ECHR N/G | Page 3 | Vital Football

ECHR N/G

valenciagill said:
Unless they can control illegal immigration , that majority is at risk
Click to expand...
Totally off the original topic but the Guardian had a poll published last week that said that 62% of those polled agreed with the Rwanda policy.
I read an article on France 24 about an Eritrean guy who was on his way to the U.K. via Libya but didn’t get through and ended up in Rwanda.
He likes it there and is happy to stay.
Interesting that his reason for leaving Eritrea was to avoid national service, so clearly not a refugee.
 
Tricky one, this. There are pluses and minuses to the ECHR in my opinion and, of course, it`s vital that H/Rights are upheld. But I think i`d be slightly more comfortable if this was a matter that fell under the umbrella of a UK bill of Human Rights.

A UK bill of HR would no doubt be very similar to the basic rights as listed in the ECHR, but would be an independent legal framework, within the UK. Being the UK`s ultimate arbitrator for legal decisions - especially matters of criminal law, it would likely be a speedier means to an end.

I mention criminal law as, IMO, the decision makers under the current framework often have a hard job convincing the public that human rights of an individual, in particular and individual criminal, exceed collective human rights of a community.

Currently, on occasions, frustration at not being able to put the rights of the public above, or even on a par, with an individual against whom there is evidence of criminality, has made it very difficult, sometimes impossible, for the police to seek and proceed with processes aimed at securing best evidence and prosecution.

Law enforcement processes up to the inception of ECHR into UK law, would have been fair and considerate to individual rights but probably more likely to be tilted in favour of the general public.

That`s the conundrum, perhaps. Should the rights of individuals, suspected or convicted of criminality outweigh those of collective communities ? Is the current structure balanced enough ?

Having had a lot of direct involvement in law enforcement processes and balancing ECHR provisions, I believe the public might be surprised as to just how much the rights of individual suspects prevent what many people might think or assume to be fair, simple and straight forward tactics aimed at tackling criminality. It`s not like on the TV !

Ironically, as an aside, from a police point of view, law enforcement authorities in mainland Europe can actually exercise a far wider and speedier suite of covert measures against criminals than police in the UK can !

I`d like to see a UK bill of Human Rights. Such a measure might enable more members of the UK public to become a little more focused on what is and what isn`t fair in our society and become more involved in delivering their will to their various public bodies - especially in relation to crime.
 
That’s pretty much my view Lancs.
Well put.
My general view is that the human rights of the general population overrides the human rights of a convicted foreign national murderer or rapist who is being deported after sentence.
Some oppose these deportations.
 
Last edited:
SteveTreacle said:
They may or may not have said that, but they haven’t got the legal system in place that we have which is of a far higher level, more experienced and more respected than the judges at the ECHR who are far less qualified and experienced than our own - and often not even qualified at all!
Click to expand...
Sorry ST but that's inadmissible hearsay aka total bullshit. Every single ECHR judge is qualified and experienced. The Estonian judge you said wasn't qualified has a BA in Law, an LLM in Constitutional Law, served as a domestic judge for seven years before joining the ECHR.
46 of the 47 judges have one or more law degrees and years of experience. The only judge without a law degree is the French judge who was a distinguished academic before being appointed to the bench in France ( and drawing judges from a wider background is a good thing) and years later joining the ECHR.
Oh, and the UK judge? LLB (Hons) Dundee classmate of mine. The international judges may not have drunk in the pubs along the Perth Road but I can assure you they are all very well qualified and experienced.
 
A lot of heat and noise but little light. Exactly what the government wants to avoid talking about the facts

We are not the top desired destination for asylum seekers in Europe, nowhere near

We have abandoned thousands of Afghanis, who worked with us, to their fate

Meanwhile we have admitted 120,00 Hong Kongers without a murmer. Quite right too by the way.

We are admitting more people from the Indian sub continet than for some time and will likely accept more still to get a dud trade deal.

The Home Office is a department in chaos, led by an incompetent bully unable to process the far smaller numbers than other countries routinely deal with.

70% of all cases are finally judged as genuine asylum cases the back the majority are not economic migrants.

We have such a large backlog of cases that numbers will inevitably go up in the short term. If we established a safe route together with swifter assessment we could be sending non genuine cases back with little fuss.

Our government peddled a dishonest story about Ukranian refugees saying we were taking a long time to deal with them due to fears of terrorists entering the country. Meanwhile along with the thousands of Nepalese people coming in to pick fruit and veg are another larger group, the largest single group from Tajikistan. Such is the panic about getting people in that they are being processed instantly.

In other news virtually no Brits have stepped in to pick fruit and veg despite the government forcing growers to pay a minimum £10.10 an hour. Best not look at that eh.
 
Surely, the ECHR is also there to protect British Citizens in any country that is part of the ECHR? If we were out of the ECHR, would that protection be gone?
 
mehmets_curlies said:
Surely, the ECHR is also there to protect British Citizens in any country that is part of the ECHR? If we were out of the ECHR, would that protection be gone?
Click to expand...
No, because the host countries laws and institutions still have to be ECHR compliant and you can challenge as an individual no matter where you from. So the recent Rwanda flights issue has seen individuals from non-ECHR countries like Vietnam and Iran be able to use the ECHR to challenge the actions of the UK government.
If the UK withdraws from the ECHR then VG down in Spain would still be protected by the' foreign' court. If for example VG makes one of his usual comments and is picked up by the Spanish police, held in detention without trial, has his head covered by a hood, subjected to continuous loud noise, deprived of sleep and food, and made to stand against a wall for hours with his feet widely separated, then he has rights. VG can challenge Spain through the ECHR for violation of his rights including Article 3: Prohibition of torture; Article 6: Right to a fair hearing; Article 9 Freedom of thought and Article 10: Freedom of Expression.
If the UK withdraws then VG would not be able to enjoy the support of the UK government in his case nor could the UK challenge Spain in an inter-country case at the ECHR as a result of their beastly treatment of VG.
If the same thing happened to VG in the UK after withdrawal he would have no rights or protections under international law. He could of course rely on British courts but if you look at the techniques above remember that British courts found them reasonable (Ireland v. United Kingdom ECHR 1979-1980.)
 
Buddha said:
Your question is based in a false premise.

We have no UK bill of Human Rights. If we did your opinion would hold more weight and your question wouldn't be so meaningless.

What good are our courts if there is we have no relevant legislation of our own?
Click to expand...
False premise ? Really ?

So Magna Carta (1215 plus re-issues) has no relevance.
(Curious that in the U.S. Magna Carta is revered as setting out founding principles on Human Rights)

And the Bill of Rights (1688) isn't relevant either ?
(It is still cited in the archive of legislation.)
UK Bill of Rights

When Churchill supported the establishment of the ECHR, it wasn't because the UK lacked "Human Rights".
It was something he thought might be exported.
( and alongside the U.N. reduce the likelihood of war declared by dictators.)

The problem now is less to do with the ECHR existing - but the way that foreign judges have been extending legal concepts that were thought settled in 1953.
e.g. "right to a family life"....
...which has been used to block convicted criminals from being returned to their country of origin.
 
Last edited:
Vambogills said:
It's almost funny how the UK wants a battle with everyone and points the finger of blame everywhere but where the problem actually is.
If Patel and co hadn't so soured relations with our closest neighbours we could then spent our £millions where the problem actually is. France, Belgium and Holland are where the most trafficking gangs operate. In a world where we might actually work with our neighbours we could easily install a beefed up border force with the right funding to infiltrate and take down these criminals.
Click to expand...
If relations are "soured" with France etc, could it be because they have no incentive to stop migrants leaving France....
...despite the UK taxpayer giving £ millions to the French ?

Vambogills said:
Secondly properly fund a legal route for those seeking UK asylum (Done in a matter of weeks for Ukranians!). This removes the need to risk life (and life savings) on crossing a treacherous Channel. The process filters out those who are pure economic migrants who can then either be returned or put to work as required.
The Rwandan distraction does nothing to stop the traffickers or the flow of little rubber boats.
Click to expand...
Sure, there is a case for off-shore processing.....
....but citing "Ukrainians" merely reminds us of an important difference.
While illegal Channel crossers ditch all their ID (and/or pretend to be gay), Ukrainians worry if, in their rush to escape, they brought enough ID.

Vambogills said:
The Rwandan distraction does nothing to stop the traffickers or the flow of little rubber boats.
Click to expand...
Of course "Rwanda" will be only a "distraction" if the lawyers succeed in preventing transfers.
Most of the recent illegals, when asked, don't know about "Rwanda".

When more know about it, they might have second thoughts.

Especially if new arrivals to Rwanda report their nice accommodation - and new job from welcoming Rwandans.
 
Prosecutor said:
No, because the host countries laws and institutions still have to be ECHR compliant and you can challenge as an individual no matter where you from. So the recent Rwanda flights issue has seen individuals from non-ECHR countries like Vietnam and Iran be able to use the ECHR to challenge the actions of the UK government.
If the UK withdraws from the ECHR then VG down in Spain would still be protected by the' foreign' court. If for example VG makes one of his usual comments and is picked up by the Spanish police, held in detention without trial, has his head covered by a hood, subjected to continuous loud noise, deprived of sleep and food, and made to stand against a wall for hours with his feet widely separated, then he has rights. VG can challenge Spain through the ECHR for violation of his rights including Article 3: Prohibition of torture; Article 6: Right to a fair hearing; Article 9 Freedom of thought and Article 10: Freedom of Expression.
If the UK withdraws then VG would not be able to enjoy the support of the UK government in his case nor could the UK challenge Spain in an inter-country case at the ECHR as a result of their beastly treatment of VG.
If the same thing happened to VG in the UK after withdrawal he would have no rights or protections under international law. He could of course rely on British courts but if you look at the techniques above remember that British courts found them reasonable (Ireland v. United Kingdom ECHR 1979-1980.)
Click to expand...

So when can I expect all this to happen ?
 
From their opposition to "Rwanda", can we conclude that lefties are "racist" ?

Obviously we know from the left's helpful, shouted, almost daily accusations, that the UK is such a racist hell hole, no one could possibly want to come to the UK unless desperate......

Next bad must be Rwanda.
It must be an absolutely appalling place.

Should we dismiss recent interviews with Rwandans - apparently looking forward to some incomers - or the decent looking accommodation - as "Tory propaganda", swallowed by the broadcaster ?
 
Tarian said:
I used to think that "the ECHR was nowt to do with the EU".

Now I'm not so sure.....
View attachment 58359

Picture of the ECHR Judges - from
https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/judges&c=
Click to expand...

From your own link, ‘Although judges are elected in respect of a State, they hear cases as individuals and do not represent that State. They are totally independent and cannot engage in any activity that would be incompatible with their duty of independence and impartiality.’
 
Prosecutor said:
No, because the host countries laws and institutions still have to be ECHR compliant and you can challenge as an individual no matter where you from. So the recent Rwanda flights issue has seen individuals from non-ECHR countries like Vietnam and Iran be able to use the ECHR to challenge the actions of the UK government.
If the UK withdraws from the ECHR then VG down in Spain would still be protected by the' foreign' court. If for example VG makes one of his usual comments and is picked up by the Spanish police, held in detention without trial, has his head covered by a hood, subjected to continuous loud noise, deprived of sleep and food, and made to stand against a wall for hours with his feet widely separated, then he has rights. VG can challenge Spain through the ECHR for violation of his rights including Article 3: Prohibition of torture; Article 6: Right to a fair hearing; Article 9 Freedom of thought and Article 10: Freedom of Expression.
If the UK withdraws then VG would not be able to enjoy the support of the UK government in his case nor could the UK challenge Spain in an inter-country case at the ECHR as a result of their beastly treatment of VG.
If the same thing happened to VG in the UK after withdrawal he would have no rights or protections under international law. He could of course rely on British courts but if you look at the techniques above remember that British courts found them reasonable (Ireland v. United Kingdom ECHR 1979-1980.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. So, would he have to fund and push that appeal himself, as an individual, or would he receive support via the Spanish legal system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.