[Closed] What is so wrong with Human Rights?

It's been posted before by others, but it doesn't seem that half of you have actually read the proposals and the reasoning. I can't see much to object to:

[url= https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/files/downloadable%20Files/human_rights.pdf ]Conservative proposals on Human Rights[/url]

Don't let the facts get in the way of your knee jerk left wing paranoia.

Their proposal document should have just stopped here:

The Convention is an entirely sensible statement of the principles which should underpin any modern democratic nation. Indeed, the UK had a great influence on the drafting of the Convention, and was the first nation to ratify it.

And this is coming from a PM who actually just said this:

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”

But yeah, it's all just lefty knee-jerk paranoia. 🙄

Some terms used in the Convention rights would benefit from a more precise definition, such as ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, which has arguably been given an excessively broad meaning by the ECtHR in some rulings.

ie - we want to be able to inflict degrading treatment or punishment on people more often

The ECtHR has ruled that if there is any ‘real risk’ (by no means even a likelihood)
of a person being treated in a way contrary to these rights in the destination country, there is a bar on them being sent there

ie - we want to be able to send people to countries where they will probably get tortured

Limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases.

Who gets to decide which cases are serious enough?

The only other country in Europe that isn't signed up to this is Belarus - a military dictatorship. I think that tells you all you need to know.

The whole thing feels like appeasement to me: a sop to the frothing anti-Europe loons so they'll support the government in the forthcoming EU referendum.

Conservative proposals on Human Rights

Don't let the facts get in the way of your knee jerk left wing paranoia.

That link doesn't work, but found the same thing elsewhere. I now feel soiled. Liberty have a far better response to it than I could manage, from earlier Tory proposals:

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/blog/legally-illiterate

One thing I find particularly distasteful is the idea that human rights are linked to responsibilities. Human rights should be fundamental - everyone has the same rights, full stop.

There are many other problems - the Scottish Government will fight this all the way, and general legal opinion is that Scotland could prevent this happening across the UK - though it could still happen in England. In Ireland, it's tied into the Good Friday agreement, and you really, really don't want to mess with that. Then there's Europe, who will take a very, very dim view of the UK deciding to opt out of Europe-wide human rights - though the Tories probably care less about that.

It's alright they're going after freedom of speech first so you won't be able to complain about it online when they do get around to scrapping your human rights.

Was that the kind of knee jerk left wing paranoia you were after len?

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”

I'm guessing a google-search brings up things like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9335701/Deported-criminal-returned-to-Britain-to-claim-his-right-to-family-life.html

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

aka [s]boiling a frog[/s] kochendes einen Frosch

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

Well its already been started

[img] [/img]

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”

Does the statement continue "Now at last we are ready to take matters in hand and we call on all citizens to find grabbing, entitled, condescending toffs and chain them to concrete blocks before throwing them in the canal"?

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”

My point is people (such as the OP) posting stuff in effect saying 'Outrageous! The Tories want to abolish all human rights!'. They clearly haven't read the actual proposals which are nothing of the sort. It strikes me as any excuse to make the Tories out as pure evil, with disregard for the facts. That is the left wing paranoia I mention.

In a nutshell, I see it as a clarification in the law which stops the most ridiculous uses, such as muderers not being able to be sentenced to actual life term imprisonment, or terrorists protesting against being deported because they claim it goes against their rights.

@Graham the Human Rights Act was a manifesto commitment, we've just had a referendum on that issue it was called the General Election.

As many know I am very much in favour of a UK Bill on Human Rights and withdrawl from the EHRA. If Scotland and Northern Ireland have to have a carve out that's perfectly fine with me.

@hora a camera which checks your road tax and insurance plus your speed seems reasonable to me.

bails - Member
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”

This is genuinely, seriously scary.

Not so scary when actually read in context! ( And this is from The Guardian):

A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalise young people is to be included in the Queen’s speech, David Cameron will tell the national security council on Wednesday.

The orders, the product of an extremism task force set up by the prime minister, were proposed during the last parliament in March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.

The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.

David Cameron will tell the NSC : [b]“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.[/b] It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values.

“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.

“We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.”

which stops the most ridiculous uses

LIke free speech it is only ever useful for when we most dislike its use

we've just had a referendum on that issue it was called the General Election.

Is this your daft thing of the day entry?
Did the Scots just vote for Independence then?

We voted for a govt, who did not get a majority of votes cast, so its rather difficult, even for you, to claim there was a mandate from the people do to this.

General elections and referendums are two entirely different things ...everyone knows this even you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bella-sankey/human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights_b_7257376.html

This is interesting if a little bit "angry leftie". One thing that did hit home is the idea of a British bill of rights - what about the non Brits? Also, if we can amend our bill of rights to suit us, why can't other regimes do the same - we carry far more moral weight if we are part of a larger union of countries signed up to the same agreement.

EHRA? whats that? Do you mean the Human Rights Act or the ECHR? Or do you know the difference? Or are you just trotting out the same old crap you always do?

Len - detention without hope of release is contentious I grant you but I for one would prefer it to the state having the power to lock people up forever without challenge (incidentally you can lock people up for life if they pose a risk to the public - see Peter Sutcliffe etc.)

Theresa May didn't have a frickin clue about any of the definitions or enforcement of any of this crap when she was interviewed this morning. I suggest your shiny headed leader has even less idea, it's just 'look how busy I am being a thoroughly good right winger chap' basically making dissent a crime.

JY you know you vote for a manifesto. The Conservatives absolutely have that mandate. I imagine the SNP manifesto says somewhere the ultimate goal is an independent Scotland, so in that case yes people voted for that "journey" but in the knowledge that it wasn't going to happen in the near future.

@Graham the Human Rights Act was a manifesto commitment, we've just had a referendum on that issue it was called the General Election.

Err no that's nonsense. Anyone who thinks that everyone who voted for a particular party agrees with every single manifesto commitment is a fool. It might have been the case when manifestos were only a few pages long but the conservative one is over 80 pages long.

I see the rabid mob is out again in force. Of course feel free to do the shouty shouty thing on here.

There was an election which the Tories won and this is a manifesto commitment.End of story really bar the shouting, of which I am sure there will be plenty. The Labour party or any other can make it a manifesto commitment to restore it

So Len, jamabalaya - why do you think it is it that every other country in Europe is ok with being bound to the ECHR except Belarus, a military dictatorship?

JY you know you vote for a manifesto.

The Conservatives absolutely have that mandate.

Trying to move the goalpost there fella

GE are not in any way shape or form referenduums and if they were they have no mandate as most folk oppose them.

I see the rabid mob is out again in force. Of course feel free to do the shouty shouty thing on here.

Embarrassing 😳

Anyone who has properly read and digested the proposals is quite valid in disagreeing if they want to. I'm just saying too many have taken it at face value because it suits their anti-anything-Tory-and-to-hell-with common-sense mindset.

thestabiliser - Member

Theresa May didn't have a frickin clue about any of the definitions or enforcement of any of this crap when she was interviewed this morning.[b] I suggest your shiny headed leader[/b] has even less idea, it's just 'look how busy I am being a thoroughly good right winger chap' basically making dissent a crime.

Was this aimed at me? I didn't vote Conservative.

Criticising you for your comparison of a referendum and a general election is hardly a rabid mod. In a referendum there are two choices, yes or no, and the total number of votes on each side determine the outcome. Our electoral system is based on the number seats won, not the number of votes and the two are very different things. A cursory glance at the result of any UK election will pretty much tell you that.

To say that a UK general election is the same as a referendum is foolish.

as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone

[img] [/img]

Authoritarian regimes always start by taking a red pen to human rights

such as muderers not being able to be sentenced to actual life term imprisonment

My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It's not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine.

huckleberryfatt - Member
Authoritarian regimes always start by taking a red pen to human rights
such as muderers not being able to be sentenced to actual life term imprisonment

That's just not true--Google Hutchinson v UK
The tory document is full of misinformation

Fair enough. (Though I wouldn't count a democratically elected government as an 'Authoritarian regime'.)

The Conservative proposals are quite embarrassing to read riddled with factual error and legally illiterate rightly described as "back of a fag packet. " For example in addition to the one above they fail to understand that given the fact we have the Human Rights Act then it is going to be quoted in the majority of judgements that does not mean that the HRA dictated the outcome see the Drugs burden of proof illustration that would have been decided the same way on first principles in any event.

Bottom line as Cameron acknowledges there is nothing wrong and everything right with the Human Rights Act nothing wrong with the Convention it his attempts to withdraw are a political sop to the UKIPPER right of his party if he follows through he will create a hell of a mess for nothing .

My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It's not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine.

It's going to mean sending more people to countries where they are likely to get tortured. Or haven't you read the actual proposals and are just posting knee-jerk anti-lefty statements?

[i]My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It's not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine. [/i]

Have you ever dealt with the UK Govt, what on earth makes you believe that it will remove areas of 'ambiguity'? I'd bet that they create different areas of ambiguity...

so Hora how would you balance the case you link to ? Two British citizens who are minors should be forcibly deported to a foreign country because of the sins of their parents or two British citizens who are minors should be forcibly separated from their parents who are then deported or we swallow the Sandwich and make the best of a bad job and not deport the parents secure in the knowledge he actually served his sentence for his crime and indeed give him some more prison for illegal entry and any id offence ?

A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalise young people

Have you ever dealt with the UK Govt, what on earth makes you believe that it will remove areas of 'ambiguity'? I'd bet that they create different areas of ambiguity...

I imagine half the idea is to create different areas of ambiguity, after over 50 years of the ECHR most of the ambiguity will have been ground away.

Well, now they're proposing to fiddle the Freedom Of Information law as well - jumping on the "right wing nutter" to-do list with commendable enthusiasm!

grum - Member
My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It's not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine.
It's going to mean sending more people to countries where they are likely to get tortured. Or haven't you read the actual proposals and are just posting knee-jerk anti-lefty statements?

My point, as per my original post, is that some are immediately up in arms as they think the Tories are actually trying to scrap the whole human rights act (and I'm talking about some alarmist posts on Facebook too here), they are happy to believe this and immediately oppose anything the Conservatives propose out of principle. I was just highlighting the actual proposals.

Whether the proposals are sound, or even workable legally, is another matter.

Take one part fact and bake for 10mins until a half opinion is formed.

Google is full of Human rights manipulation by Solicitors for the wrong reasons

My point, as per my original post, is that some are immediately up in arms as they think the Tories are actually trying to scrap the whole human rights act

Well they are proposing to scrap the whole human rights act, but admittedly they are planning to replace it with something similar (but worse).

Cos you know that of course

Google is full of Human rights manipulation by Solicitors for the wrong reasons

What are the "wrong reasons" for Human Rights?
Do you mean applying them to dogs or something?

Because otherwise I'm pretty sure that even the worst criminals are still human and therefore entitled to some rights.

What does it tell you about our wonderful new government that they appear to be making this a priority?

I'm sure the the UK Bill could be a robust and thorough piece of legislation properly enshrining the rights of UK citizens.

But

It would still still be just UK law (possibly just English law) which could be amended by parliament as they see fit whenever it proves to be inconvenient for them

The whole point of the EHRC is that it can't be changed (at least not very easily). It exist outwith the strict political influence of a single country, making it a much more robust piece of legislation.

The UK judiciary has not always proven itself to be beyond political influence so having an external body to be used as a final overseer of peoples rights seems like a perfectly sensible idea, unless of course your only source of information is the Daily Mail

@Graham the Human Rights Act was a manifesto commitment, we've just had a referendum on that issue it was called the General Election.

I think others covered this but if you were waiting for my response: no, it's not the same as a referendum. A referendum requires a majority on a single issue. The general election gives a minority on multiple issues.

The SNP had a majority in the Scottish Parliament before the Independence Referendum. But we still held that referendum because that's the proper democratic thing to do with such a major change.

[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/05/12/urgent-westminster-product-recall/ ]The Poke[/url]

😆

I think what a lot are missing is the fact the Act is enacted & decided in Strasbourg/Brussels rather than Westminster. The Gov does not have the final say on rulings & in that scenario I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

That's the main thing that concerns me! Without external oversight you'll be relying on the British judiciary to rule against the British judiciary.

It should be pointed out though that the vast majority of UK based Human Rights cases are settled in UK courts by UK judges. That's the whole reason for the Human Rights Act 1998, to allow them to be dealt with domestically.

So can someone explain why Tories are so keen for us abolish it?

Sorry, graham I missed this. Where did they announce the abolition and what right do they have to do this

Which bit do they object to?

I don't think they have released any details but their basic ideas where published late last year. Much better than the headlines which might just be a wee bit sensational?

"Google is full of Human rights manipulation by Solicitors for the wrong reasons"
Google is not the best resource to find accurate information about complex cases as your first couple of pages tend to be red top / Tory press faux outrage and genuine misrepresentation to support a particular agenda.
See a few pages ago where the link threw up genuine outrage that a criminal who had served his sentence in full could not then be deported to a country where he would face extra judicial execution for his sexuality.

I think what a lot are missing is the fact the Act is enacted and decided in Strasbourg/Brussels rather than Westminster. The Gov does not have the final say on rulings and in that scenario I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

Sorry, graham I missed this. Where did they announce the abolition and what right do they have to do this

It's in the Conservative proposal that was linked to earlier, though they use the word repeal which is probably more correct than abolish:

[i]The key objectives of our new Bill are: • Repeal Labour’s Human Rights Act[/i]

Parliament has the right to repeal laws. That's what they do.

As I understand it (and IANAL) the HRA is what binds the ECHR into UK law and allows UK courts to handle human rights cases, taking into account the ECHR rulings.

They want to remove all trace of the ECHR from the UK law and instead have a "British Bill of Rights" where they can "clarify" those rights that the ECHR has apparently "misinterpreted".

i.e. they want slightly less rights and they want them applied to less people. And they don't want those pesky Europeans pointing out policies which break the convention (as has happened several times in the past).

Headlines, headlines 😉

Eh? What headlines thm? I quoted from the official Conservative policy!

Well perhaps we were reading different announcements. Seems off to announce "abolishing" something with this as an introduction

The Convention is an entirely sensible statement of the principles which should underpin any modern democratic nation. Indeed, the UK had a great influence on the drafting of the Convention, and was the first nation to ratify it.

Yes, keep reading, like any one who has been on a middle-management training course they do a lovely intro saying what a great job they think you've done and how much respect they have for you, before slipping into the bit explaining why you are being made redundant.

I did and still could not find what you are claiming. Headlines, headlines....

I think what a lot are missing is the fact the Act is enacted & decided in Strasbourg/Brussels rather than Westminster. The Gov does not have the final say on rulings & in that scenario I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

Utter bollocks but this is the common media narrative.

Well perhaps we were reading different announcements. Seems off to announce "abolishing" something with this as an introduction

Yes it is ridiculous to admit that there isn't really anything wrong with the thing they are repealing - but that's exactly what they've done.

Perhaps some politicians are shitting themselves that they may be prosecuted under Eu law for their crimes, and no friendly mates in HoL etc to protect them.

The Gov does not have the final say on rulings & in that scenario I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

The big reason is that what is being proposed cannot be squared with Britain's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is a [url= http://www.scribd.com/doc/241813468/Opinion-on-HRA-Repeal ]Legal Opinion[/url] by two leading barristers. This isn't my field, but it is pretty widely regarded as being sensible. We cannot do what the Tories want, and stay in the ECHR. We would end up leaving.

The European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up after WWII. There was a feeling (for obvious reasons) that national governments should not be left in charge of not murdering their own people.

Since that time, 47 countries have signed up. That includes Russia, and places like Croatia and Bosnia that were still doing a lot of really serious murdering really recently.

The only country between the Caspian and the Atlantic which is not a member is Belarus, a country where, to quote Wikipedia "[i][url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Belarus ]opposition parties are allowed, but...[/url][/i]"

The ECHR is one of a number of international human rights agreements drawn up in that period. Most countries in the world are signatories to most of them. Two countries have signed such agreements and have subsequently walked away: take a bow, Venezuela and North Korea.

That is not company I'm remotely comfortable with the British Government keeping, personally.

Some detail here about what's been promised:
https://fullfact.org/law/conservative-party-bill-of-rights-39308/

It really is a dogs dinner of a proposal and a rational

Its a good point about how they praise it only to say why its poor [ often , as the lawyers have noted, getting the rational and the facts wrong]

From the link above for example

The Conservatives want to limit the use of a British Bill of Rights to “the most serious cases”, so it won’t cover “trivial” issues. At present, human rights arguments can be used in any case where they’re relevant.

They also want human rights laws to be restricted in terms of who can use them. The Conservatives cite the examples of “a foreign national who takes the life of another person”, and “terrorists”, who would be prevented from invoking human rights law to resist being deported.

I am not sure what exactly constitutes as trivial breaching of your inalienable human rights. I am not sure why the later cases are not to be considered. The Govt appear to be saying everyone has human rights except the trivial ones [ or possible in trivial cases] and the people we dont really like or want to have them *. In essence we have all the rights the govt wants us to have if we are "responsible" and dont break the law.

* Seriously is this the kind of example we want to set to the world ? Is this really the international company we want to keep. Below Putin in the credible in Europe stakes....embarrassing tbh

"terrorists”, who would be prevented from invoking human rights law to resist being deported"

So torturing people and extra judicial killing are considered to be Trivial matters by the conservatives.

Hard to tell if they are trivial or they are just going to ignore your rights when they really dont like you/what you have done.

Like free speech we have to protect the rights of the bastards to make sure we all are protected
its may well be a balancing act but the balance is not to allow it only when you approve of it.

The Gov does not have the final say on rulings & in that scenario I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

*Belarus excluded apparently
**this is bollocks, I'm very sure I don't want that.

Trivial. You have a cat (this was a true story, the individual concerned did have their lawyer raise the issue of having a cat as one of the reasons they should be allowed to stay). More controversial, you have a wife/girlfriend - she can move out of the country with you IMO.

Those convicted of terrorism related crimes have used the right to a family life to try and avoid deportation.

I am fully in support changing the law to include detention orders (as under Labour), if this overshoots from a human rights perspective so be it. We can consider revising the law in the future as/when we see cases which show such an overshoot.

Nice concise piece by Keir Starmer
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/arguments-human-rights-act-michael-gove-repeal-myth-busting ]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/arguments-human-rights-act-michael-gove-repeal-myth-busting[/url]
If you understand the law in this area then you understand just how weasely the wording of the tories' proposals is--and it's truly frightening that people are so easily hoodwinked

You have a cat

<edit>yep

"As part of [the] application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the United Kingdom to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship.

"One detail provided, amongst many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time."

Yes terrorists aren't nice people but you don't change the rules just for people you [i]really [/i]don't like other wise you end up arguing over shades of grey. Same rules for everyone.

It's interesting that nations agreed the principals of human rights 70 years ago but the act only came into force in 1998. We seemed to do just fine from a Human Rights perspective up to then. We'll do just fine when we have the new UK act too.

Jambalaya- what about normal citizens who the government deems to have waived their family right to life by not earning enough? Should they too be forced to leave the country because no one was there to stand up for their human rights?

It's one thing to point to exceptional cases like you mention and quite another to look at the vast majority of cases which are helped by the ECHR every day. Yes, I'm sure a terrorist once said they had to stay because they had a cat, but there are hundreds of women in the UK with non-EU spouses who have chosen to stay at home to look after young children who are being forced to leave because they don't earn money. They are dependant on the future outcome of a verdict affected by the ECHR too.

It's more important that they stay together and one bad man stays and is imprisoned here as a side effect than one bad man is sent home along with hundreds of families as a side effect. It's only ignorance and cruelty that can think otherwise.

I thought the cat was just a supporting detail to the fact that he had a partner here.
Yes terrorists aren't nice people but you don't change the rules just for people you really don't like other wise you end up arguing over shades of grey. Same rules for everyone.

It's interesting that nations agreed the principals [sic] of human rights 70 years ago but the act only came into force in 1998.

This is a red herring. Before the HRA was enacted, [url= http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf ]Article 46[/url] of the ECHR provided that:

[i]"The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final
judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties."[/i]

The HRA was not what obliges the UK to abide by ECtHR judgments: that has been there all along.

Cat, yes correct that's what I was trying to say.

@munro, I appreciate what you are saying. This means test was brought in as a result of a significant number of cases where people did not have the ability to support their partner. These are often arranged marriages including those in order to "get a passport" which I think form a very significant part of the 100's of cases you are referring to. The country quite rightly does not want to see people coming in who then become a burden on the state. The country is trying to deal with arranged marriages for passports/right to remain. Its harsh and I don't mean this to be personal but you can have a family life with your wife if you go and live where she is from, you have a choice. Our law states that your wife does not automatically get a passport. Our law is different to France for example, I was recently married there to a French person and I can get a French passport automatically. During the application process they asked me many questions about my job etc as they wanted to verify it wasn't a convenience marriage for a passport

Jam when you have to add a caveat to the its the same rule for everyone then clearly your own point negates its starting premise 😳

See me after class 😕

What DONK said you clearly repeating the Tory line that the cat was somehow part of the argument rather than an example that proved the argument. He did not get to stay here because he had a cat- there is no human right to own a cat. He got to stay her because he had a relationship and the cat was but one example in many that showed he had a relationship
That was not what you tried to say anymore that it was what May meant to say

Donk I was trying to say yor Cat was deifitely trivial and yes it was just one thing listed. I am also saying that having a partner here is "trivial" too, ie it's not a good enough reason to be allowed to stay

EDIT (into one post for my Scottish friend)
I have an issue with with legislation aimed at terrorists being used for non terrorism cases, eg deportation to the US of the Nat West 4 but if necessary we can have one single law with no separate categories if it pleases you all. The important thing is to have that law.

.

Whether having a partner is a good enough reason to stay is not my decision but I'm pretty sure having a partner is not trivial, ask yours, see what they say.

And the cat thing is still trying to use a tiny detail to trivialise the case as a whole.

I am also saying that having a partner here is "trivial" too, ie it's not a good enough reason to be allowed to stay

I am sure all our wives/husbands/partners would be delighted to be described as trivial and as not a good enough reason 😯
Is love really this unimportant to you shudders

Jambalaya, the moment you said this-

The country quite rightly does not want to see people coming in who then become a burden on the state.

your argument was void.

People coming in on a spouse visa have NEVER had the right to any state money, it explicitly states it on the visa, even under the old rules. Theresa May gave exactly the same reasons as you for bringing in this rule so that you and Terry from Thanet think "well, she's dealing with immigrants on benefits".

You still have to go for an interview at your council head offices to ensure that the marriage is real, same as you ever did (we went twice). Yes, we could live elsewhere but our lives are here. What the new rules say is "you have a right to a family life. Unless you're poor". Which is against the ECHR and if you can come up with a valid reason why people shouldn't have their family in this country because they're poor but not entitled to state money I'd be amazed. You also used to be able to get a family member or similar to sponsor you and say "I'll cover their bills". They removed that right too. Because apparently the poor shouldn't be in this country.

It's interesting that nations agreed the principals of human rights 70 years ago but the act only came into force in 1998

Also, our constitution is ... let's go with 'quirky', so whereas the constitutional set-up in most other member states meant that the convention was incorporated into their domestic law, we were very late to the incorporation party

teahhurtmore said:
I did and still could not find what you are claiming. Headlines, headlines....

Hmm.. perhaps I haven't been clear enough about what I was claiming then?
What is it you think I claimed that isn't supported by the Tory proposal document?

Trivial. You have a cat (this was a true story, the individual concerned did have their lawyer raise the issue of having a cat as one of the reasons they should be allowed to stay).

So...?

Clients can ask their lawyers to raise all kinds of nonsense in all kinds of cases. That doesn't make the laws bad.

It's not like the judge said: [i]"Oh, you have a cat? Why is the prosecution wasting my time with this? The defendant clearly has deep family roots here. Case dismissed."[/i]