What price the HRA now?

[Guest]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8726973/Nigerian-fraudster-allowed-to-stay-under-human-rights-laws.html

I suppose there will be a few who still won't see it, but here's proof if ever it were needed that we need to see off this unnecessary and useless legislation asap.

[amateur51]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ghts-laws.html

I suppose there will be a few who still won't see it, but here's proof if ever it were needed that we need to see off this unnecessary and useless legislation asap.

Proof?

A florid example of someone determined to undermine the law certainly. But is that the full story?

The Deputy Prime Minister writes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/25/need-uk-bill-of-rights

and an experienced lawyer offers his experience

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/human-rights-act-protect

Case not made, I'd say Simon.

More hard work needed to make your case, I'd say

[makropulos]

I don't quite see why what appears to be a blatant abuse of a law is a persuasive reason for getting rid of that law. Closing loopholes that were the consequence of poor drafting would be another matter.

[french frank]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ghts-laws.html

I suppose there will be a few who still won't see it, but here's proof if ever it were needed that we need to see off this unnecessary and useless legislation asap.

A key factor seems to have been the Home Office's decision to grant the child British citizenship in the middle of the efforts to deport the father.

Anyway, the idea that this case is proof that the entire Human Rights legislation should be scrapped is eccentric.

However, you make a very good point about the tiresome use of lefty Guardian stories by drawing attention to a tiresome, erm, Telegraph story. Who was it mentioned political agendas?

[Simon]

Well, makropulos, it's possible to make a convincing argument that the whole thing was unnecessary in Britain in the first place... British law had adequate safeguards already in place for all the necessary human rights and the vast increase in millionaire lawyers has been an unwanted, but well forseen (especially by the lawyers) consequence.

Closing loopholes that were the consequence of poor drafting would be another matter.

Well, it would certainly be a start.

[amateur51]

A key factor seems to have been the Home Office's decision to grant the child British citizenship in the middle of the efforts to deport the father.

Anyway, the idea that this case is proof that the entire Human Rights legislation should be scrapped is eccentric.

However, you make a very good point about the tiresome use of lefty Guardian stories by drawing attention to a tiresome, erm, Telegraph story. Who was it mentioned political agendas?

This would be the 'lefty Guardian' that advised its readers to vote LibDem in May 2010, would it french frank?

[french frank]

Well, my irony backfired because I couldn't think of an equivalent adjective to describe the DT

[Simon]

However, you make a very good point about the tiresome use of lefty Guardian stories by drawing attention to a tiresome, erm, Telegraph story. Who was it mentioned political agendas?

I did. I suppose this could be said to balance the usual naive liberal stuff we get from certain other posters, but it's hardly political. After all, nobody, of any political persuasion, possessing a brain, could possibly suggest that people like this should be allowed to stay in our country.

It's simply a legal story; a further illustration of an arguably unnecessary law being abused and exploited for the gain of undesirables and to the detriment of the population in general.

[amateur51]

I did. I suppose this could be said to balance the usual naive liberal stuff we get from certain other posters, but it's hardly political. After all, nobody, of any political persuasion, possessing a brain, could possibly suggest that people like this should be allowed to stay in our country.

It's simply a legal story; a further illustration of an arguably unnecessary law being abused and exploited for the gain of undesirables and to the detriment of the population in general.

But not particularly in Bakewell & environs, so that's good news

[french frank]

I think there are plenty of people with brains who might not dispute that the man deserves to be deported yet not conclude from that that the human rights legislation should be scrapped.

[Simon]

I think there are plenty of people with brains who might not dispute that the man deserves to be deported yet not conclude from that that the human rights legislation should be scrapped.

So let me get this right.

You accept that people wouldn't dispute that this man should be kicked out and yet suggest that at the same time they would argue that the very legislation that has been used to allow him to stay should also remain in place.

I've always assumed heretofore that you had some grasp of logic...

[french frank]

Simon, I'll ignore the last comment.

If you look at the facts you can see that there were several issues other than human rights legislation. The fact that the HO took a decision to deport him in 1996 - but no action was taken. He was an illegal immigrant but was allowed to stay. He was granted indefinite leave to remain. Thereafter, there was little difference between his criminal activity and that of a British criminal and the law ruled that he should be treated in the same way, since by this time his son was a British citizen. All these facts are in the story you quote but you dismiss them in order to make your usual point about human rights.

[Simon]

If you look at the facts you can see that there were several issues other than human rights legislation. The fact that the HO took a decision to deport him in 1996 - but no action was taken. He was an illegal immigrant but was allowed to stay. He was granted indefinite leave to remain. Thereafter, there was little difference between his criminal activity and that of a British criminal and the law ruled that he should be treated in the same way, since by this time his son was a British citizen. All these facts are in the story you quote but you dismiss them in order to make your usual point about human rights.

That other laws have been involved earlier is clear. I don't dispute that. But the point that I made remains that it was the HRA that was used to keep him here and I'm afraid that you can't logically talk your way out of that one. I don't know how I can make that point clearer.

Perhaps a couple of direct quotes from the story, that you appear to have missed:

1.

"Omotunde's case highlights the way the "family life" rules under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are being used to overturn the government's efforts to throw foreign crooks out of the country."

2.

"Dominic Raab, campaigning to reform Article 8, said: "The judges are using the Human Rights Act to bar deportation in a rapidly increasing number of cases where the government want to deport serious criminals, on the basis that it may disrupt their family relations. [...]"

QED. Without the HRA, he'd have been off our hands.

And whilst I'm clarifying things by quoting, I could also reinforce my point, as opposed to negating yours, by another excerpt from the facts of the story:

"Since immigration judges made their decision in May this year, he has been sent to jail again for offences relating to his failure to pay a £45,000 confiscation order for his part in the benefits fraud."

[french frank]

Both your quotes come from biased sources, the second from a campaigner against the HRA, the first Telegraph reporters who use slanted language which shows their prejudice. ("Extraordinarily he should not have been in the country in the first place."). This isn't objective reporting.

Furthermore, look at it again:

1. 'Extraordinarily he should not have been in the country in the first place.'

2. 'The last Labour government granted him indefinite leave to remain under a "regularisation scheme" in 2002.'

The second, from a legal point of view, nullifies the first. His son (who is key in the human rights argument) was born here after he had been given leave to remain.

The judges in the case have clearly taken these factors into consideration and their decision was that human rights issues were involved. These facts emerge even from as slanted a story as the Telegraph's. It's your view that human rights don't matter. I disagree. They apply even to such an undeserving specimen as this.

An additional thought: the reason why the law appears to go further than may seem justified is in order to ensure that more deserving cases will 'pass the test'.

[Stillhomewardbound]

I've always assumed heretofore that you had some grasp of logic...

Point of order, Chair, if the present member would refrain from personal sleights I'm sure it would be welcome by the majority of the members at the Forum.