Bloodstock Community

Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/

Quite - over 3 months and EU residents have to register where criminal records can be searched. We can do it on entry as well after regs were tightened up after the Paris attacks. We booted out nearly 4000 EU nationals last year. We had access to databases and a Europe wide arrest warrant system but won't have access as jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice was one of the 'red lines' of Brexit. Back to the old days of crims hanging out in the Costa Del Sol...

As with anything, laws and regs are just pieces of paper unless there is active enforcement - cuts to Border Agency, Courts etc don't help.

bloodofthekings wrote:Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/

There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?

Labour's next leader should not whinge about Brexit, not say and do unpatriotic things and adopt a sensible immigration policy. Then they would win back a lot of seats at the next election, although I think the Cons will still have a working majority after it.

slayerslays wrote:

bloodofthekings wrote:Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/

There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?

The European Convention on Human Rights is NOT the EU, it predates it by decades as it came in in 1953. We'll still be a signatory after Brexit

someone else wrote:

slayerslays wrote:

bloodofthekings wrote:Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/

There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?

The European Convention on Human Rights is NOT the EU, it predates it by decades as it came in in 1953. We'll still be a signatory after Brexit

And it was incorporated into UK law in 2000 anyway. There's one section I know of that sounds a bit 1984, technically making it possible to limit the holding of opinions:
https://i.servimg.com/u/f45/19/71/28/23/freedo11.png

Fun little thing (to add a little levity to this topic) - confused Welsh village folk were Friday arguing with the woman running the shop. The reason ? They weren't able to buy their Euromillions tickets...

Metalchemyst wrote:

someone else wrote:

slayerslays wrote:There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?

The European Convention on Human Rights is NOT the EU, it predates it by decades as it came in in 1953. We'll still be a signatory after Brexit

And it was incorporated into UK law in 2000 anyway. There's one section I know of that sounds a bit 1984, technically making it possible to limit the holding of opinions:
https://i.servimg.com/u/f45/19/71/28/23/freedo11.png

Just because you are free to do something doesn't automatically mean you are free to do anything. The rule of thumb is so long as it doesn't hurt others. That is why every single right in the Convention is subject to restrictions and for good reasons with the exception of freedom from torture which is absolute. It means that even the right to life is not absolute because one can be lawfully killed. There's nothing 1984 about the article's restrictions. You should fear them being implemented no more than you should coppers going on patrols and shooting people at random and later claiming those were lawful killings.
The Convention was incorporated into British law for practical reasons too. Traditionally we didn't have rights in this country, we had liberties. Not the same thing.
So when an individual sued the state for a breach of - let's say - the right to privacy our courts struck out the case (no such right) which was then brought before the European Court of Human Rights which upheld that same claim. This was costly - damages, compensation, changing existing law to accommodate the court's verdict etc. Incorporating the Convention has prevented a lot of claims being unnecessarily brought before the ECoHR.

eyesore wrote:Just because you are free to do something doesn't automatically mean you are free to do anything. The rule of thumb is so long as it doesn't hurt others. That is why every single right in the Convention is subject to restrictions and for good reasons with the exception of freedom from torture which is absolute. It means that even the right to life is not absolute because one can be lawfully killed. There's nothing 1984 about the article's restrictions. You should fear them being implemented no more than you should coppers going on patrols and shooting people at random and later claiming those were lawful killings.
The Convention was incorporated into British law for practical reasons too. Traditionally we didn't have rights in this country, we had liberties. Not the same thing.
So when an individual sued the state for a breach of - let's say - the right to privacy our courts struck out the case (no such right) which was then brought before the European Court of Human Rights which upheld that same claim. This was costly - damages, compensation, changing existing law to accommodate the court's verdict etc. Incorporating the Convention has prevented a lot of claims being unnecessarily brought before the ECoHR.

I think it's better to say that anything is allowed unless a specific law prohibits it, e.g. taking a new drug. History has already given us the main restrictions we need. If we want any more we can vote for them (in theory).

On second thoughts, I would have some fundamental rights like a right to life, to belong to a state, basic health care and freedom from torture. But even those should be alterable by referendum (not by politicians).