What price the HRA now?

[french frank]

The extraordinary thing here is the first sentence. WHY was he allowed to stay?

To which you might add, why was the child granted British citizenship at such a late date, since his parents had originally been illegal immigrants. But none of these issues has anything to do with the HRA. The decisions were taken (or not taken in the case of the original deportation decision) on other grounds.

As I understand it (subject to correction from any lawyer qualified in this area) a man and his son, if neither are British citizens, can be deported. A British citizen cannot be deported. This is where the human rights issue was involved: deportation would part the father from his child. Those are the legal points. To discard them leaves the way open for a more meritorious man to be parted from his child. Matters of criminal involvement do not affect that issue. Even criminals have human rights, otherwise you could starve them, beat them, torture them.

[Lateralthinking1]

.....On number 29, aeolium I don't have an answer to your question but I could chip at it a bit. You might inadvertently have found the one thing I could agree with the Tories on. For that, I think I hate you.

That is, their commitment to kicking out an old law for every new law introduced. Of course, they won't do it and they will get rid of all the wrong ones in trying to do it but I agree with the objective.

Then I would like to stop the adverts on LBC etc - " do you think you might have grazed your fingernail once on a gatepost owned by your Parish Council? - we can help you".

I am tempted to say that support for legal costs should be based on a contribution system, much like National Insurance, but I know that would be howled down by many.

I also think that it might be time for some serious scrutiny of the courts, the barristers and the solicitors. Currently, this is a group that has managed to avoid exposure. I would expect a lot of grossness to be there, particularly in the area of money.

[amateur51]

I also think that it might be time for some serious scrutiny of the courts, the barristers and the solicitors. Currently, this is a group that has managed to avoid exposure. I would expect a lot of grossness to be there, particularly in the area of money.

Do you mean the ones currently practicing or the ones in Parliament, Lat?

How about a 3-term block on legal professionals entering Parliament?

[aeolium]

Article 8(1) states that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." But there is a 'community exception' to this right stated in Article 8(2) which states: "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." So the right to family life is not unqualified, and presumably the judges in this case did take into account the community exception (e.g. "for the prevention of disorder or crime" or "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others") but they judged that deportation in this case "would not be proportionate". Since the appeal was allowed only after the child had been granted British citizenship it is that decision - the granting of citizenship - that seems the more questionable.

[french frank]

Since the appeal was allowed only after the child had been granted British citizenship it is that decision - the granting of citizenship - that seems the more questionable.

Yes, the point I also made. It sounds like official departments not talking to each other.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'd like to go back to one of the earlier questions if I may. It was the one about the HRA, and wider law, not being perfect but surely it is better to have something like the HRA rather than nothing? With further thought, I still conclude "no".

If justice via the HRA is only financially accessible to the very wealthy and those in receipt of legal aid, then consider this.

Supposing all of the equalities legislation - gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability - could only in practice work to protect people in those economic groups - the very wealthy and the state funded - but not the majority. Would that be better than not having any equalities legislation at all?

I strongly suggest that it wouldn't because it would lead to extreme bias in the law against people in those categories who had a mid-range financial status.

[Flosshilde]

Wrong wrong wrong!

Lateral, just as Simon's argument for getting rid of the HRA was muddle-headed, so is yours. For one thing, recourse to the European Court of Human Rights was much more expensive, & less accessible to you (or any other 'ordinary' person). If you want the Act to be replaced by something better (you haven't explained in what way 'better') then wait until that has been developed before repealing the Act (which could be part of the same Bill that establishes the new system). Your argument for repealing the HRA is really an argument for improving access to law, including a reform of legal aid to make it more available.

[Flosshilde]

Supposing all of the equalities legislation - gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability - could only in practice work to protect people in those economic groups - the very wealthy and the state funded - but not the majority. Would that be better than not having any equalities legislation at all?

As someone directly affected by equalities legislation, absolutely yes.

Legislation applies to everyone, not just those people who might be able to pay for recourse to the courts. Judgements have an impact on everyone across the board, not just to those people who originally brought the case.

[Lateralthinking1]

So let us say for the sake of argument that the HRA, and the equalities legislation, could only in practice work to protect people in the top and mid-range economic groups. In other words, that the group that they did not in practice protect was the poorest group rather than, as is currently the case with HRA, the middle group.

Am I right in thinking that you would still feel that it was better to have them than to have nothing at all?

[Lateralthinking1]

.....as for the point about recourse to the European Court of Human Rights having been much more expensive and less accessible to me as an ordinary person.

Sorry but no. While this may well be the case for the upper end of the middle economic bracket - those who may not be exceedingly rich but are nonetheless pretty wealthy - it isn't the case for most at the lower end of that bracket who are often just above the line for getting legal aid. They can't afford either so they are actually equally inaccessible to them.

What kinds of people in Britain might be not be exceedingly rich but still are pretty wealthy? What kinds of people therefore benefit from finding the HRA affordable when the European Court of Human Rights could be prohibitively costly to them?

Private individuals who in their professional lives happen to be lawyers or politicians I guess!

[Flosshilde]

So let us say for the sake of argument that the HRA, and the equalities legislation, could only in practice work to protect people in the top and mid-range economic groups. In other words, that the group that they did not in practice protect was the poorest group rather than, as is currently the case with HRA, the middle group.

Am I right in thinking that you would still feel that it was better to have them than to have nothing at all?

Of course. Laws are not framed to protect or apply to any particular social or economic group. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

[MrGongGong]

Funny thing is that I was at a rehearsal yesterday at Kings Place
the public Wifi blocked me from viewing this thread with this message

Page content filters applied - score = 825

[french frank]

What kinds of people in Britain might be not be exceedingly rich but still are pretty wealthy? What kinds of people therefore benefit from finding the HRA affordable when the European Court of Human Rights could be prohibitively costly to them?

But, Lat, isn't your argument about access to the law, full stop? Legal aid is available to poorer people, the rich can afford their own lawyers. Why should you apply the argument to human rights legislation alone?

[Lateralthinking1]

french frank - Yes, you are probably right, but if it is bad enough in other aspects of the law that some have greater access to direct forms of justice (as opposed to relying on precedent that others might set), it is far worse in the area of human rights.

Not being extremely wealthy or eligible for legal aid, I and many others are expected to tolerate others being able to afford defending some of the following, often at our expense, while we cannot. In fact, they can often benefit in this way while our equivalent rights are constrained by their freedom to do so.

I like to think that I am a reasonably tolerant person but I can't handle that situation easily emotionally. It really takes the proverbial to an unprecedented extent. When there is inequality in terms of access even to some of it - I accept that many areas on the list are equitable for reasons other than the HRA - the rest of us might as well be the equivalent to slaves:

the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

[amateur51]

Come what May, how prescient of the OPoster...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15140742