Theresa May wants the Human Rights Act changed.

Theresa May to tackle 'human rights' defence in immigration cases

"Theresa May will today announce plans to tighten the immigration rules, making it easier to deport foreign nationals who have settled and started families in Britain.

The Home Secretary will argue that an over-zealous interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is preventing the deportation of illegal immigrants and convicted criminals.

But the crowd-pleasing move, to be announced in her Tory conference speech this morning, will be attacked by human rights and immigrant groups for threatening to split up families and penalise children.

The controversy centres on Article 8 of the ECHR, which provides the right to respect for an individual's "private and family life", but weighs that against the requirement that he or she acts "in accordance with law".

Ms May will tell the Manchester conference that the courts have allowed the fact that a foreign national has started a family to trump the argument that he or she entered Britain unlawfully.

She will announce plans to change immigration rules to make it clear that foreign nationals can be deported even if they have started a family, where they are in the country illegally or have been convicted of a criminal offence.

The new rules will also say they can be removed if they cannot make ends meet, or find a home, without help from the state. A spokeswoman for the Home Secretary said: "It is legitimate to interfere with the exercise of that right where it is in the public interest to do so and in particular where it is necessary for public protection or the economic well-being of the UK, which includes maintaining our immigration controls." Critics of the interpretation of Article 8 point to the cases of a West Indian drug dealer who allegedly beat his girlfriend and a Sri Lankan robber who claimed the right to remain because he had a girlfriend here. Tory sources insisted the moves had been approved by their Liberal Democrat coalition partners, but Nick Clegg's party will be wary of any move that appears to undermine human rights. The Deputy Prime Minister has vowed to block any moves to scrap the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the ECHR into British law.

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, will detail plans for his "rehabilitation revolution" in the country's jails. He will spell out plans for "drug free wings" in prisons and to bring in private companies to help inmates kick their habits, paying them by their results.

* Last night Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, accused many prison governors of deliberately tolerating drug use among inmates to keep them placid. It was, he told The Independent's fringe meeting, outrageous that there were fewer offenders with drug problems leaving prisons than entering. "For too much of the prison estate it's the modern equivalent of bromide in the tea," he said."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-to-tackle-human-rights-defence-in-immigration-cases-2365269.html

--------------------------------------

Could the Tories actually challenge the Human Rights Act and go against the Powers That Be in the European Parliament ?

Theresa May should act, not in accordance with the FASCISTS in Europe but should act in accordance to what is best for Britain and it's NATIVE people.

I hope that May and the Tories carry this our and send back ALL Foreign CRIMINALS to their home countries.

The Human Rights Act has worked against us. The reasons given are that the FOREIGN CRIMINALS have a Right to Family Life and that the Prisons in their home countries don't measure up to British Prisons.

I agree that they have a right to family life, but they don't have to stay here to have that right. After deportation and the removal of their passports their familys left here can allways join them in their MOTHER COUNTRIES and carry on with their RIGHT to a FAMILY LIFE. I mean if these people are so intent on their family life they are welcome to continue their right in their HOME COUNTRIES.

And if Foreign criminals are here to avoid imprisonment in their home countries then tough, if their prisons are so bad so what. Send them all back and lets destroy the Human Rights Act as it works against US as an INDIGENOUS PEOPLE in OUR OWN HOMELAND.

Let's wait and see if the Tories have the bottle to put US FIRST.

FRACKING SENSE?

I must congratulate Nick Griffin on his speech reported on the Party website regarding the undue influence of big business in our energy industry and future, aided and abetted by politicians.

Whether you believe in AGW or not it is certain that CO2 levels are rising but their relationship to temperature is at least unproven.
I myself don't care either way as the contributions of Britain are miniscule in comparison to countries such as China, India, the USA or even Germany.
All thease countries are building coal fired power stations and if we do not secure our own energy we will need more than the hair shirts advocated by the Limp Dems or Greens if we are to avoid starvation or famine.

Of course it suits, as Nick said other countries to impose impediments to our industry in the form of a carbon tax as this not only benefits them but those parasites who trade in certificates of no intrinsic value but are an easy way to make money.
Before the happy event of its demise Lehman Brothers was big in this corrupt scam, and that is one reason why the Tories are in favour on these unrealistic schemes.

Regarding "Fracking" or the release of gas from deep geological structures I am not necessarily against this. My only problem with it is if the strata contains recoverable coal deposits which we may need later,and could destroy, but otherwise I am all for it.

Talk of methane escapes is irrelevant.

This may surprise many but Wigan hundreds of years ago was sometrhing of a spa town before industrialisation as is shown by the many local area names containing the word "spring"
Indeed there was a nationally famous well near Wigan known as "The Burning Well" where methane escaped from the coal measures and caught light.

There is no record of any harm coming from this well (apart perhaps from some facial burns)
Methane's old name was "Marsh Gas" or "Will o the Wisp" and common in boggy regions, so I do not believe any methane escape into the water supply will do much harm.

If we find massive gas reserves with the above proviso that in extracting it we do not destroy other resources I am all for it.

BUT

I do not believe we should waste this asset as we wasted North Sea gas and oil.

I remember when I was a councillor (a proper one ) when Nick Griffin was fresh out of private school, North Sea oil was discovered and saying to a fellow councillor that having found and proved it we should cap the wells and use it when it had become scarce and dear.

Instead Thatcher sold oil cheaply to destroy the miners, and we became an oil and gas exporter even though the price we received was a fraction of what it would now be worth. She and the following Labour government joined the "dash to gas" thus destroying our coal industry and in effect selling our family silver.
Now we are at the mercy of foreign states and pay dearly for our fuel.

Short termism, political expediency and graft. The wealth and prosperity of the nation has come last with our politicians, influenced as they are by their friends in the City and abroad.

I therefore believe we should prove these gas deposits, put the infrastructure in for their exploitation and mothball them.

In future energy in the bank will be more valuable than money in the bank as the latter nowadays is not even paper, just lines on a computer screen.

We need to conserve our tangible assets.

THEY WILL BE WORTH FAR MORE IN THE FUTURE.

WRONG TACTICS

Yesterday, I like most I presume BNP members received a letter rebuffing the questions which were put to the Party leaders by the BBC for the forthcoming "Panorama" programme.

The BBC as is well known is no friend of Nationalism being infested by P C Metropolitan types and left wing aliens but I believe its questions should have been answered.
We must have a more effective way of promoting our cause.

According to the letter the majority of questions were not of a policy nature , but regarding finance. It seems the party's policies on immigration and ethnicity were not questioned. Whether they will be in the programme I do not know.

I know the BBC contains many perverts and cheats as do the other parties but we should at least have the courage of our convictions and be prepared to answer honestly questions put regarding our finances and policies.
Hiding away and sending out letters answering questions which may or may not have been put will convince no one and the BBC will as always have the last laugh, AT OUR EXPENSE.
To challenge reporters on the morality of their bosses in so large an organisation is I believe futile. It has nothing to do with them, any more than the "Granny Porn" episode has to do with Nick Griffin.

The fact that the party is so hot under the collar over a programme which has not yet been broadcast and which it seems is mainly concerned with finance would seem to the impartial observer that it has something to hide in this aspect.
The thrust of the programme apart from a few financial aspects is not known yet we have a campaign of answers to questions not even asked.

In fact some of the questions which we are told were put are those members have been asking for years without having had a satisfactory answer.

BNPtv is a worthy organisation with a loyal following including me but it can not compete with the reach of the BBC and to believe it can is delusional.

The best way to deal with a hostile media is to simultaneously video interviews and answer questions with straight answers.
YOU CAN'T GET BEHIND THE TRUTH.
The Party has recently been demonstrating at the lack of publicity we are getting, but when a reporter comes they refuse to be interviewed.

This programme will show the Party in the worst possible light and then--

THE BBC WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE US.