May is talking a load of Cr@p

[Baron von Lotsov]

She is talking more cr@p than Thomas Crapper.

She told the BBC that judges must “follow or take into account” the views of Parliament before coming to decisions on whether prisoners should be deported.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Britain.html

No you stupid witch, they follow laws, not the 'views of parliament'. At the moment they are following the ECHR and will continue to do so. The reason is that you are a charlatan with no intention of withdrawing us from it.

[angelman]

Is she telling the judiciary that they shouldn't be independent and should act on the whims of parliament? Does she not understand how and why the judicial process works the way it does?

[flamingreen]

What neither of you are allowing for is that judges do have some room for manouvre in how they interpret the law, and in the past many on here have been critical of our judiciary for taking too broad a view of the 'rights' of potential deportees and so on. May is quite right to demand that they stop doing this and take a default positon of using the law to deport as far as this is possible, and she is threatening them with tightening the laws if they fail to do so. While I would rather see her do that, instead of simply threatening to do so, her words still suggets to me that Mays heart is in the right plce, but if Cameron will not consider withdrawing from the ECHR then her hands are somewhat tied.

[angelman]

I have to disagree slightly. Didn't the judiciary recently come out and say that all it needed was Westminster to stop pussy footing about and lay down the law, otherwise European law would be adhered to. The European bit is set out quite clearly and is at odds with what we/HMG want, but unless HMG confront this, nothing will change. I agree with you about Cameron and ECHR, but it is the judges hands that are tied.

[flamingreen]

We have our own HRA though, which should have been worded in such a way as to create as narrow as possible interpretation of the ECHR. It seems to me it was not. Indeed everything about the HRA appears to be open top the loosest interpretation (just as section 5 of the Public order Act does) which i put down to Nulabours intention that it should be.

[flamingreen]

Didn't the judiciary recently come out and say that all it needed was Westminster to stop pussy footing about and lay down the law, otherwise European law would be adhered to.

Playing to the gallery perhaps, as they KNOW Cameron will not withdraw from the ECHR. I have no faith in these HR judges, because the problem that they are drawn from HR lawyers, most of whom are either immigrants themselves or leftist hair shirter muesli knitter Globalists who started their careers with the aim of 'helping' immigrant defeat 'the system'. Do any lawyers enter Human Rights work because they want to prevent abuse of the British state by carpet baggers and criminals?

[Baron von Lotsov]

I have to disagree slightly. Didn't the judiciary recently come out and say that all it needed was Westminster to stop pussy footing about and lay down the law, otherwise European law would be adhered to. The European bit is set out quite clearly and is at odds with what we/HMG want, but unless HMG confront this, nothing will change. I agree with you about Cameron and ECHR, but it is the judges hands that are tied.

Exactly. The trouble originates from the absolute fundamental nature of the ECHR convention. It is so incredibly broad that it is one of bit of law that you can almost make it up as you go along. Case law has been established, not just by our judges but more importantly by the judges of the court itself, that can override any of our judges if the plaintiff wishes to take it to that court, which they have every right to do as long as they are within the time limit and have exhausted all domestic remedies. For example Cherie Blair used her human rights to defend against what was seen as improper gifts from companies producing very expensive fashion clothing, as in free gift of dresses costing many thousands of pounds. I don't suppose the general public expected it to be used in such a way, but then she is a human right's lawyer.

Our country cannot do a thing about it, including passing any laws, unless they first of all withdraw from the convention. In actual fact they don’t even have to withdraw from the entire thing because other countries have selectively adopted it, where they have opted out of certain articles. She has the capacity as Home Secretary, assuming she has the backing of her party, to withdraw. There is an overwhelming opinion in the grass roots of the Tory Party that we should pull out of the convention, but as well all know, it’s just talk, just like all the other things the Tories have promised us over the EU issue. This particular issue was promised in their manifesto as well.

In my opinion they are as bad as Labour. I don’t expect to see any net power returned to us. I think it is possible we might get some power back in a trade for substantially more power taken away, but no net power will be reclaimed during this parliament, and I expect the Labour Party to win the next election outright.

[flamingreen]

She has the capacity as Home Secretary, assuming she has the backing of her party, to withdraw. There is an overwhelming opinion in the grass roots of the Tory Party that we should pull out of the convention, but as well all know, it’s just talk, just like all the other things the Tories have promised us over the EU issue. This particular issue was promised in their manifesto as well

And there's the rub.