Home Office refuses to reveal number of deportations halted by ECHR

Torygraph on their usual “let’s get out of ECHR” nonsense crusade.

> Steve Barclay, a former Cabinet minister who has been calling for Britain to leave the ECHR, asked in a parliamentary question how many appeals against both deportation orders and administrative removal decisions had been based on human rights grounds.

> “The Government should be monitoring this, but we know they won’t want to as they are unwilling to challenge the ECHR.”

If only the previous guys in charge had set up systems to collect data on this, then we could have had 14 years worth of data on this by now!

How they supposed to have this data if it wasn’t collected under Tories?

How pesky those human rights how dare other people except me have them

The answer is… zero (until there’s an actual court ruling).

There may be instances where HO believes there might be an ECHR breach – but they’re unlikely to record those.

Why do other countries that are signatories to the ECHR seem to have no issue with deporting criminals?

The independence of the judiciary is a good thing but their interpretation of the “right to family / private life / life” is in my opinion wrong when the ECHR has provisions in it where for or seems to have wording that allows a state to get around that for public safety. I’m not a legal expert by any means, but just how I read it

Article 1 Section 2
> Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law

Article 8 Paragraph 2
> except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,

For example, if that is one of the articles being cited, surely the law /sentencing guideline can be reworded such that violent crimes are subject to automatic deportation at the end of their prison sentence. One can argue it is in public safety or national security to deport dangerous criminals, such as terrorists, rapists, murders, people consistently convicted of assaults and other crimes.

Now, everyone has a right to appeal, of course, but maybe the Justice Secretary should issue reform to those laws and legal guidance to judges that grounds of public safety and public interest here take precedence or something.

I mean Protocol 7 Article 4 enforces Double Jeopardy and putting someone through a trial for the same crime twice, but has not prevented us from overriding that in light of new evidence in a case.

The Home Office is corrupt and been working against the interests of the UK public. Of course they won’t release the figures….it’d be a national scandal.

ECHR and its acts can literally be copied in its exact format with edits and amendments like any other bill that usually gets edited over time ffs. Most EU human rights laws were taken from the U.K. bill of rights anyway!

The right to a family life part gets abused by criminals over and over again – it should be edited so nobhead defense lawyers can’t exploit. Which is what is happening.

Violent criminals, rapists, murders, terrorists – all get to stay here and it’s our communities that fall victim to these people.

Torygraph again going after ECHR.

Desperate to turn people against your own rights with the gaslighting, so they can be stripped away next times Tories or Reform (God help) get into power.

If other ECHR countries manage to deport criminals while upholding human rights, why does the UK struggle? Feels like a government competence issue rather than an ECHR problem.

The UK government doesn’t actually want to stop immigration—they just want a scapegoat. If they really cared, they’d set up a legal processing center in France to filter asylum seekers before they even get on boats. That’s completely legal under ECHR. France has even said they’d be happy to work with the UK on this, but the government won’t do it. Why? Because they need boat crossings to keep the outrage machine running.

Also they need to replace the diminishing birth rates too in this country. Our population isn’t growing because of immigration but rather increasing number of older people which we need to pay pensions off for. Since there is less and less working adults because the population growth has gone into negatives they are letting in immigrants while blaming everything but themselves. Immigrants that will hopefully help fill in the gaps in the working adults population and help pay off pensions by contributing to taxes in this depressingly poor economy (all because of austerity and also cultural changes in birth rates).

They let migrants in anyway—because low birth rates mean they need workers. But instead of admitting that, they blame the ECHR and the Home Office to act like their hands are tied. Meanwhile, right-wingers and “centrists” lap it up, thinking the UK is “forced” to take people in, when in reality, politicians are just making sure they don’t take the blame. It’s all just a distraction.

Edit:

If there was a processing centre in France the government would be scrutinised for taking them in so they allow boat crossings instead which leaves the responsibility in the eyes of the public on the asylum seekers themselves.

The ECHR is destroying the UK and the lives of British people.

As much as I don’t like the stance they’re taking the ECHR is WAY bigger than deportation rights, and the people wanting to make us leave it are only in it to exploit the lack of rights you’ll have

I say this every time it comes up. Give farage and the Tories what they want. Leave the echr and abolish human rights overnight.

Then the next night, show them what not having human rights is like.

The third night, ask them if we should bring them back. Or alternatively, do an advisory referendum if we should remove yooman rites (answers recorded by government), institute a trial period of no yooman ritez, send round human rights explanation squads door to door ‘explaining’ to no voters.

Hold second referendum that’s binding, see how people like it.