Editor's Blog0 min ago
Leader Of Rochdale Child Rape Gang Loses Human Rights Bid.
10 Answers
http://
/// Shabir Ahmed told the ECHR that the trial was all part of a conspiracy to besmirch
Muslims. ///
/// Shabir Ahmed told the ECHR that the trial was all part of a conspiracy to besmirch
Muslims. ///
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
-- answer removed --
“It was flying a kite - it failed.”
You are quite right, Andy. And there lies one of the greatest iniquities of the European Court of Human Rights. In UK courts (apart from an appeal to the Crown Court from the Magistrates’ Court) one has to have grounds for an appeal and be given leave to appeal. Kite flying is not allowed.
In the ECHR anything goes. An appellant only has to have a feeling that his rights have been infringed and off he goes (almost always supported by Legal Aid, natch). Further than that, HR law very often seems to be made up as it goes along. The Articles are so vague and so nondescript that they can mean almost anything. For example, the infamous Article 8 – a right to a family life. Just what is that supposed to mean? Just about anything and people have made successful appeals against deportation because they must have a right to a family life when they have virtually no family in the UK at all.
Although they are not connected, and Brexit will not alter the situation, the Convention, like the EU, is long past its sell by date. Its founders introduced it to prevent the excesses of State machinery. In fact the UK never needed to acquiesce to its jurisdiction as all the rights covered by the Articles are protected by ordinary UK domestic law. Its founding fathers could not imagine it would be used to allow foreign criminals to remain in the country or to facilitate travellers flouting the planning regulations to which everybody else must adhere. But that’s what it’s done and it is about time we opted out. Brexit presents an ideal opportunity for us to do so coincidentally with our departing the EU.
You are quite right, Andy. And there lies one of the greatest iniquities of the European Court of Human Rights. In UK courts (apart from an appeal to the Crown Court from the Magistrates’ Court) one has to have grounds for an appeal and be given leave to appeal. Kite flying is not allowed.
In the ECHR anything goes. An appellant only has to have a feeling that his rights have been infringed and off he goes (almost always supported by Legal Aid, natch). Further than that, HR law very often seems to be made up as it goes along. The Articles are so vague and so nondescript that they can mean almost anything. For example, the infamous Article 8 – a right to a family life. Just what is that supposed to mean? Just about anything and people have made successful appeals against deportation because they must have a right to a family life when they have virtually no family in the UK at all.
Although they are not connected, and Brexit will not alter the situation, the Convention, like the EU, is long past its sell by date. Its founders introduced it to prevent the excesses of State machinery. In fact the UK never needed to acquiesce to its jurisdiction as all the rights covered by the Articles are protected by ordinary UK domestic law. Its founding fathers could not imagine it would be used to allow foreign criminals to remain in the country or to facilitate travellers flouting the planning regulations to which everybody else must adhere. But that’s what it’s done and it is about time we opted out. Brexit presents an ideal opportunity for us to do so coincidentally with our departing the EU.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.