Paedophile avoids deportation under ECHR because it would be ‘unduly harsh’ on his children

HAYSIE

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/paedophile-avoids-deportation-under-echr-121541969.html

Essexphil

The Telegraph. Once a quality Right wing paper.

Now? Hysterical in its reporting. Doing anything to try and peddle its own beliefs.

Let's look at what actually has happened in this particular case. Rather than trying to shoehorn facts into an agenda.

1. It is not as simple as saying-1 man did wrong. So punish his entire family. It is a balancing act
2. A first-tier Judge decided the effects would be too harsh on his young family, and he should not be deported
3. On an Appeal brought by the Home Office, appeal judges have said that too much weight was placed on a Social Workers' report. And that, on the limited facts available, he should have been deported. So-in order for this to be properly looked at, back for re-hearing at original Tribunal

In short, this is our legal system in action. You might agree with it. You might disagree with it.

But leaving the ECHR would have precisely zero effect on this.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

The Telegraph. Once a quality Right wing paper.

Now? Hysterical in its reporting. Doing anything to try and peddle its own beliefs.

Let's look at what actually has happened in this particular case. Rather than trying to shoehorn facts into an agenda.

1. It is not as simple as saying-1 man did wrong. So punish his entire family. It is a balancing act
2. A first-tier Judge decided the effects would be too harsh on his young family, and he should not be deported
3. On an Appeal brought by the Home Office, appeal judges have said that too much weight was placed on a Social Workers' report. And that, on the limited facts available, he should have been deported. So-in order for this to be properly looked at, back for re-hearing at original Tribunal

In short, this is our legal system in action. You might agree with it. You might disagree with it.

But leaving the ECHR would have precisely zero effect on this.

Lots of people including Mr Jenrick, just read the headlines.

Tory leadership contender Robert Jenrick called the case “madness” and said it proved why Britain must leave the ECHR.

“We cannot even remove sick paedophiles from our streets because of spurious ECHR claims. How can anyone defend this madness?” he told the Daily Mail.

“We must put the safety of the British people first and leave the ECHR immediately.”

Essexphil

The ECHR. 1 if the original driving forces was Winston Churchill. It's not "left wing" or "right wing". It tries to look at humanity.

The Jenricks of this World fail to grasp 2 important things.

1. Pretty much everyone belongs. The only European Nations that do not belong? Russia. And Belarus. That is the club we would join
2. Were we to leave, an equivalent system would immediately replace it. The idea that International Law is just decided by the UK is laughable. In all cases of this sort, 2 or more nations are involved. Whether that is this man here, or Shamima Begum abroad. It is not just up to Britain to decide where else someone lives

It rather looks like (on limited facts) the original Judge got this wrong. But not due to the ECHR

TheEdge949

Essexphil said:

The ECHR. 1 if the original driving forces was Winston Churchill. It's not "left wing" or "right wing". It tries to look at humanity.

Whether that is this man here, or Shamima Begum abroad. It is not just up to Britain to decide where else someone lives

This is the point that myself and possibly millions of others take umbridge with. It should be up to our Government.

Also if your statement holds true than Canada should not be close to any American found guilty of a felony

America should not be closed to any Britain with a criminal record

I could go on but you will understand my point without Doubleme size posts.

Essexphil

TheEdge949 said:

Essexphil said:

The ECHR. 1 if the original driving forces was Winston Churchill. It's not "left wing" or "right wing". It tries to look at humanity.

Whether that is this man here, or Shamima Begum abroad. It is not just up to Britain to decide where else someone lives

This is the point that myself and possibly millions of others take umbridge with. It should be up to our Government.

Also if your statement holds true than Canada should not be close to any American found guilty of a felony

America should not be closed to any Britain with a criminal record

I could go on but you will understand my point without Doubleme size posts.

On the contrary. I am saying exactly the same as you.

The starting point (not necessarily the finishing point) is that it is for Canada to decide who can come to Canada. America to decide who can come to America. And Britain to decide who can come to Britain.

The point is that it is not for Britain to decide who can live in America. Or Canada. That is for them to decide.

The ECHR (and indeed any International Law) has a starting point that it is for the country to decide who lives there. And not where else they must live. And that it is necessary to show that due consideration is given to humanitarian arguments.

The reason I keep referring to Shamima Begum is this. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with the decision. We could show that a due process was followed. That consideration was given. And that, on balance, she was not to be allowed to return. "Human Rights" are important-but not a Golden Ticket.

So what, exactly, is the "umbrage" everyone is taking?

TheEdge949

Possibly that even if Government decides that we don't want certain people living here, and I'm refering to non British criminals, we, it would appear, cannot deport them if they face the possibility of cruel or harsh treatment on arrival, or it may cause distress to their families or they will face persecution etc.

Should have thought about that before commiting the offences and not scrambling for a pity party when the gravity of what's going to happen afterwards hits home.

On the Shamima Begum issue I actually have some sympathy considering that she was British born and a somewhat immature girl. However I think that she was the example that needed making, not unlike a certain Robinson fellow, and certainly did not help herself with the interviews she gave.

Essexphil

TheEdge949 said:

Possibly that even if Government decides that we don't want certain people living here, and I'm refering to non British criminals, we, it would appear, cannot deport them if they face the possibility of cruel or harsh treatment on arrival, or it may cause distress to their families or they will face persecution etc.

Should have thought about that before commiting the offences and not scrambling for a pity party when the gravity of what's going to happen afterwards hits home.

On the Shamima Begum issue I actually have some sympathy considering that she was British born and a somewhat immature girl. However I think that she was the example that needed making, not unlike a certain Robinson fellow, and certainly did not help herself with the interviews she gave.

It's rather more than "cruel and harsh treatment"-it tends to involve the UK's refusal, ever since we renounced the Death Penalty, to send anyone to another country to face the Death Penalty.

Again. This is not the ECHR. It is a UK decision that we will not facilitate state-sanctioned Death. Which I appreciate not everyone agrees with. But that is primarily a UK decision. Not an ECHR one. Sections of the Right in this country always look to blame foreigners for our decisions.

In relation to Begum, I completely agree with you as to why she was refused re-entry. I thought it was a poor decision. But I am sure you are right as to why it was made.