Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

General Election 2015



Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
Well here is a landmark that hopefully will be followed over here, though i have my doubts.

We CAN kick out foreign criminals with families: Euro judges' landmark ruling is boost for May's campaign
European Court of Human Rights find Russia justified in deporting father
Robert Muradeli had committed no crime worse than traffic violations
But was deported for breaking immigration laws after 20 years residence
Eight judges rule Russia did not breach the 45-year-old's human rights
European human rights judges have delivered a boost to Home Secretary Theresa May’s campaign to kick illegal immigrants and foreign criminals out of the country.

In a landmark ruling, they undermined the idea that no foreigner should be thrown out of a country if it will interfere with their right to a family life.

Eight judges of the European Court of Human Rights found that Russia was justified in deporting a 45-year-old man for breaking immigration laws even though he went to live there more than 20 years ago and has a Russian wife and son.


Landmark: The European Court of Human Rights (pictured, with former president Sir Nicolas Dusan Bratza) has ruled Russia did not breach a father's right to a family life when he was deported in 2011

Robert Muradeli had never committed a crime or any other offence more serious than traffic violations. But the Strasbourg court said that the Russian authorities had not breached any human rights rules when they deported him in 2011.

It follows years of Tory frustration over the ease with which illegal immigrants and foreign criminals can dodge deportation or delay it for years by claiming that it would breach their right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

A number of the 760 foreign criminals on the run in Britain have used the clause to block their deportation, and British judges have repeatedly upheld even the most spurious claim to a family life
MPs voted for new guidelines in 2012 which said that any foreign criminal sentenced to more than four years in jail should not be able to plead family rights as a reason to stay in Britain.

Mrs May has also introduced a system under which foreign criminals are deported and only then allowed to appeal to the courts against removal.

She has promised the system will be extended to illegal immigrants if the Tories win the election.

The European judges – whose rulings are supposed to be followed by 47 countries including Russia – heard that Georgian-born Muradeli had gone to Russia in 1992, had married in the city of Penza in 1994 and had a son in 1995. However, he failed to keep his permits up to date.

Muradeli told the judges that his son needed a father, that his wife needed his financial support to pay back a property loan, and that his family had no links to Georgia.

Lawyers for Russia argued that it was necessary to deport him to ensure immigration laws were obeyed.

The Strasbourg ruling said that by breaking immigration rules Muradeli had ‘demonstrated consistent disregard of the laws, regulations and public order of the host country’. It added that he had been deported to Russian-speaking Belarus.
 






Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,923
West Sussex
I dont agree with much that you say tbh, too blinkered and doctrinaire usually. However on this I totally agree - the sooner the better.

Not for me - until we can avoid lackeys and lickspittles being guaranteed a seat for the major parties by getting to the top of their lists.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,706
The Fatherland
I dont agree with much that you say tbh, too blinkered and doctrinaire usually. However on this I totally agree - the sooner the better.

Just usually? I'm slipping! :smile:
 


D

Deleted member 22389

Guest
Well here is a landmark that hopefully will be followed over here, though i have my doubts.

We CAN kick out foreign criminals with families: Euro judges' landmark ruling is boost for May's campaign
European Court of Human Rights find Russia justified in deporting father
Robert Muradeli had committed no crime worse than traffic violations
But was deported for breaking immigration laws after 20 years residence
Eight judges rule Russia did not breach the 45-year-old's human rights
European human rights judges have delivered a boost to Home Secretary Theresa May’s campaign to kick illegal immigrants and foreign criminals out of the country.

In a landmark ruling, they undermined the idea that no foreigner should be thrown out of a country if it will interfere with their right to a family life.

Eight judges of the European Court of Human Rights found that Russia was justified in deporting a 45-year-old man for breaking immigration laws even though he went to live there more than 20 years ago and has a Russian wife and son.


Landmark: The European Court of Human Rights (pictured, with former president Sir Nicolas Dusan Bratza) has ruled Russia did not breach a father's right to a family life when he was deported in 2011

Robert Muradeli had never committed a crime or any other offence more serious than traffic violations. But the Strasbourg court said that the Russian authorities had not breached any human rights rules when they deported him in 2011.

It follows years of Tory frustration over the ease with which illegal immigrants and foreign criminals can dodge deportation or delay it for years by claiming that it would breach their right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

A number of the 760 foreign criminals on the run in Britain have used the clause to block their deportation, and British judges have repeatedly upheld even the most spurious claim to a family life
MPs voted for new guidelines in 2012 which said that any foreign criminal sentenced to more than four years in jail should not be able to plead family rights as a reason to stay in Britain.

Mrs May has also introduced a system under which foreign criminals are deported and only then allowed to appeal to the courts against removal.

She has promised the system will be extended to illegal immigrants if the Tories win the election.

The European judges – whose rulings are supposed to be followed by 47 countries including Russia – heard that Georgian-born Muradeli had gone to Russia in 1992, had married in the city of Penza in 1994 and had a son in 1995. However, he failed to keep his permits up to date.

Muradeli told the judges that his son needed a father, that his wife needed his financial support to pay back a property loan, and that his family had no links to Georgia.

Lawyers for Russia argued that it was necessary to deport him to ensure immigration laws were obeyed.

The Strasbourg ruling said that by breaking immigration rules Muradeli had ‘demonstrated consistent disregard of the laws, regulations and public order of the host country’. It added that he had been deported to Russian-speaking Belarus.

Wake up UK, foreign aid again. £442,000 to deck out some offices.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rbing-way-British-taxpayers-money-wasted.html
 








melias shoes

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2010
4,830
Osbourne let himself and party down on the marr show . Avoiding questions and again trying to discredit labour . What a sham he is . Doubt makes much difference as opinions formed and can't imagine many floating voters are up watching it anyway , didn't do osbourne many favours Harman played a straight bat and talked very well .

Harperson never answers straight. She avoids the answers as well as every politician.
 






seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,946
Crap Town
George Osborne has also announced that he wants to raise £5bn through tackling evasion and avoidance. So, you're in luck either way.

It appears that he will leave a few loopholes open for his chums , about £2.5bn worth. Tax avoidance should be treated the same as tax evasion.
 


melias shoes

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2010
4,830
I doubt they're claiming or even planning to close every loop hole initially; they wouldn't need to. Making it impossible for a sizeable amount will be a start. And I don't subscribe to the idea that those hit will immediately and effortlessly move to the remaining loopholes as not everyone's finances will be able to fit the remaining gaps. And as I understand currently, if tax schemes do fit the law but are deemed to be an artificial construct then they're illegal. Closing down loop holes will push more into this field. Maybe, just maybe, when faced with these new laws and possible criminal charges, as opposed to the current lazy approach, they will be honest from the off. As an aside, I understand the HMRC now hire some of the best tax lawyers the UK has to offer. Hopefully the incoming Labour government will keep them and new law will be targeted and successful.

And why do I need to rewind 15 years? What relevance has Ed got to do with that Labour government?
Seriously? So milliband wasn't part of that government then? They haven't got a chance of getting that tax avoidance fines to fund anything. They wouldn't raise nearly enough.
 




drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,619
Burgess Hill
you're quite right of course, this is what happens in practice. the system is set up assuming the electorate vote for a candidate though. if we are to change, we have to recogise this and the unintended consequence of changing that. i.e. you'll move to a party list system where only the approved, on message party members get into parliament. i think that would be a deteriment to democracy.

PR v FPTP. We have a demoncratic system where the majority of the country aren't represented by the people they voted for. Is that good for democracy? As I said, I think most people vote for a party anyway so what would be wrong with the party list for a PR basis of elections? As for MPs, aren't they selected anyway by their party?

Amazing the venom In the grilling he was getting compared to harperson

I didn't catch it all but what did she say when Marr raised her aggressive slating of Cameron and Osbourne as "posh boys"?

I think Osbourne laughed and said the Harman went to the same school he did?

Feel free to correct me.


Interesting! Harman went to St Paul's School for Girls. Might explain a lot about Osborne!
 


seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,946
Crap Town
Given the magic number both parties need to get to is 326 seats I can only predict a minority government being formed. Even if Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems get together they would only need 5 of their MPs to vote against them and they would lose a motion. Herr's prediction is looking rather shaky as convention says the current party in power gets to have a go at forming a government first in the event of a hung parliament, and even if we use Kingmaker Clegg's policy of the party with the greatest number of seats getting a go first, it's looking like goodbye Ed.

Clegg has intimated that this time around he would prefer to side with Labour. A leftist alliance of Lab + LD + SNP + PC + Greens = 344. Even if the Conservatives win 300 seats they cannot muster enough support from other parties (UKIP , DUP etc) if the LibDems are unwilling to enter a coalition with them.
 


BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,723
Clegg has intimated that this time around he would prefer to side with Labour. A leftist alliance of Lab + LD + SNP + PC + Greens = 344. Even if the Conservatives win 300 seats they cannot muster enough support from other parties (UKIP , DUP etc) if the LibDems are unwilling to enter a coalition with them.

And what a technicoloured nightmare that would turn out to be for this country.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,019
PR v FPTP. We have a demoncratic system where the majority of the country aren't represented by the people they voted for.

the same would happen under PR, unless there is a party that gains 50% of votes and seats. typically under PR you'll have a coalition of parties representing 20-30% each. the arguement goes that this is OK because that other party is nearly what you support (because the party leaders decided so), but then why are the parties seperate and you voted for the other party for good reason. for the benefits of PR (its not without merit) its sort of relies on the policitians opinion that the public dont know what they really want. for the flaws of FPTP the structure is focused on the constituency first and party second, which puts the candidates mandate with the local people. i know this isnt how it works in practice, but we should seek to enforce this link not move away from it.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,706
The Fatherland
Clegg has intimated that this time around he would prefer to side with Labour. A leftist alliance of Lab + LD + SNP + PC + Greens = 344. Even if the Conservatives win 300 seats they cannot muster enough support from other parties (UKIP , DUP etc) if the LibDems are unwilling to enter a coalition with them.

It's reassuring to know that the majority of voters prefer left-leaning politics.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,706
The Fatherland
Seriously? So milliband wasn't part of that government then? They haven't got a chance of getting that tax avoidance fines to fund anything. They wouldn't raise nearly enough.

He wasn't dictating fiscal policy.
 






Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,706
The Fatherland
It will be interesting to see what happens this week with the manifesto launches , Tories already under pressure to say where all these funds for their policies coming from.

The Tories seem to be making things up as they go along at the moment. It will be highly amusing if this past week's back-of-the-fag-packet policies make it into print.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,774
Fiveways
The Tories seem to be making things up as they go along at the moment. It will be highly amusing if this past week's back-of-the-fag-packet policies make it into print.

They're having a dreadful campaign so far. Labour, by contrast, ...
... need to keep cranking it up.
Next target: tax avoidance from multi-national companies, linked to reform of the EU. Opposing TTIP wouldn't go amiss either.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here