The Supreme Court (a Tony Blair initiative) has ruled that foreign and Commonwealth people who want to marry cannot be prevented from entering the UK. (BBC Radio 4 News, yesterday 6 p.m.)
A judge said that having to live together abroad breaches their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Art. 8: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
"2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right 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 the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The judge is illogical. What he said clearly implies that anyone in a marriage outside these unfortunate islands is being deprived of a family life.
Besides, the 2nd. item in Art. 8 provides a clear get-out. Democracy (i.e. Parliament, not judges) should determine this issue.
The News broadcast also stated: "Youth unemployment is at an all-time high."
Litigation is very expensive. Doubtless it was the British taxpayer who funded the litigants who doubtless are very grateful to a (barmy) country that pays to have itself occupied.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Monday, 10 October 2011
Judge supports Criminal - Ridiculous
David Cameron will say today (The Daily Telegraph, page 2): "We will also end the ridiculous situation where a registrar who knows a marriage is a sham still has to perform the ceremony."
He has been Britain's Prime Minister for 18 months. Why the delay? Has he only just realised?
Besides, if foreign men were not allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage they would not take part in a sham marriage.
This issue has come to the fore because the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative Party's annual conference last week highlighted the case of a Bolivian (pictured on page 6 of today's Telegraph) illegally in the UK who cannot be deported because he has a relationship with someone else, and deporting him would, according to a judge, contravene Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If the two men are so much in love what's to prevent them from living in Bolivia?
They could both enter the country legally.
Being in a country illegally is a crime. The judge would soon find that out if he were in Bolivia illegally.
P.S. The politicians (e.g. David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary) blame the judges and the judges say they are only doing what the politicians want - ridiculous - ludicrous - lunatic....
It was said of Hamlet (Act V, Scene 1) that his madness would not be seen in England because "there the men are as mad as he".
He has been Britain's Prime Minister for 18 months. Why the delay? Has he only just realised?
Besides, if foreign men were not allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage they would not take part in a sham marriage.
This issue has come to the fore because the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative Party's annual conference last week highlighted the case of a Bolivian (pictured on page 6 of today's Telegraph) illegally in the UK who cannot be deported because he has a relationship with someone else, and deporting him would, according to a judge, contravene Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If the two men are so much in love what's to prevent them from living in Bolivia?
They could both enter the country legally.
Being in a country illegally is a crime. The judge would soon find that out if he were in Bolivia illegally.
P.S. The politicians (e.g. David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary) blame the judges and the judges say they are only doing what the politicians want - ridiculous - ludicrous - lunatic....
It was said of Hamlet (Act V, Scene 1) that his madness would not be seen in England because "there the men are as mad as he".
Thursday, 22 September 2011
If only he were alive today!
Britain's Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, told party delegates yesterday that the European Convention on Human Rights had the support of Winston Churchill.
There is nothing in the Convention about immigration control.
And it is unimaginable to believe that Churchill supported the Convention being intepreted in such a way as to enable the UK to be occupied by other peoples.
Yet that is precisely what took place on 28 May 1985 when the European Court of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live on these overcrowded and hopelessly divided islands.
There is nothing in the Convention about immigration control.
And it is unimaginable to believe that Churchill supported the Convention being intepreted in such a way as to enable the UK to be occupied by other peoples.
Yet that is precisely what took place on 28 May 1985 when the European Court of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live on these overcrowded and hopelessly divided islands.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Support Plea: Please Support
The British Government has launched a scheme whereby anyone can submit a petition which, if it gets 100,000 signatures, may be debated in Parliament.
I have just submitted a petition on Marriage and Migration - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/12694
I invite people to sign it.
Thanks!
I have just submitted a petition on Marriage and Migration - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/12694
I invite people to sign it.
Thanks!
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
As ye sow.... so shall ye weep
The current nightly breakdown of law and order in England's biggest cities by rioting and pillaging youngsters is widely attributed to the breakdown of family life.
For a long time, some women seek careers and some enable foreign men to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Naturally, the result is a shortage of home-making women to go around and some men marry when they do not really want to.
Divorce is the inevitable consequence.
For a long time, some women seek careers and some enable foreign men to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Naturally, the result is a shortage of home-making women to go around and some men marry when they do not really want to.
Divorce is the inevitable consequence.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Jobs for Judges
An Indian woman living in Leicester is bringing a case in the High Court to argue that her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are being violated.
This is because her husband and 6 children, in India, want to live with her in the UK.
Art. 8 states: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right 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 the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."
It was forcefully argued on BBC Radio 4 Today that Article 8 should not be stretched and that judges are both unelected and unaccountable.
The European Court of Human Rights determined on 28 May 1985 that men should be allowed to live in Britain through marriage.
The law was modified last November to require the men to be able to speak English. That is what this case is all about. Because the husband doesn't.
Normal practice is that it is up to Consular Officials only as to whether a visa is issued.
Judges in Britain argue that they are involved in these issues because Parliament wants them to be.
A caller to the Jeremy Vine Show pointed out that David Cameron promised in his 2010 election manifesto to stop human rights law from intervening in immigration cases.
Surely there is a good case for a judge citing Article 8 as a reason why no foreign men can use marriage as a means for being allowed to live and work in the UK.
There is nothing to prevent that woman from living in India. (Though you[?] and I cannot.)
This is because her husband and 6 children, in India, want to live with her in the UK.
Art. 8 states: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right 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 the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."
It was forcefully argued on BBC Radio 4 Today that Article 8 should not be stretched and that judges are both unelected and unaccountable.
The European Court of Human Rights determined on 28 May 1985 that men should be allowed to live in Britain through marriage.
The law was modified last November to require the men to be able to speak English. That is what this case is all about. Because the husband doesn't.
Normal practice is that it is up to Consular Officials only as to whether a visa is issued.
Judges in Britain argue that they are involved in these issues because Parliament wants them to be.
A caller to the Jeremy Vine Show pointed out that David Cameron promised in his 2010 election manifesto to stop human rights law from intervening in immigration cases.
Surely there is a good case for a judge citing Article 8 as a reason why no foreign men can use marriage as a means for being allowed to live and work in the UK.
There is nothing to prevent that woman from living in India. (Though you[?] and I cannot.)
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Common Currency
John Humphrys (BBC Radio 4 Today) and Jeremy Vine (BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show) have today both described the Norwegian gunman as a "madman".
A murderer, yes; but a madman, no.
He wants to prevent his country from being occupied by foreigners. That's not mad.
In January 1983 the British Parliament voted to allow foreign men to occupy the UK through marriage.
Mrs. Thatcher's Government thereby reneged on its 1979 election promise to end that concession. A Conservative Member of Parliament, Ivor Stanbrook, who voted against the measure, described it as "insane".
(Mrs. Thatcher killed people: 255 British servicemen died in the 1982 Falkands Conflict, not to mention Argentinians and 3 British women - all because of the occupation of territory.)
If prominent public figures (JH & JV) categorically state something it becomes common currency.
A murderer, yes; but a madman, no.
He wants to prevent his country from being occupied by foreigners. That's not mad.
In January 1983 the British Parliament voted to allow foreign men to occupy the UK through marriage.
Mrs. Thatcher's Government thereby reneged on its 1979 election promise to end that concession. A Conservative Member of Parliament, Ivor Stanbrook, who voted against the measure, described it as "insane".
(Mrs. Thatcher killed people: 255 British servicemen died in the 1982 Falkands Conflict, not to mention Argentinians and 3 British women - all because of the occupation of territory.)
If prominent public figures (JH & JV) categorically state something it becomes common currency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
