Amber Rudd contempt of court?
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
I think that CoolHands' kind of questions might focus more on things like skin pigmentation and notional affiliation with some vague form of Anglicanism. I may be wrong, of course, as for all we know he's a "born here makes yer British" kind of guy, but part of me doubts that.
As a lawyer I'm sure phrases such as "Show me where I actually said that" comes up quite a bit? 
Breadvan72 said:
Ah! The authentic voice of little Britain (and getting littler by the minute). Opinion, eh! All the rage these days: the biggest of mouths attached to the very teeny tiniest of minds.
PS: I have a small wager with myself as to what CoolHands thinks that "British" means.
Not sure you can use the moniker of 'little Britain' on a majority of the population. Sad as it is, you are actually probably in the minority when refusing to cheer. Little Britains are now in charge of policy. PS: I have a small wager with myself as to what CoolHands thinks that "British" means.
Problem for me is that I have to decide whether to come down on the side of politicians, or the legal system, and it a similar question to whether I would prefer to have sex with a dog or a cat.
Breadvan72 said:
Is 37% a majority of the population? Cool Maths!
Attitudes towards taking in masses of Muslim immigrants are far less positive outside your ivory tower BV.In this opinion poll 41% want to take in fewer refugees and 29% want to take in more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35470723
On a broader point there is a very real issue with constant talk of "rights" attributed to people who are not citizens of the country. We may have general humanitarian obligations but many seem clear to blur the line between citizen and non-citizen when it comes to "rights".
Is a flat near the Caledonian Road an Ivory Tower? Cool! I must tell the Estate Agents.
This thread is not about Muslim migration (and nor is Brexit - as EU migrants are mostly not Muslims). This thread is about the rule of law. Whatever views you may have on asylum, refugees, migration and so on, do you really want a society in which a Government Minister can flout the orders of a court? Do you want to be ruled by the whims of Ministers with slender mandates (if any)?
Ironically, one of the things that makes the UK attractive to some migrants is that it has a usually stable political system and the rule of law. if you live without those things, the appetite to have them can be quite strong. Of course people also want jobs and houses and some want to scrounge and some want to commit crimes, but outside the real ivory tower which is the fake world of the media that provide the information source for, it appears, many of the ill informed, frightened and angry people who post in NPE, the sources of migration are more complex than they are presented. Most things are more complex than they are presented to be by the Mail, Breitbart and so on, but for those who are easily frightened stepping outside the comforting world of familiar prejudices may be a step too scary.
This thread is not about Muslim migration (and nor is Brexit - as EU migrants are mostly not Muslims). This thread is about the rule of law. Whatever views you may have on asylum, refugees, migration and so on, do you really want a society in which a Government Minister can flout the orders of a court? Do you want to be ruled by the whims of Ministers with slender mandates (if any)?
Ironically, one of the things that makes the UK attractive to some migrants is that it has a usually stable political system and the rule of law. if you live without those things, the appetite to have them can be quite strong. Of course people also want jobs and houses and some want to scrounge and some want to commit crimes, but outside the real ivory tower which is the fake world of the media that provide the information source for, it appears, many of the ill informed, frightened and angry people who post in NPE, the sources of migration are more complex than they are presented. Most things are more complex than they are presented to be by the Mail, Breitbart and so on, but for those who are easily frightened stepping outside the comforting world of familiar prejudices may be a step too scary.
Breadvan72 said:
Ah! The authentic voice of little Britain (and getting littler by the minute). Opinion, eh! All the rage these days: the biggest of mouths attached to the very teeny tiniest of minds.
PS: I have a small wager with myself as to what CoolHands thinks that "British" means.
I can tell you what it isn't - someone who was born and brought up in, & worked in Afghanistan. Belittling others to try and embarrass them is why noone respects people in your profession, or government ministers.PS: I have a small wager with myself as to what CoolHands thinks that "British" means.
It is sadly predictable that many here cannot see past their disapproval of asylum seekers to focus on the real issue, which is maintenance of the rule of law.
As for the comment above about rights, rights are either universal or they aren't really rights, they are instead privileges granted only to some people. That's OK - not everything has to be universal and local or sectional rules are apt in many cases. The entitlement to live in a country is in most cases a privilege that is granted by the rules of that country, whatever those rules might be.
Human rights, however, cut across borders, at least in civilised countries that recognise international standards. Refugee law is based on international standards. The UK is for the time being one of those civilised countries (to the chagrin of those here who would prefer to live in an uncivilised country). The UK is the origin and ultimate author of many of those standards. The rule of law in its modern form, and the existence of rights and liberties, are all pretty much British inventions that have been exported around the world. The ECHR, so hated by many here, was mainly drafted by a British team led by a Conservative politician and lawyer who, as Home Secretary, hanged Derek Bentley amongst others, and who went on to be Lord Chancellor. The UN Charter was mainly drafted by another British Government lawyer (I was honoured to have him as a colleague in his later years). All of this stuff isn't foreign, it's emphatically British.
Sadly, Britain seems intent on stopping being Britain, just as America appears intent on stopping being America. The irony that each country is turning its back on its identity whilst claiming to be asserting that identity is profound.
As for the comment above about rights, rights are either universal or they aren't really rights, they are instead privileges granted only to some people. That's OK - not everything has to be universal and local or sectional rules are apt in many cases. The entitlement to live in a country is in most cases a privilege that is granted by the rules of that country, whatever those rules might be.
Human rights, however, cut across borders, at least in civilised countries that recognise international standards. Refugee law is based on international standards. The UK is for the time being one of those civilised countries (to the chagrin of those here who would prefer to live in an uncivilised country). The UK is the origin and ultimate author of many of those standards. The rule of law in its modern form, and the existence of rights and liberties, are all pretty much British inventions that have been exported around the world. The ECHR, so hated by many here, was mainly drafted by a British team led by a Conservative politician and lawyer who, as Home Secretary, hanged Derek Bentley amongst others, and who went on to be Lord Chancellor. The UN Charter was mainly drafted by another British Government lawyer (I was honoured to have him as a colleague in his later years). All of this stuff isn't foreign, it's emphatically British.
Sadly, Britain seems intent on stopping being Britain, just as America appears intent on stopping being America. The irony that each country is turning its back on its identity whilst claiming to be asserting that identity is profound.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th September 07:55
CoolHands said:
Breadvan72 said:
Ah! The authentic voice of little Britain (and getting littler by the minute). Opinion, eh! All the rage these days: the biggest of mouths attached to the very teeny tiniest of minds.
PS: I have a small wager with myself as to what CoolHands thinks that "British" means.
I can tell you what it isn't - someone who was born and brought up in, & worked in Afghanistan. Belittling others to try and embarrass them is why noone respects people in your profession, or government ministers.PS: I have a small wager with myself as to what CoolHands thinks that "British" means.
If you are embarrassed about being a Little Britainer, then there is an easy solution to your embarrassment.
Breadvan72 said:
.
This thread is not about Muslim migration (and nor is Brexit - as EU migrants are mostly not Muslims). This thread is about the rule of law. Whatever views you may have on asylum, refugees, migration and so on, do you really want a society in which a Government Minister can flout the orders of a court? Do you want to be ruled by the whims of Ministers with slender mandates (if any)?
Well I was responding to your post that implied only a minority of the population don't support this sort of influx.This thread is not about Muslim migration (and nor is Brexit - as EU migrants are mostly not Muslims). This thread is about the rule of law. Whatever views you may have on asylum, refugees, migration and so on, do you really want a society in which a Government Minister can flout the orders of a court? Do you want to be ruled by the whims of Ministers with slender mandates (if any)?
In terms of the actual OP yes the UK government shouldn't ignore the courts (though I do question why the decision was made by the courts only after he had already been deported to Turkey).
Neither however should UK judges use the HRA to impose their own personal prejudices as law. Which is why the HRA should be scrapped and replaced with a British bill of rights and the judiciary should be reformed to ensure true diversity, that of background and opinion.
So the correct action of the government should be to respect the decision. To bring back in yet another "refugee" to spend most of his life on benefits at public expense while hoping he doesn't become "radicalized". Whilst at the same time getting on with the above.
The person in question didn't grow up here though. It's just like me going to mongolia as an adult and insisting I've got some right to live there on a spurious reason. I don't think I read he was an interpreter it said he worked construction for the Afghan government IIRC
Normal people (ie not upper-crust sorts that rule the country) are fed up with hearing about bleeding heart liberals believing all the bulls
t your sort put in front of courts. Little Jonny had a hard childhood. We need to be tougher but people like you embarrass others if they say that. This bloke has no 'right' to live here, which I think without looking back, is what I said. Just as I have no right to live in any other country. That's nothing to do with skin colour.
Normal people (ie not upper-crust sorts that rule the country) are fed up with hearing about bleeding heart liberals believing all the bulls
t your sort put in front of courts. Little Jonny had a hard childhood. We need to be tougher but people like you embarrass others if they say that. This bloke has no 'right' to live here, which I think without looking back, is what I said. Just as I have no right to live in any other country. That's nothing to do with skin colour.So, the notional Afghan interpreter would get the boot as well, because not born here? If the test is "be born here", you would presumably exclude from citizenship people such as Mo Farah.
I do not think that I or anyone here has asserted that the asylum seeker in this case has any right to live here. This thread is not about him. The merits of his claim are irrelevant. If he has a good asylum claim, he will win on that. If he doesn't, he will lose. Contrary to the media sources that you may read, the asylum and migration systems are not open doors, and the Courts are not the soft touches that you think them to be.
As to the HRA, as I mentioned above human rights rules are a mostly British product, and the ECHR mostly reflects the common law developed in Britain over the last 1000 years or so. If you replaced it you would be replacing it with the exact same thing. It's not foreign - it's a set of principles that are about as British as you can get. What I would do is bin the not very good court in Strasbourg (NB this is not the EU Court) and have the UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter on HRA claims.
The idea that Judges simply make decisions to suit their personal feelings is a myth. Judges are of course human and susceptible to many influences, but they apply a series of rules and principles in an ordered way and don't just follow their whims. I invite you to do some serious study of how the legal system actually works and read some decisions so that you can see how the processes of decision making operate. One good starting point would be the Tom Bingham book I linked to above. Seriously, relying on media soundbites which support your own preconceived notions isn't a good basis for political opinion forming.
I do not think that I or anyone here has asserted that the asylum seeker in this case has any right to live here. This thread is not about him. The merits of his claim are irrelevant. If he has a good asylum claim, he will win on that. If he doesn't, he will lose. Contrary to the media sources that you may read, the asylum and migration systems are not open doors, and the Courts are not the soft touches that you think them to be.
As to the HRA, as I mentioned above human rights rules are a mostly British product, and the ECHR mostly reflects the common law developed in Britain over the last 1000 years or so. If you replaced it you would be replacing it with the exact same thing. It's not foreign - it's a set of principles that are about as British as you can get. What I would do is bin the not very good court in Strasbourg (NB this is not the EU Court) and have the UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter on HRA claims.
The idea that Judges simply make decisions to suit their personal feelings is a myth. Judges are of course human and susceptible to many influences, but they apply a series of rules and principles in an ordered way and don't just follow their whims. I invite you to do some serious study of how the legal system actually works and read some decisions so that you can see how the processes of decision making operate. One good starting point would be the Tom Bingham book I linked to above. Seriously, relying on media soundbites which support your own preconceived notions isn't a good basis for political opinion forming.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th September 08:24
PS: The 37% is the Brexit figure (the one that is claimed to be the unquestionable "will of the people" - it is apparently undemocratic to question a decision made by a meeting to which between six and seven people turned up and at which between three and four people voted for something). I mentioned it in response to an assertion that Little Britainishness is the majority force in the country. I do not know if there is any reliable way of measuring if that is or is not so. The general election voting patterns may suggest not, but they are quite hard to analyse.
CoolHands said:
The person in question didn't grow up here though. It's just like me going to mongolia as an adult and insisting I've got some right to live there on a spurious reason. I don't think I read he was an interpreter it said he worked construction for the Afghan government IIRC
Normal people (ie not upper-crust sorts that rule the country) are fed up with hearing about bleeding heart liberals believing all the bullst your sort put in front of courts. Little Jonny had a hard childhood. We need to be tougher but people like you embarrass others if they say that. This bloke has no 'right' to live here, which I think without looking back, is what I said. Just as I have no right to live in any other country. That's nothing to do with skin colour.
Two points: Normal people (ie not upper-crust sorts that rule the country) are fed up with hearing about bleeding heart liberals believing all the bulls
t your sort put in front of courts. Little Jonny had a hard childhood. We need to be tougher but people like you embarrass others if they say that. This bloke has no 'right' to live here, which I think without looking back, is what I said. Just as I have no right to live in any other country. That's nothing to do with skin colour.(1) The interpreter is an hypothetical. if you do not know what one of those is, I recommend Google. I am testing the limits of your argument by posing some cases. It's a thing that people do.
(2) I am not sure what "my sort" is. I probably wouldn't count as British in your book (I am Irish but have a British passport too, do I have too give it back for being Johnny Foreigner?). I have a job, which I use to get money for stuff (weird, I know). I wasn't born doing it - it's not a characteristic. FWIW, all of my Court appearances in asylum and immigration cases in the last twenty years have been for the Government, and I have won a fair few and got some nasty people kicked out of the country, but don't let that get in the way of your ire.
How does a 23 yr old construction worker from Afghan manage to afford to pay (what I imagine) are rather substantial (ongoing) legal fees.
IMHO it's cases like this that really irk the British tax payer.
Assuming of course, the fees are being picked up by Legal Aid. Why should the British tax payer foot the bill.
IMHO it's cases like this that really irk the British tax payer.
Assuming of course, the fees are being picked up by Legal Aid. Why should the British tax payer foot the bill.
Civil legal aid fees are not what most PH'ers might regard as substantial. Access to justice is meaningless if a person who is indigent has no effective way to be heard. I have no clue whether or not this asylum seeker has a good claim, but the nature of the claim will be that the UK is not complying with its international obligations as to refugees. If that is right, then the cost of holding the UK government to its obligations regrettably falls on the taxpayer, as do the costs of all mistakes made by all UK Governments. If the asylum seeker has a duff claim, then it is indeed irksome that the costs are not recovered, but that is a relatively small price to pay for having open justice.
The Government's lawyers are paid a bit more than the Legal Aid rates paid to the Claimant's lawyers (assuming that they are on Legal Aid and not acting pro bono, as some do), but in the case of counsel the Government pays at rates that have not been changed since the 1990s and which are at about a third to a quarter of the market rates. As the rates for counsel have been frozen for years, the untrained paralegal who may sit behind senior counsel in Court for the Government may be paid more than counsel is. Thus the Government gets a good deal on behalf of the taxpayer as the Gov gets experienced lawyers at about one third to one quarter of what they would cost the private sector.
The Government's lawyers are paid a bit more than the Legal Aid rates paid to the Claimant's lawyers (assuming that they are on Legal Aid and not acting pro bono, as some do), but in the case of counsel the Government pays at rates that have not been changed since the 1990s and which are at about a third to a quarter of the market rates. As the rates for counsel have been frozen for years, the untrained paralegal who may sit behind senior counsel in Court for the Government may be paid more than counsel is. Thus the Government gets a good deal on behalf of the taxpayer as the Gov gets experienced lawyers at about one third to one quarter of what they would cost the private sector.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th September 10:23
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff