Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Presumably you know then Dread, that the UK was a member of the Council of Europe that drafted the ECHR in 1950.
The Human Rights Act incorporated the ECHR and enabled people take a case to the English Court instead of having to go to Strasbourg, but they can still go to Strasbourg if the English court rules against them.
The Human Rights Act made things easier and less expensive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

I am more than au fait with the history Bipat.
I do not agre with how this act was brought into law in the UK and I am of the strong opinion that we did not need most of it as we had existant laws to cover those aspects. I also think that in the current climate not enough analysis and consideration was taken prior to almost rushing the bill through parliament, which has led the UK into a state where we cannot deport those who come here and abuse the law, preach hate etc, and gives rise to an inability to deport people who justify deporting.
I have no problem with people coming to live in the UK, but I do have a probably naiive expectation that they should abide by the law and not preach hate and plot to destroy the moral fabric of UK society

Dread - x

Dread

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

I agree with your last point Dread, but whether we have the Act or not makes little difference the Strasbourg Court still has the 'Last Word' as happened with Abu Hamza. It is the ECHR which needs updating, to take into account present day terrorism and general changes in migration patterns.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

ECHR, over the years has been hijacked by the absurd and needs sorting out. and we don't allow Islam to take over. We have our laws abide by them, or leave our country.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Not exactly politically correct Noni, but none the less absolutely right!

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Yep -- I can't stand uppity immigrants, either.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

One of the biggest problems in the UK is the haphazard and nonsensical dispersal of legal aid. An illegal immigrant can get legal aid to fight deportation, but there is no legal aid for a British taxpayer who takes a case to employment tribunal for unfair dismissal ! Somehow that seems wrong to me.
Legal Aid is the reason why so many more cases are taken to the ECHR from the UK than any other European nation. Hence why the UK cannot seem to deport those incomers who breach the law, terrorists and hate preachers, and illegal immigrants - whereas such behaviours are not tolerated in other EU countries such as France, Germany etc.
France was even able to ban the bhurka without ECHR interference - can you imagine if that was to happen in the UK?!

Dread - x

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Steve politically correct - B****x that is why I get into trouble saying it as it is, instead of all this political twoddle.:sneaky:

Dread we are nothing in this country but puppets why should we tolerate terrorists, hate preachers,. etc. Why can't out politicians stand up and be counted. B-liar again?

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

I'm positively certain that it can't possibly have been anything to do with the fact that before the HRA there was no other way that people could redress a breach of their rights under the ECHR in the British courts.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Leaving aside the issue of human rights, one problem which occurs when foreign criminals, would be terrorists, illegal immigrants etc. are not able to be deported; is that many in the population turn against British immigrants in general.
"They all come for the benefits, strapped under lorries, a drain on society" etc. etc. (Views occasionally expressed on this forum).
That the majority are useful citizens is then sometimes a difficult message to put across.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

It's an easy path to take if your main source of news is the DM. I don't think much has changed since Baldwin's rant: "What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages." The only reason for ever reading it would be to brush up on your elementary critical thinking abilities or reach a better understanding of how propaganda is still such a powerful tool.

I find some of the views expressed in the Goa part of the forum fascinating given that BE is a forum whose main focus is immigration and many of us are indeed immigrants. There seems to be a disconnect with some people.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Quote - "It's an easy path to take if your main source of news is the DM"

90% of the stories put on here from DM are also in other broadsheets, and on the BBC News web page. I don't know of any of our members who object to foreigners coming here to live if they are self sufficient, and not bleeding our benefit system dry. Especially when we need funds for our hospitals, cancer medicines, OAP's etc. etc.

If we deported the 167 criminals plus their families - there would be 167+ less for us to finance.

p.s. looking to see which country Morecombe Mindy was from (thinking 6 days is a very short visit) I came across this http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...=730170&page=4
our threads are very mild to this.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

And? It's more the choice of story and the way it's told.

You'd actually scrap the HRA because of 167 people? You cannot be serious! Bit like refusing to take a vital medication because it makes your tongue turn blue or has some other trivial side effect.

No idea what the link is for. However, I note Norm_uk is prominent. I really don't need to say anything beyond that.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

The Mail made it only 102 in June.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...portation.html

So either crime's going through the roof or someone can't count.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

I find some of the views expressed in the Goa part of the forum fascinating given that BE is a forum whose main focus is immigration and many of us are indeed immigrants. There seems to be a disconnect with some people.[/QUOTE]

Whilst not exactly an immigrant, I do spend a lot of time each year in both India and Spain. However and I would guess that this is true of all the Brits that contribute to this forum:
1) I have private medical cover - should I need any medical treatment whilst abroad it can and would be paid for.
2) I am totally self funded, I bring with me and or draw on funds from the UK to support myself whilst abroad.
3) I support the local economy in what ever way I can.
4) I support local charities.
5) I totally accept and try to integrate the way of life and customs of what ever country I am in.

Were it not for the draconian attitude of the Indian authorities I would undoubtedly have done more, started a business employing local labour, but thanks to very sound advice from this forum did not persue that idea.

How many of the people coming into the UK either legally or illegally could say the same? Very very few if any! No Noni is absolutely right, we do not need these ponces bleeding us dry, trying to change our country and the way we have traditionally lived, what right do they have to question our way of life? Fortunately it is relatively few, but for those few, bollox to there human rights let them bugger off to whence they came.

Just a view you understand, just a view!