[beemerbird]

What really pisses me off about situations like this is how human rights can and are allowed to have such an impact and protect these non-humans (they're not animals because animals do not behave in such a way - only human beings have the ability to be so self-destructive and vile).

Certainly human rights have there place but stretching the point this far is farcical imo. I argue a 'person' gives up their human rights to a point when engaging in such heinous behaviour if proven.

Think it was Blair who publicly stated that we will not lower ourselves to the 'standards' of those countries where 'legalised' killing and torture take place. Fine, but reasoning with those 'types' of a certain mind set is very difficult I would have thought and it is a fine line between being pious and having a holier than thou attitude and having the satisfaction of dealing with those 'types' once and for all.

[wbbb]

Originally Posted by NFS

The human rights act has been blamed, but it seems to me that it's actually the lawyers and judge.

Hi, just really curious as to why the lawyers are to blame? OK, I can kind of see how you would blame the Judge, given he's the one who has, erm, passed judgment....but the legal representation?

It just doesn't seem consistent with your other comments in respect of Liberty, and not dispensing with the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept - surely legal representation is a fundamental right?

And I'm not sticking up for these idiots btw - I too do not understand why we are unable to deport to Pakistan but can to Saudi and America which also have the death penalty.

[wbbb]

Originally Posted by beemerbird

I argue a 'person' gives up their human rights to a point when engaging in such heinous behaviour if proven.

That's what makes this one difficult for the authorities- nothing was proven.

Didn't I hear something before the election about the Human Rights Act being replaced by a Bill of Rights?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by wbbb

Hi, just really curious as to why the lawyers are to blame? OK, I can kind of see how you would blame the Judge, given he's the one who has, erm, passed judgment....but the legal representation?

It just doesn't seem consistent with your other comments in respect of Liberty, and not dispensing with the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept - surely legal representation is a fundamental right?

And I'm not sticking up for these idiots btw - I too do not understand why we are unable to deport to Pakistan but can to Saudi and America which also have the death penalty.

It seems that this man is a Pakistani national who came to the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago. That visa expires in September 2010.

Naseer has been held on immigration charges so it seems likely that he has failed to comply with the terms of his visa. Coupled with this, the authorities have suspect that he is a danger to our security.

He did not come here to seek asylum and his family appear to live happily in Pakistan (his father is a 'contractor' for the government).

I don't understand why his deportation is not a formality. Burdon of proof is not an issue here (as it should be with criminal proceedings), because this person does not need to be in the UK. I don't accept that there is any danger to him in Pakistan and this should not have been accepted by the courts. As you say we deport people to other 'similar' states.

This is an example of clever defence lawyers using legal aid money to serve their own interests to the detriment of their country. Any person whose freedom is at risk due to criminal charges should be entitled to a defence. I don't think this ought to extend to the deportation of a radical student who has not complied with his visa.

[beemerbird]

Originally Posted by wbbb

Didn't I hear something before the election about the Human Rights Act being replaced by a Bill of Rights?

Something about it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...of-Rights.html