Is May loosing her marbles or stupid, crazy or both

[Obie]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21489072

Mrs May resumed her campaign of vilification of judges again, after the catgate scandal.

This time, it is due to several recent judgements of the Upper Tribunal, which partially incapacitate her definition of Article 8 rights in the immigration rules, or fail to apply it in its entirety.

The UK has enacted legislation aimed at incooperating the Human Rights act into our national legislation, and preventing injured party from having to head to Stratsburg to have their rights enforced. We have the human right acts, which has precedence over the immigration rules. Judges are oblidged by law to give priority to the former, and strike down the later, if it is in conflict with the former.

This is precisely what the courts have done, in undertaking their legal duties. As the rules does not incooperate the domestic and Stratsburg jurisprudence, and does not make provision for an assessment of the individual circumstance.

To see a govermnent minister, distorting fact, law and reality, effectively lying for political gains, and picking up a fight with a very intelligent and fair minded judge like Mr Justic Blake, for simply doing his job, is nothing short of a scandal, that is incompatible with the principles and norms of a democratic state, or is Britain not a democratic state anymore, where the rule of law is respected and has to be upheld by the judiciary. Is May advocating a Kangaroo court for immigrants or what?

[Ted]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21489072

Mrs May resumed her campaign of vilification of judges again, after the catgate scandal.

This time, it is due to several recent judgements of the Upper Tribunal, which partially incapacitate her definition of Article 8 rights in the immigration rules, or fail to apply it in its entirety.

The UK has enacted legislation aimed at incooperating the Human Rights act into our national legislation, and preventing injured party from having to head to Stratsburg to have their rights enforced. We have the human right acts, which has precedence over the immigration rules. Judges are oblidged by law to give priority to the former, and strike down the later, if it is in conflict with the former.

This is precisely what the courts have done, in undertaking their legal duties. As the rules does not incooperate the domestic and Stratsburg jurisprudence, and does not make provision for an assessment of the individual circumstance.

To see a govermnent minister, distorting fact, law and reality, effectively lying for political gains, and picking up a fight with a very intelligent and fair minded judge like Mr Justic Blake, for simply doing his job, is nothing short of a scandal, that is incompatible with the principles and norms of a democratic state, or is Britain not a democratic state anymore, where the rule of law is respected and has to be upheld by the judiciary. Is May advocating a Kangaroo court for immigrants or what?

"This is not a dispute about respect for human rights, which I certainly agree is an essential part of any decent legal system.

"It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual's right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals."

[vinny]

May be wrong.

[MPH80]

Interesting article - but the closing I have a problem with:

"Human rights cease to be universally human when some humans are pushed into the cold outside the tent."

The point is that the right to private life is already qualified. The debate is about how qualified it is.

The May argument is that public interest/safety overrides private life more than judges would like to enact.

But the likely outcome of this situation is exactly as the author outlines:

"If May’s attack can be taken at face value, though, it looks like a time is coming when Parliament will modify the Human Rights Act by passing primary legislation. I doubt many if any politicians would be willing to side against her on behalf of foreign criminals."

[Obie]

This interview provides a good insight.

Teressa May is one of the most ghastly person and Secretary of state the UK has had.

Picking on poor innocent and defenceless judges who are simply doing their job, and cannot defend themselves, beggar belief.

[ID29]

As much as it pains me to say it, but May does have a point.

The Human Rights Acts are a valuable piece of law which I wouldn't wish to see removed. However, I feel they should properly be used in these situations as a balance not a blanket excuse not to deport someone who has proven to be a danger to society. Of course it's the Judges job to weigh up the rights of both sides but it's also the Home Secretary's job to remind the Judges of this fact.

[Obie]

This is a guy, whom by May's own rules, qualifies under Article 8. He has been in the UK for 21 years. Entered the UK at the age of 6, lawfully. As per the ECHR judgement in Maslov, he qualifies under Article 8. His offence does not involve sexual matters or Violence, he has a child, in whose life he plays a huge part.

The rules does not incooperate Maslov, nor does it properly makes provision for the best interest of the child. The human right 1998 acts, states that the court has to consider the judgement of the ECHR.

What does MRs May expect the judge to do. Ignore her own rules.

[ID29]

I cannot hear the audio Obie (fault is my end), but I assume this might be the chap that was recently injured during a forced deportation attempt you're referring to?

In any case, the Baroness isn't someone that should be giving advice to anyone. Baroness Kennedy called for Theresa May to "present the evidence to see whether a new law was necessary or not." This from the party that not so long ago would pass 10 new laws before breakfast. Also, Mrs May originally (last year incidentally) merely sought to give advice/guidance to the judges. At the time, it was Labour that questioned whether the guidance would be sufficient and suggested primary legislation would be needed. So who's playing politics here?

[mr khan]

what if you re a immigrant and you get accused of a crime because i think when this gets shoved through somehow all the dearly beloved nutbags who dont like immigrants will be out looking to blame any crime on immigrants just so they can have them deported. dont get me wrong id love to deport lots of criminals.

[ID29]

what if you re a immigrant and you get accused of a crime...

I wouldn't worry. It's almost inconceivable that anyone would be deported solely on an accusation.

[Obie]

A Human Right Reality Check for the Home Secretary.

[vinny]

Theresa May, immigration judges & media myths