to think some people have more human rights than others

[Moreshabbythanchic]

BBC news, a suspected Somalian terrorist has had his tag removed as it is against his human rights. Apparently he thinks it is a bomb that could be detonated by MI5.

I think I've heard it all now.

In the US, not only to they generally revere their human rights, they actually have to pledge to uphold them in any public office. They call theirs "the constitution", and they are very attached to it

Yes..... we know. The constitutional right to have a gun is clearly demonstrated in the news time and time again.

Cantbelieve- innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that everyone not found guilty of a crime IS innocent but it means that everyone not found guilty of a crime has the right to be treated as if they are innocent. You can't take that right away from some people but not others. Either we require guilt to be proven before people are punished or we don't. If you're happy for some people to lose that right don't be surprised if there is no one left to speak for you the day you or your loved ones are targeted. As someone said upthread it's the next government you need to worry about not this one.

It's a difficult subject matter to be honest Fuzzy
If you have somebody who has been identified as having clear links to terrorist or other groups, and who openly promote a message of extremism/hate then yes, the authorities have a duty to ensure people are kept safe by whatever means possible. If this means wearing a tag then so be it. Having listened to someone happily condone the violence of IS and wishing for similar atrocities to be committed here I really don't have a problem with that.

But that's just it... There is no duty to protect "by any means possible". At least not in the UK, they protect within the confines of the law. The government cannot act outside of the law, however justified it may think it is, and no matter how good the reasons may be. It's been a fundamental principle of our constitution since at least 1215, so 800 years. In the 17th century the country ripped itself apart over that principle (the revolution we always forget) and it's arguably what prevented the sorts of revolutions seen in France and Russia.

By which I mean ones that had longer lasting effects. We wussed out on republicanism pretty quickly.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049811/Rapist-killer-foreign-criminals-using-Human-Rights-Act-fight-deportation.html
Someone up thread wanted examples of other human rights abuses.
Daily mail or not, ridiculous to suggest this type of thing doesn't happen.

But the government are not acting outside of the law Fuzzy. Perhaps saying 'by any means possible' was unreasonable and not quite what I was getting at

sorry..... meant ME saying by any means possible was unreasonable

well a judge rules he had the right to stay given all the facts - well the 'facts' that the daily fail included anyway

any other examples apart from one 4 year old one?

if that is it then how does that justify infringing on MY human rights?

and an immigration court is not a human rights court - he would not have been allowed to stay purely for that reason

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/394565/1-000-criminals-use-human-rights-laws-to-evade-deportation
1.000 examples of criminals using the human rights card to evade justice, which was the point I was making. It's hardly top secret.

ghosty I regularly appear in Immigration Tribunals. Judges absolutely can, and frequently do, allow people to stay solely on the basis of their human rights. Usually article 3 of 8.

sweet it is actually incredibly hard to win a deportation appeal solely on the basis of article 8. Even harder since the Immigration Act has been introduced. I've been practising for 10 years and have seen maybe 3 or 4 deport cases win on that basis (deportation only involves foreign criminals). Funnily enough, most Judges don't like foreign criminals either...

Trazzle...... in your experience (or knowledge) how often do foreign criminals who face deportation try to use HR laws in spurious ways to strengthen their case? My sister was an immigration lawyer for 17 years and said she came across a far few cases.

It may not be top secret, but you will forgive me if I don't automatically believe the Express or the Mail. Neither of them have a particularly good record of accuracy on such matters. Catgate being a case in point

sorry - happy to be corrected :)

I still don't think any of the above is worth losing my rights over - or anyone elses

the rights that 'protect' criminals also protect us

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/25/what-can-we-do-about-foreign-criminals-using-family-rights-to-dodge-justice/
I don't believe everything the mail and the express tell us either but it would be ridiculous to deny this happens just because it's from them. Do you not believe this article either? I'm amazed that people don't believe this happens tbh.

Cantbelieve everyone mentions it. I would usually argue it because there is usually an argument to be made for a foreign criminal - most have been here for at least a couple of years, the vast majority have some form of family here so Article 8 is engaged, but a Judge will usually find that deportation is in the public interest as the risk to the public outweighs the right of the individual.

I tell clients it's usually unlikely to win on that basis but I wouldn't say it's spurious.

That article linked below, by the way, doesn't say WHY those 1000 criminals were allowed to stay, just that the majority argued article 8. Well, of course they did! Most people will have a form of family or private life in the country they live in. It would be negligent not to argue it in most cases.

In immigration law, you are required to raise all reasons which could lead to you being able to stay at appeal so you would mention article 8 a lot!

Thank goodness the courts are there to spare a terrorist the terror of being stopped by an imaginary bomb from really bombing people.

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-mythbuster

While the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has claimed that 'thousands' of people use Article 8 to stay in Britain every year, the number of deporations prevented is actually very small. In 2011, for example, 1,888 appeals were made against such deportation - only 185 of those were allowed on Article 8 grounds (less than 10 per cent of total appeals, and less than 5 per cent of total deportations)

Of course it happens sweet but it is really not as frequent as you may believe.

Sweetgrape- did you actually read the article you linked to? It doesn't actuallly come down as much on your side as you seem to think it does...........