Author
Discussion

odyssey2200

Original Poster:

18,650 posts

210 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all

Sorry if a repost but my Urine sublimated

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

Telegraph said:
Nejad will not be deported back to Iran because he could face execution if sent home.

Instead, he will remain in hiding in London and will receive hundreds of pounds every week in free housing, meal allowances, jobseeker's allowances

5unny

4,395 posts

183 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Howard and Hague had it in their manifesto to withdraw from the HRA. CMD also touched on this last year but we've heard nothing since.

Wonder what he'll do.


Edit:

Actually it is in their current Manifesto:


"To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights". The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats both oppose the repeal of the HRA.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/katie-ghos...

Edited by 5unny on Sunday 2nd May 21:04

SmoothRB

1,700 posts

173 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
It's utterly insane.

But the human rights lawyers LOVE it. They get money, prestige, power, more jobs from taking these scum as their clients.

Mr_B

10,480 posts

244 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
He was about the only part of the operation the SAS got wrong.

odyssey2200

Original Poster:

18,650 posts

210 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Mr_B said:
He was about the only part of the operation the SAS got wrong.
hehe

Maybe I should have called the thread

"SAS Fails"

bitwrx

1,352 posts

205 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
"Instead, he will remain in hiding in London and will receive hundreds of pounds every week in free housing, meal allowances, jobseeker's allowances."

Can he not get a job then?

Mr_B

10,480 posts

244 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
bitwrx said:
"Instead, he will remain in hiding in London and will receive hundreds of pounds every week in free housing, meal allowances, jobseeker's allowances."

Can he not get a job then?
I think he's narrowed his job chances just a tad.

Scraggles

7,619 posts

225 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
who would employ an ex-terrorist ?

Dave Angel

3,091 posts

177 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Scraggles said:
who would employ an ex-terrorist ?
The Iranian Embassy? Oh...

sjn2004

4,051 posts

238 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
How does the HRA work exactly?

For example, some scumbag is about to get taken to the airport and deported but suddenly they press a magic button and some lawyer steps out of the cupboard, effectively the government then gives said lawyer a blank cheque and then starts a merry-go-round of expensive nonsense that usually ends up in "scumbag" staying here at our expense?

People in the third world must thinks we're crazy!

odyssey2200

Original Poster:

18,650 posts

210 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
sjn2004 said:
How does the HRA work exactly?

For example, some scumbag is about to get taken to the airport and deported but suddenly they press a magic button and some lawyer steps out of the cupboard, effectively the government then gives said lawyer a blank cheque and then starts a merry-go-round of expensive nonsense that usually ends up in "scumbag" staying here at our expense?

People in the third world must thinks we're crazy!
People in this world think we are crazy!

eldar

21,781 posts

197 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Scraggles said:
who would employ an ex-terrorist ?
Northern Ireland government?

http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/

Sheets Tabuer

18,974 posts

216 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
The UK has never sent people to countries where they could face execution, it was the case long before the HRA came in to being.

Blue Meanie

73,668 posts

256 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Sheets Tabuer said:
The UK has never sent people to countries where they could face execution, it was the case long before the HRA came in to being.
Yup... Another non-news story...

princeperch

7,931 posts

248 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
sjn2004 said:
How does the HRA work exactly?

For example, some scumbag is about to get taken to the airport and deported but suddenly they press a magic button and some lawyer steps out of the cupboard, effectively the government then gives said lawyer a blank cheque and then starts a merry-go-round of expensive nonsense that usually ends up in "scumbag" staying here at our expense?

People in the third world must thinks we're crazy!
the home office (UKBA) will issue removal directions/deportation notice, normally giving the scumbag 72 hrs notice or thereabouts.

The scumbags lawyer will normally make representations to the UKBA that their client's article 3/6/8 rights will be unlawfully breached if their client is removed. They generally either apply to the high court for an injunction to restrain removal and then undertake to issue proceedings for judicial review in respect of the decision to deport/remove.

The JR will then either be dealt with in a time frame of around a month to 6 months, which will clarify whether the scumbags human rights have been unlawfully breached.

All at tax payers expense of course.

Somewhatfoolish

4,366 posts

187 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
This is the meaning of human rights, chaps. Either declare him a non human, decide that you don't want human rights, or live with it.

Yelly

306 posts

169 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Mr_B said:
He was about the only part of the operation the SAS got wrong.
He got out because the hostages refused to identify him as one of the terrorists, until after the seige had finished. He merged in with the hostages, and they protected him. The SAS couldn't have done any better.

odyssey2200

Original Poster:

18,650 posts

210 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Somewhatfoolish said:
This is the meaning of human rights, chaps. Either declare him a non human, decide that you don't want human rights, or live with it.
I'll take option 1 please!


Blue Meanie

73,668 posts

256 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
And they couldn't take him back inside as the cameras were covering the hostages outside... All this talk of "at the taxpayers expense" is quite ludicrous. Who exactly decides who can, and cannot use the benefits of our legal system? It should be for all, and not for just who we think deserves it.

princeperch

7,931 posts

248 months

Sunday 2nd May 2010
quotequote all
Blue Meanie said:
And they couldn't take him back inside as the cameras were covering the hostages outside... All this talk of "at the taxpayers expense" is quite ludicrous. Who exactly decides who can, and cannot use the benefits of our legal system? It should be for all, and not for just who we think deserves it.
legal aid