Friday, April 28, 2006

Opt In or Opt Out

It’s not so long ago that a paragraph from the Guardian newspaper, like the one that follows, would have been beyond the boundaries of political correctness:

“The government is looking at ways to fast-track criminals out of the country as part of a series of measures to gain control of the crisis engulfing the Home Office.
As police continued their attempts to trace hundreds of foreign criminals who were released without being considered for deportation, ministers were yesterday considering ways of improving removal procedures between the UK and other countries, particularly Jamaica and Nigeria, whose nationals make up a significant proportion of the foreign prison population - more than 130 of the prisoners freed recently came from there.”

The Home Office revelations of the last week have clearly revealed that living in the Guardian and BBC’s multi-cultural paradise has its disadvantages when a government discovers that alongside those who arrive and make a genuine contribution to our society, there are thousands who see us as a “soft-touch” and an environment where appalling crimes can be committed with relatively modest levels of retribution in contrast with the countries they have come from.

But what to do? Any country that doesn’t offer its prison population, Playstation time and a colour television in every cell is deemed to fall on the wrong side of the Human Rights legislation, which as a result, means that we can’t deport some of the nastiest criminals in our jails and have instead, let them back loose on our streets with a pat on the head and welfare payments to tide them over until they can find more lucrative forms of employment again.

In the greater  interests of public safety Should we opt out of the Human Rights Act or at least interpret it as loosely as the French? You tell me.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

anon again!
We are a soft touch, say anything about CRIMINAL FOREIGNERS (SHOUT) and we get PC shoved up our backsides!

Anonymous said...

If the figures bandied about are correct and we have 10,000 foreigners banged up at any time, and they represent the 20% clean up rate of all foreign criminals engaged in crime, we have about 50,000+ foreign criminals committing crime in this country as an occupation. Arrest, lock-up and deport and to hell with Human Rights legislation. We have lived for over 1200 years under common law and Magna Carta and had more freedom than the Human Rights legislation has given us. The Govt can reduce crime very easily by catching foreign criminals and deporting; our own felons have to be put back on the street!

Anonymous said...

We should opt out of this HRA nonsense and we should opt out of the UN 1951 refugee convention.
You people have no idea of just how bad the situation really is at the Home Office. Our country is heading to hell in a hand cart as the Americans say.
Think about it for a moment. 1996 and Labour come to power. There are around 3,000 foreign criminals. Ten years later and there are 10,000 and bear in mind Labour have not exactly lived up to their "tough on crime" hype. Since then we have been swamped with immigrants. Both legal and illegal.

Thanks to the Human Rights Act and the ambulance chasing lawyers (Ms Booth et al) we cannot deport people to countries like Algeria, Libya etc. etc. ad nauseum. So even if they do catch up with these people (which I doubt) many of them will be allowed to stay.

Oh and while we are at it why is it that non EU nationals can be deported if they are convicted of a crime and serve a year inside? EU nationals have to receive a two year sentence before they are considered worthy!

Anonymous said...

Oh dear! It would be nice to have a breakdown of our foreign cons by country. Do you remember when this Govt said there would be no control and work permit scheme when the EU expanded in 2004 and said about 14.000 East Europeans would head our way, well it turned out to be nearer 500,000! I wonder how many of our 10,000 banged up come from E. Europe and how many of them are Czech Roma? Roger Gale might like to ask the Home Office for a breakdown of our Foreign cons?

James Maskell said...

A balance needs to be met between allowing people a certain level of human rights and protecting the people, which as one person here commented, is the first role of Government. I think the balance should be numerically 25% human rights and 75% protection of people. It does mean a toughening up of legislation but ultimately if it protects the people, the justification for such a tightening is there. As for the HRA, having never read it, I have no particular view on it at present.

Anonymous said...

Any Act that allows a minority to screw-over a majority without any kind of sanction is a farce written by morons.
However, maybe the act was written specifically with the UK in mind. Everyone will come here for a free ride because we're the only country stupid enough to abide by it to the letter. Other EU countries just tell Brussels to get stuffed if it doen't suit them. This means all other countries in the EU can "help" the less than desirable across the Channel to the land of free housing, benefits, ample opportunities for criminal activity with little or no chance of being stopped.

Anonymous said...

A mate of mine is a Band 7 at the Home Office. The legislation to deport people is complicated and changing weekly. He has files bought to him by case managers and on the basis of the evidence and how that relates to the legislation he has to make a judgement on who goes and who stays. It's not a fast process neither.

Anonymous said...

human rights are by far the most important of all laws that can be enforced,the uk along with the usa and many others contries are violating many poorer nations human rights daily,slave labour exists in all the major manafacturing countries across the globe i.e china,taiwan,south america,eastern europe,check out there human rights records and consider who funds all this,the uk and the other g8 countries who demand cheap goods at less than could be manafactured in this country,and take just one moment to concider why these people find it hard to be law abiding citizens when all there lives they have been ripped off by the uk and other such nations,
there's an old saying what comes around goes around

Anonymous said...

I'm sure all the murderers, rapists and paedophiles that Mr Clarke released will use your argument when the Home Office tries to deport them. That's if they can find them.
They break the law because THEY CAN and they get away with it HERE.

Anonymous said...

10.55pm is almost right. What we are benefitting from today is nothing more than modern day slavery, but instead of offending our sensibility by bringing slaves into Bristol (I am sure we all remember the unacceptable golliwog recently displayed in a shop window), we prefer them to be out of sight and out of mind in some chinese sweat shop. That said, the human rights standards that we apply here are not those applied by the likes of China and Tywan, and just because 10,000 people dissapear each year in china for daring to question the regime there, we should not be setting a bad example by allowing unacceptable behaviour here.

Anonymous said...

Frankly I don't care who comes here so long as they adhere to the law and work. There's plenty of native Anglo Saxon and Celtic stock I'd rather send away.

Anonymous said...

We all love talking about 'rights' and Human Rights legislation and never about civic duty and responsibilities. I was happy under the body of common law that had evolved over hundreds of years to protect any member of our society. This human rights tosh is utter nonsense. We cannot name a 5ft2" tall 15 year old responsible for the rape of an 11 year old girl in a Sainsbury's lavatory and identify him or show his picture. Why? His rights?
Oh, by the way,at this tender age, he's already a serial sex attacker admitting to FIVE other sexual assaults on women between the ages of 28 and 47 in the Leamington Spa area. Surely he needs to be named and shamed? Rights? Whose Rights?
We the law abiding have no right to know.