Art. 25

Yesterday's Daily Mail had a go at the Human Rights Act, because an immigration panel ruled that a failed asylum seeker - an Iraqi Kurd - cannot be deported.
BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show had an interview with a man whose daughter had been run over and killed by that Iraqi, and London's Metro, page 27, reports the distraught father saying of the decision: "I'm really angry. We should all be angry. It is a ridiculous state of affairs."
The reason for the ridiculous state of affairs is that the Iraqi has married a British woman and has two children. In other words, though being in the country illegally, he now has the "right" to permanent residence.
It is hard to believe that those who drew up the European Convention on Human Rights (in 1952) intended the interpretation put on it by the European Court of Human Rights at the end of May 1985.
The victim (the dead girl's father) was spot on when he pointed out that he has no rights concerning deporting the man.
That was my feeling when the European Commission of Human Rights failed to investigate my 1977 complaints. "... in accordance with Art. 25 of the Convention the Commission may only receive petitions from persons claiming to be the victim of a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Commission has therefore always refused to recognise as victims those applicants who - like you - have neither directly suffered prejudice by virtue of a decision or act by a public authority concerning them personally, nor indirectly as a result of a violation committed against another person." (15 September 1977.)
I've read (W.H. Prescott's The History of the Conquest of Mexico ?) that following the Spanish conquest of the Americas many Indians didn't want to have children.
It's because of this issue that I don't....
By contrast, foreign and Commonwealth men who come to the UK want children - not only in order to live here permanently but also to strengthen the power of their community.
Rights?
Just?
It's just not right!