Gove and the Human Rights Act

I for one did take on board your comment GT about not waiting and see before scaremongering as that is not how politics works.

I would add though that scaremongering for scaremongering sake is not on. Nor is not having anywhere enough facts and scaremongering. That applies to real life and gransnet. The thread about people living in this country and being chucked out after an EU referendum was a bad example of people getting very het up about something that is highly or extremely unlikely to happen in the slightest.

But yes, in principle, I think that you are right GrannyTwice.

I am going to take a guess that the HRA will not get dropped at any time.

Just wondering whether we expect too much of political manifestos. Isn't a manifesto a sort of list, or description, of what a political party would like to do in ideal circumstances? Given that political circumstances are never ideal because practical politics is messy (like most human activities), perhaps we shouldn't get in flap so soon about stuff like the abolitin of the HRA.

Yes, of course the Tories will spin the listening bit. Any politician worth their salt would. That's how it works regardless of party alignment.

But the difference with the HRA bit is that it's constitutionally incredibly important and the Tories have been banging on about it for years and so should have got their ducks in a row. Personally fwiw I think all political parties should be much more circumspect in their manifesto promises and discuss underpinning principles and values more. For example rather than the sale of social housing ( and there's another one that may well come unstuck in the courts) it would have been better to have had some overarching ideas put forward about how the housing problem in certain parts of the country could be tackled in a meaningful way. So to sum up the 'flap' about the abolition of the HRA was actually an informed discussion about the real difficulties of putting something else in its place and for the Government to just realise that is not exactly confidence inspiring IMO

Surely David Cameron wants to bring in our own "human rights bill". Isn't it because we don't want to have to allow all illegal immigrants to remain in this country simply because they rent a home and buy a cat? And we don't necessarily want to allow prisoners to vote, simply because the EU courts say we must.

It's not that he intends to do away with all human rights in this country!

I think there is somne deliberate panicking going on on this thread.

From a Guardian article:

"But without commenting on the timing, Liz Truss, the Conservative environment secretary, insisted the plan was “absolutely” going be delivered at some point because it was a “clear manifesto pledge”."

It seems to me that the gov have come up against some opposition from backbenchers, the labourites and some others, and so are now intending to "think tank" it. What's wrong with that?

I heard Andrew (plebgate) Mitchell on TV yesterday speaking against the proposed repeal of the HRA and it seems that Cameron had run into opposition from his own backbenchers, not to mention the House of Lords. So it's not in the Queen's speech today, much to the horror of the right wing press!

What's wrong jings is that they've had years to do this thinking and they didn't - fills me with confidence

Not the bloody cat again - tell a lie often enough and there are enough people to believe it for ever. And of course p no one thinks that all human rights would be abolished - it's just that the Govt wants to decide which ones we should have with no outside benchmarks- that is scarey!

it's just that the Govt wants to decide which ones we should have with no outside benchmarks- that is scarey!

You hit the nail on the head there GrannyTwice

The problem is quite often because the government does not proceed at a timely pace. If they did their job properly many of the cases which seem to be attributable to the HRA would not arise. When the governments behaviour is supplying these people with excuses to escape justice we should look to the government to change not the law.

What do you mean by no outside benchmarks. The EU?

Jinglebellfrocks please read

Reality check: can owning a cat be grounds for appeal against deportation?

Is it true?

No. The original reports of the court case make clear that the appeal was actually a dispute about a rule which dictated that if someone was settled in the UK in a relationships for more than two years without enforcement action, then they automatically have a right to remain.

The cat was mentioned in the appeal and judge's decision, as evidence of the man's relationship - not as a reason in itself.

Original reports from the 2009 case also make clear that the cat was only mentioned in passing and wasn't the reason the man was ultimately allowed to stay.

The Telegraph story reports the solicitor in the case Barry O'Leary, saying the cat was only mentioned to demonstrate the couples long-term commitment to one another. The appeal was won not on the basis that the man had a cat here, but that it was one element that represented the commitment of the relationship he was in. The solicitor said:

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 UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship. One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat.

The home secretary mentioned the case in the context of her plans to change the rules to stop convicted criminals resisting deportations on the basis of article 8 – family ties. But the Bolivian man – who has never been named – was not even a convicted criminal.

A paper (pdf) by The Human Rights Futures Project at LSE debunked this myth in July this year. I've just spoken with one of the researchers on the paper who says their source for this information was the solicitor and barrister in the case, who approved their interpretation of events. The paper says:

This case is often listed, misleadingly, alongside cases... of convicted criminals who challenge their deportation on Art 8 grounds. In fact, the case concerned a man who came to the UK as a student and was refused leave to remain and did not concern deportation on grounds of criminal conviction. The immigration judge had allowed his appeal on the basis of a former Home Office policy (DP3/96) which said that if an individual lived in the UK with a settled spouse for two years or more without enforcement action being taken against them, they were entitled to leave to remain. The appeal was also allowed on Art 8 grounds – he had a long-term relationship with a British citizen and they had lived together for four years. The reference to the cat was one detail provided by the couple as evidence of their long-term relationship but did not form any part of the tribunal's reasons for deciding that he should be allowed to stay in the UK.47 The Home Office appealed but the senior immigration judge upheld the decision on the basis that the former Home Office policy (DP3/96), although it had since been withdrawn, still applied in this case (due to the date of the initial decision)

www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/04/reality-check-cat-theresa-may

Hopefully this has been kicked into touch.

Did anyone notice the item on the news about 3 young soldiers who died - I think it was on Dartmoor? I didn't see the entire item but anyway apparently the army may be held responsible for lack of due care. The judge is going to use OUR Human Rights Act, - right to life. Hope Gove is taking note.

One very good use of our Human Rights Act. It was a terrible tragedy that appears to have been avoidable - a pointless, awful death for those young soldiers.

I've just been listening to radio 4 news addressing this case. Yes, very good use of the HRA. So very sad as it seems the deaths were avoidable.

savetheact.uk/magna-carta-human-rights-are-not-a-gift-to-be-bestowed-upon-us-by-monarchs-barons-or-politicians/

The week of Magna Carta this thread needs resurrecting.
We appear to be forgetting that our human rights are threatened.

So agree with the statement that human rights are not for any government to bestow on it's voters but ours as of right and no government can withdraw and fiddle around with at will. Lay off DC. - Your understanding of history is flawed and your arguments misleading.

so the labour government who brought in the Human Rights Act

human rights are not for any government to bestow on its voters but ours as of right and no government can withdraw and fiddle around with at will.

were right according to you (WW) but the current government is destroying
human rights protection by looking again at the whole HR position
a tad hypocritical.

Not sure what your point is G1

Just been reading about the Magna Carta with my grandson. Apparently only three of the original 63 clauses are still law.

The petition to have a referendum on the Human Rights Act now has over 237,000 signatures. It's on www.change.org if anyone else wants to sign.

Perhaps you ought to read the article on the link before you decide who is hypocritical, Grannyonce.

In 2012 the government introduced 7000 new laws without a vote in parliament.
Magna Carta stated that nobody could be fined or put in prison without a fair trial. In 2013 the government introduced secret courts that would meet behind closed doors, without a jury and it would be illegal to tell anyone what happened. These trials are for crimes involving national security. But it is up to the government to decide if national security is involved.
As the Hampden Trust says, even King John did not go that far.

signed

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/josie-appleton/move-along-now-new-law-barring-thousands-of-people-from-public-spaces

Another load of our rights taken away from us.

rightsinfo.org/infographics/fifty-human-rights-cases/

This is an interesting human rights information graphic, showing lots of cases that changed the law in one way or another.