Zanteblue Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 The human rights act may have been set up with the best of intentions to protect peoples basic rights ,but it has been abused time and time again by criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants . If left in place ,this practice will continue ,so i feel there is little choice left but to repel it ,and replace it with a British bill of rights which includes clauses excluding certain uses of the act ,to enusre abuses like we see on a regular basis to be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Ooo yes, the tories would stop us participating in elections and starting a family if not for the human rights act preventing them from doing so You insult peoples intelligence by saying that doing away with the human rights act will lead to a restriction of any of the above. if what you say is true, there is no reason for abolishing it; since the sole and only thing it does, is to provide that list of rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 the cat example used in her speech was a lie, the person in question was allowed to stay because the home office allowed the person to remain unchallenged for over two years and the law allows such a person to remain. the judge was following the law so any criticsm should be levelled at the MPs who passed the law. the one sane thing she did say was that the government was going to amend the law. it should be perfectly possible to do this such that it remains in compliace with article 8 of the european convention on human rights but also allowed undesirables to be removed. this is something which should have been done as soon as it became apparant that there was an issue. again the fault with not addressing this lies with the government(s) of the day not the judges. however, there is an issue which in your rush to throw out the darkies shouldn't be ignored, and that is that some of these undesirables will have formed permanent loving relationships, possibly with children. In these cases, removing a person, in effect means either the state destoying a family or expelling people who have a perfectly legal right to live here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 some of these undesirables will have formed permanent loving relationships, possibly with children. In these cases, removing a person, in effect means either the state destoying a family or expelling people who have a perfectly legal right to live here. Oh well that makes the whole idea evil then. Let's give the rapists and murderers and terrorists a council flat and full benefits if they have had the decency to impregnate someone in their criminal sojourn to these islands. Sorry, foreign criminals and terrorists will just have to learn to keep it in their pants or accept that familly life will be in their country of origin and not the UK. We've had enough, get it through your wooly EU loving head. Come to the UK - commit crime - get jailed - get sent back to whatever country you came from. End of chat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 Shouldn't the criminals be thinking about their family before comitting a crime? Granted some crimes are crimes of passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Ooo yes, the tories would stop us participating in elections and starting a family if not for the human rights act preventing them from doing so You insult peoples intelligence by saying that doing away with the human rights act will lead to a restriction of any of the above. It's easy then. All they have to do is detail the replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Are terrorists and illegal immigrants always part of the lower orders, then? No mate, many of them are direct decendants the Hapsbergs or Hohenzollerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Sorry, foreign criminals and terrorists will just have to learn to keep it in their pants or accept that familly life will be in their country of origin and not the UK. We've had enough, get it through your wooly EU loving head. Come to the UK - commit crime - get jailed - get sent back to whatever country you came from. End of chat. What crime have the children committed, that you will condemn them to either deportation or a life without their parent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 What crime have the children committed, that you will condemn them to either deportation or a life without their parent? They will either have a full familly life with both their parents in wherever, or be brought up in the uk without the influence of their criminal parent around. Not ideal, but we need to stop foreign criminals being incentivised to stick their dick in the first gormless slag that will have them and then becoming permenant leeches on our country. Firm but fair old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 They will either have a full familly life with both their parents in wherever, or be brought up in the uk without the influence of their criminal parent around. Firm but fair old chap. I'm not seeing anything fair about punishing children who have not committed any offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.