Rishi Soonaxed Hasn't Changed...
News0 min ago
What about our human rights?
to walk the streets of London without being blown apart..
The sooner the Human Rights Act is raked over, the better!
http://www.mirror.co....ghts-115875-23427868/
The sooner the Human Rights Act is raked over, the better!
http://www.mirror.co....ghts-115875-23427868/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yet another vile object from that cess-pit called Somalia.
Why are they in this country in the first place they are not EU citizens, haven't we got enough of them here already.
Apparently it was reported that Somalis head for Holland where they get EU citizenship and once they have that we can't refuse them entrance into Britain.
Hopefully when the case goes to appeal and this judge is overruled, he will be put on the next flight back to Somalia.
Why are they in this country in the first place they are not EU citizens, haven't we got enough of them here already.
Apparently it was reported that Somalis head for Holland where they get EU citizenship and once they have that we can't refuse them entrance into Britain.
Hopefully when the case goes to appeal and this judge is overruled, he will be put on the next flight back to Somalia.
Before addressing the substantial question, am I missing something here:
“The extremist sympathiser was jailed for 10 years in 2008 – reduced to eight on appeal...”
So that means, to serve half his sentence (the standard amount) his release would have been due in 2012. But, when we read on...
"Abdurahman was due for release in 2010, after five years in custody...”
Er, I make 2008 to 2010 two years. Still, no matter.
“The Human Rights Act right is a fine piece of legislation, have you read it?”
Yes I have, Jack, together with its “alma mater” the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). All the Articles in every colour and all of the sizes.
The ECHR was developed to prevent over-zealous states from oppressing and mistreating their citizens. It was born in the Europe that was drowning in the aftermath of WW2, with Nazi atrocities very fresh in everybody’s mind. It may have been groundbreaking legislation sixty years ago, but the world in general, and the UK in particular, were very different places indeed. Today the Convention and our 1998 Act is a vague “Bill of Rights” that can mean almost anything to anybody. It requires considerable interpretation just about every time it is used. I cannot imagine in their wildest dreams that the architects of the convention had in mind that it would protect convicted terrorists, with no right of abode here, from being removed from this country. But that indeed, along with many other things, is just what it does.
And so we move on:
“...It is worth considering whether he would not pose a greater risk to the UK - and other countries - were he to return to Somalia.”
Oh, right then , ichkeria. So we keep the world’s terrorists here so that we “can keep an eye on them”. Not only has it has been shown many times that we are manifestly incapable of doing so, but the courts have often frustrated the authorities (on Human Rights grounds, natch) when they have tried to impose controls to monitor them. Better, I would suggest that they are thrown out and our borders rigorously monitored to prevent their re-entry.
“The thing is though that the judge has to rule on whether, in his opinion, this chap is in mortal danger if he returns to Somalia...”
Why should we give a toss what danger he may be in, wherever he should go. This is a man who helped another who was trying to repeat the carnage that took place in London in 2005. I lost a close friend in that carnage; blown up on a bus he had taken to get to work after he had to leave the tube because of the bombings. Do I care what happens to this man? Do I want judges in UK courts affording him protection because of some vague notion that he has "rights"?. What do you think? He should have though about his own safety before embarking on an exercise that jeopardised the safety of hundreds of others.
The HRA was not “hard won legislation”. It was introduced at a stroke by the Labour government soon after they came to power. I won’t even go down the road that one of its greatest beneficiaries is Matrix Chambers, set up almost especially for the introduction of the Act, by a handful of barristers including Cherie Booth, QC (aka Mrs Tony Blair).
Finally “...We have plenty of laws that protect people from other people”
Indeed we do, Jake. And we have plenty of laws that protect people from the State. The ECHR and the HRA are not “fine pieces of legislation”. The are an anachronism of a time long since passed, unsuitable for today. Their principle beneficiaries (lawyers aside) are criminals, foreigners and others wishing to circumvent the laws to which we are all subject. The fact that they are being used to allow free rein to people who have tried to cause mayhem on our cities' streets is outrageous. Their repeal is long overdue because, once again the electorate deserves better.
“The extremist sympathiser was jailed for 10 years in 2008 – reduced to eight on appeal...”
So that means, to serve half his sentence (the standard amount) his release would have been due in 2012. But, when we read on...
"Abdurahman was due for release in 2010, after five years in custody...”
Er, I make 2008 to 2010 two years. Still, no matter.
“The Human Rights Act right is a fine piece of legislation, have you read it?”
Yes I have, Jack, together with its “alma mater” the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). All the Articles in every colour and all of the sizes.
The ECHR was developed to prevent over-zealous states from oppressing and mistreating their citizens. It was born in the Europe that was drowning in the aftermath of WW2, with Nazi atrocities very fresh in everybody’s mind. It may have been groundbreaking legislation sixty years ago, but the world in general, and the UK in particular, were very different places indeed. Today the Convention and our 1998 Act is a vague “Bill of Rights” that can mean almost anything to anybody. It requires considerable interpretation just about every time it is used. I cannot imagine in their wildest dreams that the architects of the convention had in mind that it would protect convicted terrorists, with no right of abode here, from being removed from this country. But that indeed, along with many other things, is just what it does.
And so we move on:
“...It is worth considering whether he would not pose a greater risk to the UK - and other countries - were he to return to Somalia.”
Oh, right then , ichkeria. So we keep the world’s terrorists here so that we “can keep an eye on them”. Not only has it has been shown many times that we are manifestly incapable of doing so, but the courts have often frustrated the authorities (on Human Rights grounds, natch) when they have tried to impose controls to monitor them. Better, I would suggest that they are thrown out and our borders rigorously monitored to prevent their re-entry.
“The thing is though that the judge has to rule on whether, in his opinion, this chap is in mortal danger if he returns to Somalia...”
Why should we give a toss what danger he may be in, wherever he should go. This is a man who helped another who was trying to repeat the carnage that took place in London in 2005. I lost a close friend in that carnage; blown up on a bus he had taken to get to work after he had to leave the tube because of the bombings. Do I care what happens to this man? Do I want judges in UK courts affording him protection because of some vague notion that he has "rights"?. What do you think? He should have though about his own safety before embarking on an exercise that jeopardised the safety of hundreds of others.
The HRA was not “hard won legislation”. It was introduced at a stroke by the Labour government soon after they came to power. I won’t even go down the road that one of its greatest beneficiaries is Matrix Chambers, set up almost especially for the introduction of the Act, by a handful of barristers including Cherie Booth, QC (aka Mrs Tony Blair).
Finally “...We have plenty of laws that protect people from other people”
Indeed we do, Jake. And we have plenty of laws that protect people from the State. The ECHR and the HRA are not “fine pieces of legislation”. The are an anachronism of a time long since passed, unsuitable for today. Their principle beneficiaries (lawyers aside) are criminals, foreigners and others wishing to circumvent the laws to which we are all subject. The fact that they are being used to allow free rein to people who have tried to cause mayhem on our cities' streets is outrageous. Their repeal is long overdue because, once again the electorate deserves better.
Latest Posts
Fatal School Land Rover Crash, Wimbledon
News2 mins ago
How it Works6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago