They've seconded Ken Clarke to be the judge of this

I don't believe a word of that.

You said "[iIt is for this reason that until the EU legal system is changed (to ours - superior in my opinion), then we should not be in the EU[/i.".

That cannot mean what you then said it it meant, regardless of brevity and sloppiness.



Each country has its own legal system ... isn't that what you want?

Then you say they should change to fit ours ... christ almighty .. you really, really don't get what the EU is for, you just want-out.

Why? you don't know, you just want-out.

Under which part of the law can you deport a British citizen? or have you just not thought this through properly?

I'd be quite happy to pay for British citizens to join their foreign spouses overseas. As I said, they could be given the option.



I do not believe that we should allow foreign citizens to stay in this country if they commit rape , murder, drug smuggling, people smuggling, armed robbery etc. As soon as they are sentenced we should start to set in place the paperwork for deportation once their sentence has been completed. Personally I would have them in a van to the airport directly from the prison.



The issues, as in most human rights cases or H & S, are poorly worded legislation or poor interpretation. I don't believe that anyone should be tortured, put to death, jailed without trial etc. I am quite happy to have refugees, EU citizens and those that jump through hoops to get work permits or become British citizens stay providing they don't abuse the hospitality of our country by committing violent crimes.

And if they don't want to go, or feel that the payment isn't enough? What then?



The point Dave O made was that the ECHR exists regardless of the HRA. You have those rights and so do I, again, pretty much regardless of what any British politician does.



By deporting a foreign criminal married to a British person, you could be seen to be infringing on the right to family life of the British citizen, who has the right to live here and benefit from the terms of the ECHR. The court would need to decide whether that was the case and UKBA would, by and large, have to go along with the courts's decision.



I'd suggest that it is UKBA's, and Theresa May's, poor interpretation of the legislation that is the main root of the problem here. Why else do they lose so often in court? Partly because they take it to court in the first place, for political and ideological reasons, rather than common sense.

Bringing a cat wouldn't help, as there's no reason why the cat could not go back with them. Far better to get a cat here.

I don't get the "right to a family life" issue, not in the context of deportation for serious crime, which if proven, would otherwise require a custodial sentence.

A custodial sentence, by its very nature, deprives a person of freedom and thereby deprives them of a family life.

Depends if being able to be visited by family and if their rights to visit the convict are covered by this clause.

I would say that depending on the interpretation of an individual judge the right to family life could be applied to any custodial sentence. Afterall, a parent couldn't read to their kids at night, attend family weddings, birthday parties, parents evenings etc. You could also argue that having a curfew or tag prevents you attending family events in the evening e.g. a wedding reception, taking kids to the cinema etc.



I would say that you have to put the safety of the rest of society e.g. our human right not to be raped or murdered in front of those of the indvidual.

Clearly you can't. Or no one would be in prison. That doesn't mean deporting someone could not be considered to impact on their family life.







What has that got to do it? No one is saying let rapists and murders off Scott free.

What I was trying to get across is that the right to a family life is a very wishy-washy definition that depending on different people's interpretation could cover a wide variety of situations. The term "family life" needs defining better e.g. I could argue not being able to say goodnight and read a bedtime story to my kids was affecting my bonding with them, and hence my family life, if I was imprisoned, though I'm pretty sure if it went to court that I would lose.



If we can ban some foreign citizens from entering the country due to them posing a potential security/law and order risk, although they haven't as yet committed a crime in this country, then surely we should be able to deport foreign nationals who have actually committed serious crimes here.



We also seem to be rather good at preventing an overseas national that has legitimately married a British national from enjoying a family life by refusing them a visa or residency. I don't see the sense in not allowing law abiding spouses in to the country but allowing violent criminals to stay.

The suspension of that right is one of the punishments for committing the crime.