Another Daily Mail Blinder,

[cockrobin]

But it can't be true, after all its in the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004501/3-200-foreign-criminals-kicked-right-family-life.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[leicestersq]

But it can't be true, after all its in the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004501/3-200-foreign-criminals-kicked-right-family-life.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I always liked the idea of Asimov's laws of robotics, laws had priorities to override other laws.

And the right to family life should only be there if you are law abiding. After all, if you have family ties, you can apply for immigration. The right to family life must never allow people to escape rightful punishments for their actions. And it certainly doesnt give you the right to take money off the UK taxpayer.

[200p]

It is my human right to eat your children, as I feel hungry.

[200p]

Top 4 coments ranked by rating:

Human rights have ruined this country and will continue to do so, thank goodness my husband and I are leaving this doomed island and going to live in a country where law abiding citizens come first .

- maureen roberts, blackpool uk, 16/6/2011 23:38

Click to rate Rating 308

Report abuse

Lets get out of the EU and stop this Madness.

- Maurice, Bolton, 16/6/2011 23:53

Click to rate Rating 284

Report abuse

Don't forget to kick out the morons who come up with these idiotic laws as well....

- Wilburforce Ruff-Dingleton, Little Ridlington-On-The-Heath, 16/6/2011 23:39

Click to rate Rating 276

Report abuse

This is why we and the rest of Europe is doomed. Decades of liberal policies are destroying Europe from the inside out. Within 50 years Europe will be a 3rd world continent, bereft of resources with an enormous population that would have long rendered public services and infrastructure obsolete. It's far too late to stop this madness unfortunately.

- AK, UK, 16/6/2011 23:31

Click to rate Rating 265

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004501/3-200-foreign-criminals-kicked-right-family-life.html#ixzz1PVirL0KQ

[tahoma]

After watching lefty Marr's programme about immigration last night, all I can say is 'thank god for the English Channel'.

Were it not for that, we would have a far worse problem. Not the first time an 18 mile stretch of water has saved us from destruction.

[Surf's Up]

I suspect many comments along these lines are piss-takes by people mocking the stereotypical Mail reader, duly larded with childlike spelling errors and usage like "might of". Fair play to the parodists, the level of apparent bitterness usually parallels the author's ability to express him or herself in writing or join up their thinking. If they are all genuine, a heck of a lot of people out there are disappointed at how their lives have turned out.

[silver surfer]

America had the right idea, give people freedoms instead of rights.

You can still get misty eyed over freedoms, after all they sound every bit as noble as rights, just they cost a lot less. Right To A Family Life costs a fortune. Free speech or freedom to practise your religion costs bugger all.

We'd all feel just as warm and fuzzy with a load of freedoms instead of a load of rights, but what's important is that we then wouldn't have to pay so much tax, so we could all be in Argos having big shopping fun.

[geezer466]

When a case regarding using the HR Act hits the news such as the one where the failed asylum seeker ran down and killed a lad and was convicted of dangerous driving (didn't have a licence or insurance) was allowed to stay under the family rule.

I can recall pretty much the same week or after where the studio audience have put to the panel 'well what about the parents of the lad (who was run down) human rights', to be met with silence or them going off at a tangent refusing to answer the question.

The truth is the system is out of control, I doubt the legislation was aimed at such cases but some lefty judge way back on the precedent judgement has decided this is the way to go. Somehow it either slipped through the appeal process or it was lefty judge week at the time.

The Government should have acted then and made clear exactly what Parliament meant when it enacted the legislation as to who and what article 8 applied too.

[SarahBell]

The obvious answer is to ensure their right to family life and send the family with them.

[TwoWolves]

What I find most intriguing is that access to these "rights" seem to be dependent on the colour of your skin. A very well known example would be the case of Gary McKinnon who seems to be arbitrarily bereft of "Human Rights".

It is my experience that when law or politics seems absurd it is because its meant to be, the issue of "Human Rights" is a side show in order to distract you from the greater evil that is being perpetrated against the people of Europe. What it does teach us is who our real enemy is.

[Nationalist]

Anyone who migrates to the UK and then breaks the law should be dropped kicked back over the border. I can't see any good reason for keeping the ungrateful wretches. :angry:

[Big Orange]

It gets better:

Sex offenders will be able to challenge inclusion on register for life

A maximum of 1,200 convicted sex offenders a year will be eligible to challenge their inclusion on the sex offender register for life, under Home Office proposals likely to come into force from early next year.

The decision by the home secretary, Theresa May, to give registered sex offenders a chance to be removed from the register follows a supreme court ruling that indefinite registration without any right to a review amounts to a breach of human rights.

May's decision to comply with the ruling comes despite David Cameron describing it as "completely offensive" during a Commons row over human rights legislation in February. May pledged she would do the "minimum possible" to comply with the ruling, which she said placed the "rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected".

The "non-urgent" remedial order published by the Home Office proposes that sex offenders who are currently required to register with the police for life will have to wait 15 years after their release from prison to apply to be considered for removal from the register. Convicted juvenile sex offenders will have to wait eight years after their release.

A sex offender who fails to get their name taken off the register would have to wait a further eight years before they can apply again.

The Home Office says that there are currently 44,159 people on the sex offender register in England and Wales, of whom 23,310 are on it for life. Every sex offender sentenced to 30 months or more is currently automatically placed on the register for life.

Any applications for removal from the register will be reviewed by the police with the local multi-agency public protection panel, which includes prison and probation staff. The sex offenders will have to demonstrate they have reformed and no longer pose a risk to the public.

The Home Office assessment says that a maximum of 1,200 offenders will be eligible to apply each year to be taken off the register, but adds: "It is not possible to predict what proportion of those eligible ... would apply for a review." It says it is similarly not possible to predict success rates from reviews.

Harry Fletcher of Napo, the probation union, said the supreme court ruling had forced May to make the concession but predicted that very few offenders would actually succeed in being removed from the register.

"There will be no shortage of applications because they will want the embarrassment and stigma of being on the sex offender register removed," he said. "I think that the number who will succeed will be very small because they have to prove they are no longer a danger to the public which will be extremely difficult."

In his supreme court ruling, Lord Phillips said there had to be circumstances in which "an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified".

The case was brought by two sex offenders. The first was Angus Thompson, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who was jailed for five years in 1996 for two indecent assaults and other offences of actual bodily harm. The other was JF, a teenager, who was sentenced to 30 months for two offences of rape of a child under 13 and other sexual offences. He was 11 at the time of the assaults.

Michelle Skeer, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "The reality is that the risks posed by some offenders can never be completely eliminated, but we will continue to do all in our power to keep them to a minimum and believe that the proposed review process strikes the right balance between individual rights and public safety."

The Home Office minister, James Brokenshire, said the draft order would ensure that strict rules were put in place for considering whether sex offenders who were placed on the register for life should ever be allowed to be removed.

The Guardian

It's deluded, sanctimonious judges and sleazy, cynical lawyers taking the bladder discharge out of the law, justifying their careers and not really thinking about protecting the general public. Juries are unsuitable as well, a jurist recently collapsed a case by blabbing about the court case over Facebook.

[deflation]

It gets better:

The Guardian

It's deluded, sanctimonious judges and sleazy, cynical lawyers taking the bladder discharge out of the law, justifying their careers and not really thinking about protecting the general public. Juries are unsuitable as well, a jurist recently collapsed a case by blabbing about the court case over Facebook.

As an aside, I don't personally know anyone or any of their relatives who have ever been called up for jury service. I, and dozens of people I know all have no criminal record, no CCJs, etc etc. Are there professional jury sitters for the expense or something?

[Nationalist]

As an aside, I don't personally know anyone or any of their relatives who have ever been called up for jury service. I, and dozens of people I know all have no criminal record, no CCJs, etc etc. Are there professional jury sitters for the expense or something?

No, you're just a statistical outlier. I've never done jury service but several relatives have.

[tricksters]

As an aside, I don't personally know anyone or any of their relatives who have ever been called up for jury service. I, and dozens of people I know all have no criminal record, no CCJs, etc etc. Are there professional jury sitters for the expense or something?

An interesting point. I have never known anyone who was called for jury service. It's never even mentioned anywhere so far as I can see. Anyone know how that works?

Off topic. Nothing new there.

[Bobajobbob]

Never been called for Jury service either and only one person I can think of who has from all work colleagues and friends and she was foreign.

[Bob Loblaw]

People are staring to connect the dots. I expect major trouble will follow as Enoch predicted.

[happy_renting]

Top 4 coments ranked by rating:

Human rights have ruined this country and will continue to do so, thank goodness my husband and I are leaving this doomed island and going to live in a country where law abiding citizens come first .

- maureen roberts, blackpool uk, 16/6/2011 23:38

Click to rate Rating 308

Report abuse

Lets get out of the EU and stop this Madness.

- Maurice, Bolton, 16/6/2011 23:53

Click to rate Rating 284

Report abuse

Don't forget to kick out the morons who come up with these idiotic laws as well....

- Wilburforce Ruff-Dingleton, Little Ridlington-On-The-Heath, 16/6/2011 23:39

Click to rate Rating 276

Report abuse

This is why we and the rest of Europe is doomed. Decades of liberal policies are destroying Europe from the inside out. Within 50 years Europe will be a 3rd world continent, bereft of resources with an enormous population that would have long rendered public services and infrastructure obsolete. It's far too late to stop this madness unfortunately.

- AK, UK, 16/6/2011 23:31

Click to rate Rating 265

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004501/3-200-foreign-criminals-kicked-right-family-life.html#ixzz1PVirL0KQ

Human Rights? It's health and safety gone mad!

[Big Orange]

Never been called for Jury service either and only one person I can think of who has from all work colleagues and friends and she was foreign.

Character and judgment is more important than ethnic origin (the bint who blabbered about her court case she was assigned to looked like a native chav) but if jury duty is slanted more against regular people, then the system seems to be broken.

And here's another article about how the HRA has been perverted or inconsistantly applide in regards to favouring foreign criminals over comparative innocents such as Gary McKinnon:

Foreign criminals get more human rights protection than Britons facing extradition, MPs warn

Foreign criminals have more protection under the UK’s human rights laws than innocent Britons fighting extradition, a committee of MPs warned today.

Offenders fighting deportation are able to use human rights defences to avoid removal whereas Britons facing transfer under extradition laws find it almost impossible to do so, the joint committee on human rights suggested.

It means the likes of alleged computer hacker Gary McKinnon, who is fighting extradition to the US, has fewer rights than foreigners who have committed crimes in the UK and should now be deported.

The MPs said the UK’s extradition policies do not provide “effective protection” for citizens and called, in particular, for the agreement between the UK and US to be renegotiated.

There are concerns that the nature of the agreement makes it easier for the Americans to extradite someone from Britain than vice versa.

The contrast in the rights of Britons accused of crimes and foreign convicts is at its starkest in extradition cases within Europe.

Under the European Arrest Warrant system, countries signed up to it, like the UK, have a “mutual recognition” that other members have an appropriate judicial system.

That means those facing extradition under it find it almost impossible to argue they are at risk of human rights abuses.

In contrast, foreign criminals who are facing deportation do not fall under a similar system and are often able to argue their removal will breach their right to a family life or that they face torture or abuse on their return.

Dominic Raab, Tory MP and member of the committee, said: “A perverse combination of EU law and the Human Rights Act has left innocent British citizens with less human rights protections than foreign national criminals.”

Similarly, those facing extradition to the US have found it difficult to argue they are at risk of human rights abuses there.

There are also concerns that currently, the US authorities need only show that a Briton is suspected of committing a crime there and provide an accurate description. If Britain wants to bring a US citizen here, prosecutors must show some evidence they committed the crime.

The JCHR report said the Government should renegotiate the UK's treaty with the US to ensure British citizens get the same protection as Americans.

US authorities should have to show enough evidence to establish probable cause before a Briton can be extradited, it recommended.

Judges should also have the power to refuse extradition requests if the alleged offence took place wholly or largely in the UK – known as the “forum” argument, the MPs and peers said.

The committee's report follows a series of high-profile cases, including that of Mr McKinnon, in which campaigners have argued it would be best for the defendants to be tried in the UK.

Home Secretary Theresa May has said a review of the UK's extradition arrangements was considering whether the UK-US treaty is "unbalanced" and a report is expected later this summer.

Dr Hywel Francis, chairman of the JCHR, said the UK's current safeguards were "clearly inadequate" and were failing to protect human rights.

Judges should play a more active part in extradition cases to ensure their role "is more than only 'rubber stamping' extradition requests", the committee said.

Making countries show there is a case to answer first would reduce the likelihood "that a person could be extradited on speculative charges or for an alleged offence which they could not have committed".

Measures to allow a judge to refuse extradition where the alleged offence took place wholly or largely in the UK are already in the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006 and it "is difficult to understand" why they have not yet been put into practice, the committee said.

Janis Sharp, Mr McKinnon's mother, said: ““I welcome this report wholeheartedly and totally agree with the hugely important recommendation of ‘Forum’ and believe that if the accused was physically in this country during the alleged crime then they should have an automatic right be tried in this country.

“Prima Facie evidence having to be shown is an essential Human Right that should never have been removed, as even the threat of Extradition is in itself a huge punishment, as demonstrated by the nine years of mental torment endured by my son Gary.”

Link