Sassenach wrote:

The question is what will replace it. Apparently they are already on draft number seven and no sight of it for the public.

Yes, this is a problem. I suspect it will be too thorny a problem for Michael Gove to solve, not least due to the complications of the devolution settlement. It's right to make the effort though.

If it tears the UK apart, it's not worth it from my position. The issue of the Good Friday Agreement should be enough to make the government think twice.

The appeal was raised on the grounds of both Article 3 (cruel and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (private life). However, the final Tribunal only really considered the detail on Article 3, because if that is upheld then a breach of Article 8 is likely to follow. Which it did.

Fine. It's still a ridiculous decision even on Article 3 grounds. In effect this ruling states that the rights of an alcoholic one-man crimewave supersede the rights of wider society to be protected from him by virtue of the fact that he's an alcoholic one-man crimewave. It's intuitively absurd and not at all in keeping with the intention of the drafters of the ECHR. We see judgements like this regularly, albeit not all so gratuitously crazy as this one. [/quote]

Sorry, but this is rubbish. If he commits another crime in the UK, he's still subject to UK law and can be imprisoned.

But he had served his time, so like any other criminal gets to go free. We don't imprison people on the basis that they might commit crimes in the future.

I think it is the misrepresentation of the outcomes of such cases that undermines public trust.

There really isn't any way that you could represent some of these cases that the public would understand. When they see terrorists who have absolutely no respect for the human rights of others abusing human rights legislation in order to frustrate removal the general public feel a sense of anger which undermines the whole concept of human rights in the first place.[/quote]No, it does not. The whole concept of human rights, or civil rights, is that ALL HUMANS are entitled to them, and it is about what the State can and cannot do to people. Not whether they are nice people or not.

Likewise when you see serious and habitual criminals evading the consequences of their actions by getting somebody pregnant. I realise that this is a huge grey area and open to interpretation in various ways, but nevertheless it's commonplace in my profession to come across cases whereby serious criminals can never be removed from the UK because they once fathered a child here with a British citizen who they're no longer in a relationship with but still maintain a tenuous connection with the child by seeing them once a month. This kind of thing is a mandatory grant on Article 8 family life grounds thanks to jurisprudence established mostly in the British courts through an overly strict interpretation the ECHR and which can never be overridden by Parliament because judges feel empowered to completely ignore any legislation that is passed in this field. You may remember the well known story of the Iraqi man who killed a young girl through dangerous driving but managed to avoid removal because in the period between his release from prison and us finally getting round to trying to remove him he'd gotten somebody pregnant.

Can you properly cite this case? Let's see what the court actually said, shall we?

What most ordinary people think, and I agree with them, is that there should be a better balance between the Article 8 rights of the individual and the rights of wider society to be protected from the actions of those individuals. Current jurisprudence has evolved in such a way as to skew the balance too heavily in one direction, and this is a dangerous development which could have very unpleasant consequences if allowed to continue. We can't afford for the term 'human rights' to become a term of derision like 'political correctness', but it's heading that way.

Like Political Correctness, and Health and Safety, it's as likely to me a misused term employed to wave away the real issues of a particular case and whip up the people through media hysteria.

What you seem to be calling for is a less independent Judiciary. I don't really want the "Will of Parliament" to be supreme. In this sense, the Americans have it right to avoid one leg of government too much power.

Parliament passes a law and then it's up to the judiciary to enforce and to some extent interpret it. As it stands the ludiciary are free to completely override the will of Parliament by reference to a higher court, and they're doing so in ways which are damaging and which need to be curtailed.

A higher court that we signed up to in the 1950s. After seeing what happens when human rights are wiped away by a democratically elected government....

P.S. in the spirit of the Transatlantic alliance, I neglected to render my thanks to your veterans as well as ours, on 8 May (7 May for us); 70th anniversary of V-E day. Thank your grandparents on my behalf that, due to their efforts as well as those of many of their brethren in the UK and around the world, I don't have to salute a fascist flag. We wouldn't be here on a bulletin board where we could voice our opinions without getting arrested for them, without their efforts and sacrifices.

I figured it was appropriate for this thread, since it has to do with UK politics and whatnot. And it was rather ridiculous of me to have not thought to post it until five days after the fact.

Thanks to your vets for participating in the world wide struggle to keep us safe from Fascism and the like. You can tell them I said so.

God Save the Queen, the United States, and Freedom from Tyranny.

If it tears the UK apart, it's not worth it from my position. The issue of the Good Friday Agreement should be enough to make the government think twice.

Possibly so. I do think repeal of the HRA is worth pursuing, but not at any price. We'll have to see how things develop.

Sorry, but this is rubbish. If he commits another crime in the UK, he's still subject to UK law and can be imprisoned.

But he had served his time, so like any other criminal gets to go free. We don't imprison people on the basis that they might commit crimes in the future.

No, but what we do quite frequently do is revoke indefinite leave to remain when somebody proves through their actions that their continued presence in the UK is non-conducive to the public good, which is what happened in this case. At that point we seek to deport them.

No, it does not. The whole concept of human rights, or civil rights, is that ALL HUMANS are entitled to them, and it is about what the State can and cannot do to people. Not whether they are nice people or not.

With all due respect, I don't think you really understand the concept of a qualified right, or if you do you're not choosing to admit it. Very few of the rights under the ECHR are absolute. Most are qualified in some fashion and can be infringed for purposes which are necessary for the functioning of a democratic society in certain circumstances. The argument from those in favour of repealing the HRA is the the judiciary have gotten out of hand in their interpretation of the ECHR and as a result the inevitable balancing exercise between the rights of the individual and the rights of wider society has become skewed in a way that seriously underplays the rights of wider society. It's not just a simple question of whether people are nice.

I also think it's very naive to simply brush off wider public concerns about application of the law when we're talking about something as fundamentally important as human rights.

Can you properly cite this case? Let's see what the court actually said, shall we?

I can't remember the name of the individual, so it's difficult to search for the ruling. I do know that in part it was our own fault because the backlogs at the time were such that we never pursued deportation as soon as he came out of prison, which would have been a lot easier. Ultimately it was an Article 8 decision though. He had children in the UK, which more or less trumps all other considerations.

I granted leave to a Jamaican man who was involved in a punishment beating of an innocent man which resulted in a murder taking place. Technically my guy was acquitted, but he was clearly a part of the gang which went out with weapons looking for a rival, chased the wrong guy down an alleyway in a case of mistaken identity and beat the crap out of him. One of the other men present drew a knife and stabbed him. It was only that guy that got the murder conviction, but the man I was dealing with was clearly involved and had a number of other criminal convictions. He also has two British children though, which means it's almost impossible to remove him because he his case under Article 8 is too strong. Is it right that this is the case ? It's certainly debatable. This is the way the jurisprudence on Article 8 has developed.

Like Political Correctness, and Health and Safety, it's as likely to me a misused term employed to wave away the real issues of a particular case and whip up the people through media hysteria.

So ? It would still be tragic to see the term 'human rights' treated in this fashion.


Anyway.... In other British political news, it seems that an old friend of mine from university days has just been named as Minister for Sport. I haven't spoken to Tracey for a very long time now, but I'm really pleased for her.

Sassenach wrote:No, but what we do quite frequently do is revoke indefinite leave to remain when somebody proves through their actions that their continued presence in the UK is non-conducive to the public good, which is what happened in this case. At that point we seek to deport them.

Which in general is not a problem. But we do not deport to countries where they will be at risk of cruel and unusual punishment. Which was the issue in that case.

No, it does not. The whole concept of human rights, or civil rights, is that ALL HUMANS are entitled to them, and it is about what the State can and cannot do to people. Not whether they are nice people or not.

With all due respect, I don't think you really understand the concept of a qualified right, or if you do you're not choosing to admit it. Very few of the rights under the ECHR are absolute. Most are qualified in some fashion and can be infringed for purposes which are necessary for the functioning of a democratic society in certain circumstances. The argument from those in favour of repealing the HRA is the the judiciary have gotten out of hand in their interpretation of the ECHR and as a result the inevitable balancing exercise between the rights of the individual and the rights of wider society has become skewed in a way that seriously underplays the rights of wider society. It's not just a simple question of whether people are nice.

I do understand the issue of a qualified right. Some rights in the ECHR are indeed qualified and need to be balanced, such as those of Article 8. Some are 'limited' and can be under specific circumstances, such as Article 5.

But Article 3 is not qualified or limited. It is an absolute right in the ECHR.

I also think it's very naive to simply brush off wider public concerns about application of the law when we're talking about something as fundamentally important as human rights.

I agree, but neither should we pander to them, or worse inflate them.

Can you properly cite this case? Let's see what the court actually said, shall we?

I can't remember the name of the individual, so it's difficult to search for the ruling. I do know that in part it was our own fault because the backlogs at the time were such that we never pursued deportation as soon as he came out of prison, which would have been a lot easier. Ultimately it was an Article 8 decision though. He had children in the UK, which more or less trumps all other considerations.

Well, I would like to be able to see the tribunal decisions to make up my own mind on that one.

I granted leave to a Jamaican man who was involved in a punishment beating of an innocent man which resulted in a murder taking place. Technically my guy was acquitted, but he was clearly a part of the gang which went out with weapons looking for a rival, chased the wrong guy down an alleyway in a case of mistaken identity and beat the crap out of him. One of the other men present drew a knife and stabbed him. It was only that guy that got the murder conviction, but the man I was dealing with was clearly involved and had a number of other criminal convictions. He also has two British children though, which means it's almost impossible to remove him because he his case under Article 8 is too strong. Is it right that this is the case ? It's certainly debatable. This is the way the jurisprudence on Article 8 has developed.

I don't know if it is right or not. I have seen that a lot of issues arise on Article 3 for Jamaican criminals involved in drugs, because of the nature of the warring drugs gangs there.

Question: Was this before or after the new rules issued in 2012?

Like Political Correctness, and Health and Safety, it's as likely to me a misused term employed to wave away the real issues of a particular case and whip up the people through media hysteria.

So ? It would still be tragic to see the term 'human rights' treated in this fashion.

Well yes. But "Health & Safety" is often erroneously blamed for what is actually about liability.

Anyway.... In other British political news, it seems that an old friend of mine from university days has just been named as Minister for Sport. I haven't spoken to Tracey for a very long time now, but I'm really pleased for her.

Well she does seem to be the first for a while who has a clue about sport.

Question: Was this before or after the new rules issued in 2012?

It was after. The new rules have not made a great deal of difference to consideration of family life cases, not least because judges don't accept that an Act of Parliament takes precedence over the established jurisprudence and so they continue to make judgements based on the old, established test cases (Razgar, Beoku Betts, Chikwamba etc). By some time in 2013 we'd been forced to introduce an 'exceptional circumstances' clause which is essentially there to allow us to grant people who don't meet under the new rules but who judges would grant anyway.

The new rules have been more successful for private life claims, but it's always been virtually impossible to succeed on private life alone.

danivon wrote:Good news though is that the cost of brewing beer is going down as the price of malted barley is reducing. And that's one purchase I won't belay due to deflation :-)

That is good news.

Anyway.... In other British political news, it seems that an old friend of mine from university days has just been named as Minister for Sport. I haven't spoken to Tracey for a very long time now, but I'm really pleased for her.

The Rt. Hon. Tracey Crouch, M.P....now Parliamentary Undersecretary for Sport, if I just read that correctly?

And if I read that list correctly, there's like, 19 ministers carrying the title "Secretary of State [for....]." So that makes 20 ministers, I think you said, who are the actual "British Cabinet" (the most senior ministers and PM)? Yeah, sorry that was I question. I said I would buzz off for a while...it's been I think 6 days since my last question so that's long enough. So just that quick one and I'll doze off again. You may have mentioned this before, that there were about that many who can "vote" in cabinet (or whose consensus is required, rather) plus a few attending cabinet but who are actually just along for the ride, if I understand you correctly.

Well all right one more: how long have you guys had an actual, honest-to-God, "Supreme Court" sort of court? (one with American-style judicial and criminal review) I know your highest "court of appeal" was the law lords in the House of Lords or something, hitherto. That's what you're arguing about right now, no? or were?

Our Supreme Court was originally pretty weak until Hylton v. United States (a court case in which the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a lower federal court which said that no, Congress' recent special tax on luxury carriages did not violate the part of the constitution that says "no capitation or direct tax shall be laid...") and the famous Marbury v. Madison in which the S.C. basically said "we uphold the ruling of the lower court, but we really could have overturned it had we wanted to. [not a direct quote obviously] {BTW did I mention this already? I remember I started to write a post about it, but it was accidentally erased when I clicked "submit" so I didn't think it posted. If it did post above, sorry to repeat myself.)

Until the Supreme Court came in, the Lords was the highest court in the land - composed of those members of the HoL who were there as Law Lords.

The Human Rights Act paved the way for the UKSC, which I believe started hearing cases in 2003. The original justices were all senior Law Lords, but going forward they do not need to be.

How are the Supreme Court justices appointed and by whom?

The Rt. Hon. Tracey Crouch, M.P....now Parliamentary Undersecretary for Sport, if I just read that correctly?

Yep, that's the one. She was a friend of mine back in the mid-late 90s when we were both at university together. Must say I never pegged her as a potential government minister at the time, but I guess you wouldn't come across that way when you're in your twenties.

I knew a lot of aspiring politicians back then. One of the guys on my degree course stood for Parliament for the Lib Dems a couple of elections ago and came pretty close to winning, but he hasn't been seen since. I knew a lot of people who were trying to work up in the Labour machine as well, but none of them have gotten anywhere and I assume they must have all given it up by now (the keenest of them all actually committed suicide). Tracey is the only one who ever made it, and she seemed about the least likely of them all at the time. She was very down to earth and had a life outside of politics, and in truth only ever seemed to be playing at it.

It's interesting to note that she's still unmarried as well. In times gone by any unmarried MP at the age of 40 would strongly suggest they were gay and still in the closet, but that's not an issue any more in Parliament. We have about the same number of openly gay MPs as their estimated proportion of the population and there's really no need to hide it. I'm pretty certain she's straight anyway.

JimHackerMP wrote:How are the Supreme Court justices appointed and by whom?

Ok, wikipedia IS trustworthy on this. and better than me. 2003 was not when UKSC started, it's when the legislation started to go through the works. It was passed in 2005 and the Supreme Court commenced work on 1 October 2009.

Officially they are appointed by the Monarch using letters patent. But in reality the PM gives them the name, and he doesn't get to choose who it is.

What happens is a special Selection Commission is set up. This is made up of the President and Deputy on the Supreme Court, and representatives of the standing juducial appointment commissions for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. They have to consult with a group of senior judges from across the court system (but not if the individual is a candidate), as well as the Lord Chancellor (Justice Secretary) and political representatives for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Then, the nomination(s) are passed to the Lord Chancellor, who does have the power to reject a name (once) or send back for reconsideration (once), but otherwise passes the name on.

It's therefore a much less political process than the American one. Your President nominates and Congress gets to scrutinise the nomination. But then again, the general method of selecting judges at lower levels is not very political here either.

I'm pretty certain she's straight anyway.

Yeah? How are you certain? jk......

It's interesting how people with political ambitions (like me) don't end up in office sometimes (there are reasons I really would not be trusted by the public but I can't get into that...not a "skeleton" per se but good reasons...) and the people who do not have them end up in politics (maybe they were goaded into it by their friends or something?) It said on the No 10 website, under the entry on Pitt the Younger that, since his grammar school days, he had wanted to be an MP. Ended up your prime minister at 24, the lucky [*******]. Apparently a good one tho. So he must be the exception to the rule. Or maybe the rule as I see it is only half-true. After all you have to want to stand for party leader, or MP in the first place, or for President of the US or something...

Yes, the presidency was designed to be more apolitical than it actually turned out to be (and for a while, it kind of was in some ways). That's probably why the authors of the present constitution gave that power to him. I am not sure if lower-level federal judges have terms of 10 or 15 years, any of them, or whether they, too, are for life without parole, like a Supreme Court justice. There has been talk of changing the nomination process--at least for a supreme court justice if not all federal judges--to keep it less political, and keep Supreme Court justices from being ideological carbon copies of the president who appointed them; even if it's not actual executive fiat. My idea of the simplest solution would be to increase the threshold of difficulty of one's confirmation as supreme court justice, from a simple majority, to a 2/3 super majority to "advise and consent" to the appointment. The cabinet is of course a different matter, they're the president's own administration, within certain bounds that is, so leave that at a simple majority.

But that's probably a matter for the constitutional convention thread. For now I'll just say that that sounds like a better idea than vesting it in the prime minster's personal fiat.

Yeah? How are you certain?

Well actually, we did share a hotel room one time and she somehow resisted the urge to throw herself all over me, so I guess she must me gay....

In truth I have no idea, but there were plenty of other openly gay young Tories back then so there wouldn't have been any reason to hide it. Even less so now. I could be wrong though.

Nice! Very well said...