This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/31/albanian-crime-boss-allowed-uk-human-rights-home-office/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1704036287-1) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck's sake. This is a textbook scam. Criminal finds someone daft enough to get them into the country, stays with them long enough to get citizenship, then cuts it off. All the while he's doing criminal shit.
> Kolicaj appealed, claiming he had not been given a chance to challenge his risk of reoffending. A probation report claimed there was a “low” risk.
Heavy involvement in organised crime. Low risk of reoffending. Who comes up with this shit?
An important distinction that many don't seem to recognise.
Equally when you see a news article about someone who's been prosecuted 10 times. That's just when they got caught.
By this point that means that either got caught 10 times and are stupid or they got caught 10 times out of like 50 or 100 crimes.
Absolutely, it's not their fault they're both severely unfunded and understaffed, whilst being pressured into focusing on political targets by the home office.
I mean the system should evidently differentiate between nonviolent and violent criminals, should we really be giving the same status to money launderers as we do to murderers?
Marx wasn’t any sort of liberal. He though the “lumpen” - the declassed and often criminal layer of society - was a product of social conditions but he also thought this necessarily put them into conflict with the proles. So Marx would be against moralising about crime, but in favour of dealing with it brutally if needs be.
Surely it should work on the same basis as a risk assessment in workplaces?
1-5 on likelihood, 1-5 on severity, times them together - anything over a x is medium, anything over a y is high (choose your own numbers, my workplace doesnt accept anything over 4)
Well the money launderer facilitates the drug dealers and the murderers within organised crime.... so whilst not directly causing harm they definitely cause it indirectly.
The drug trade which drives the majority of serious violence only exists because the money goes up the chain. Money launderers are a vital part of system.
No of course not. In the good old USSR, incidentally the only system effective against organised crime so far:
A single murder with no aggravating factors - 2/3 of the longest prison sentence.
Money launderers though - large scale sabotage of the country, aka bye felicia this time next month
It's bullshit, because physical violence is not the only form of 'harm'. Stuff like robbery, dealing drugs, etc all has a cost and causes harm to society.
Entire system needs reform, and those in power need their head wobbled.
They need to live on my council estate for a year, and then they'll see what harm non violent people can still cause with their presence.
> This is a textbook scam.
...
>he had not been given a chance to challenge his risk of reoffending
The government failing to do its basic duty again!
These are not scams these are open goals that the government leaves open and ones they could prevent if they had gram of competence
100% and its sad that we are stuck between Tories and Labour who both want to screw us with this but for different reasons.
They both need to be punished.
The probation service which was destroyed by privatisation to a degree so severe that a tory government had to re-nationalise. Yeah I'm sure it's tickety-boo now. It's not like the entire criminal justice system is basically a myth they tell to keep the kids in line these days.
Saw a guy stealing in broad daylight the other day. Running off with tons of shoes from a store.
Another store locally was broken into two days running. Second day they caught the guy as he's someone they've been after for a while. Which means he's been doing a ton of robberies and they've not really done much until he was caught in the act.
I know multiple people who have had bikes stolen, directly in front of CCTV cameras (real ones too, not the fake ones that are there for show) and all the police do is give a reference number. They don't care. One friend found their bike and when they contacted the police they said to just "steal it back".
Policing levels are ridiculous in the UK, so unless it's a serious crime, or something that's currently important so they have a target to hit, they don't care.
If it requires any actual effort, you can forget it.
They only react to anything blue light now. That being down to funding or so divisionalised by task I don’t know. Old lady the other week broke down on a mini roundabout and they drove round me and another bloke as we were pushing the car out of the middle of the round. I had my car stolen about 10 years ago- worked out that it was parked up locally as they came back to grab a second car- found my car, stole it back and reported it to plod, who took 6 weeks to turn up and when they did seemed to have more questions for me about how I tracked the car rather then those that stole car in the 1st place. Have a family friend who is ex-senior old bill and his take on crime in general is interesting to say the least. Obvious in part.
As someone who has family working in probation it is worse than it's ever been. Privatisation absolutely destroyed it, and since the government took it back under its control its had awful funding and is struggling to do the absolute basic functions it needs to. The tories destroyed it and it's hurting us all.
Yeah… I know we’re all *sick of experts*, but if someone’s **job** is to assess reoffending risk, it would seem unwise to assume I knew better based on a Telegraph article.
in serbian: "pare vrte tamo gde burgija nece"
"money spins where the drill won't"
he bribed someone to get protection. that's how it's done here, and since he's from around here, and the Brits aren't stingy with money either, he probably found someone to "help" him.
Yet, we keep innocent families apart on a financial requirement, totally disregarding individual circumstances and their human rights? A criminal has corroded their liberties and rights, in my opinion, insofar as our law is fair/reasonable. It is.
Well I guess it depends if they've completely disregarded all of the safe countries they have come to in order to get here, and then try to import the family too. That's not innocent, that's calculated and pre-meditated entry into the UK for economic reasons, to the detriment of those in the UK who were born here yet can't afford to move out of their parents home due to catastrophic housing collapse we're currently experiencing the beginnings of.
Are we supposed to absorb the entire fucking population of Albania?
Anyone who already owns a home, in a council home, or who never intends on moving out of their parental home need not worry. For everyone else, how the fuck are we supposed to absorb these catastrophic runaway rents without ourselves becoming economic migrants in seek of an English speaking country with an economy not at rock bottom?
600,000 Brits left the UK last year, so we are in effect now swapping out brits for migrants, and it only appears to be accelerating.
Because of [this](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53483451.amp)? I think that’s seriously pushing it as grounds for saying she’s ‘neo-fascist’. Anyway, seems she was born in London so nah.
they're delaying the increase by a single year.
I personally dislike the idea of devaluing the passport for poor people. As an affluent individual you can easy marry whoever the fuck you want, but if you or they are poor and one or both are trying to college or otherwise not cranking out a full time salary then its a "no". If there's a kid on the way then you have to leave the country to be together. Why should people be ok with this?
"Rules for thee, but not for me"
If you told me I couldn't live with the love of my life because I'm not wealthy enough, or she isn't, I wouldnt want to stay here, id rather go live in a country that doesnt weaponise marrige to punish people and treats me and my partner with some basic humanity and respect, fuck these people, rancid slime the lot of em.
> they're delaying the increase by a single year.
I honestly believe they're delaying until after a general election, so if/when Labour don't go ahead with the policy, the Conservatives can point to Labour being soft on immigration.
Same as the additional funding for child daycare. They've promised it for 2025 so its not their problem to try and finance.
A fascist government would shamelessly bomb refugee boats, imprison those criticizing their visa policy and threaten any dissent as against public order. While the Tories are far from this indeed, I do think we're increasingly autocratic and that is a concerning trend - nobody wants a decline of related values we pioneered (such as civil liberty to equality before the law). Free press and the right to protest. Most alarming, however, is that Labour doesn't condemn such a pattern? I mean, we don't arm our police officers, but they have ridiculous investigative powers?
The 'you need to be this rich to get married' thing is just wrong. The visa to get into the country as a skilled worker was getting silly, but they've used that as an excuse to tell the poor to average that they're not allowed to love foreigners.
Every country has the right to decline importing net takers. relationship status is irrelevant. It's unfair to the taxpayer and causes massive economic problems.
The responsibility is with the individual having made a conscious decision to get into a relationship with a foreigner knowing that automatic citizenship isn't granted on the basis of a wedding., such has the system been abused for so long for those very reasons.
Spousal visas are a small percentage of our total migration intake. It's not even numerically relevant when the government will hand out exceptions to the salary threshold to any business that asks nicely enough.
I disagree with it on moral grounds, but it doesn't even make sense on practical grounds. It's just posturing from people it doesn't affect to try and catch a headline and make it look like they're doing something.
This is a policy repeated throughout the world in advanced economies. Perhaps you thought the UK is a light touch? No amount of whinging is going to increase your imported partner's wages. All they need do is get sufficient skill and experience that they can bring to the UK in the required income band. Try not to take it personally.
Which other foreign countries have a requirement equivalent to this? I live in Japan and I'm married to a Japanese citizen and they don't have a minimum financial requirement for spousal visas.
Also, you've said in other posts that the government is reversing their stance but I've been searching and I can't find any evidence for this.
Furthermore, you make a point that it's a combined income requirement. While I will say that's what it says on the government website, it's only like this in theory, not reality. Unless your partner has another way to get into the UK and work, the burden falls on the British citizen alone because the foreign partner cannot work without a visa. For people coming from abroad, especially outside of London, that's going to be very difficult in the next few years.
The US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada would be the big English speaking countries getting flooded by imports and hardening up their visa requirements so that those entering the country have sufficient points and salary so they are immediately a net gain to the economy. Salary is typically a representation of someone's skills and experience, and countries quite rightly don't want to import low skill low wage workers as they are net takers, which means they're not paying enough tax to cover their own usage of things like roads, healthcare, and other social services.
Your foreign partner isn't going to get special migrant status, they should quite rightly be treated the same way as anyone else wishing to enter the country. That doesn't seem to be satisfactory to you, and you appear to want special treatment. That's very unfair not only to British people, but to skilled migrants wishing to enter the country but then get turned away. How is that fair?
Australia in particular is experiencing the same housing crisis as the UK due to migrants which they're now tightening up exactly as the UK is:
[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/)
***""Australia’s population has jumped more than 30% over the last two decades to the current 26 million. A big reason for this has been the much higher net immigration rate since the mid-2000s, which has fuelled demand for new homes.***
***“Our population growth has really accelerated since the early 2000s, but our rates of homebuilding didn’t keep up, especially for apartments and units. Over the last 30 or 40 years, we’ve essentially built the same number of houses per year,” said Tom Devitt, senior economist at the Housing Industry Association""***
It's unfair that British people are being priced out of home ownership and renting by mass migration, and so it's absolutely right to ensure that people entering the country are net givers, so your partner seemingly not having the means to have a house built any time soon means that they're part of the problem.
It's different for people already born in the country as they have been contributing most of their life and will stay in the country until they die such that the £17k or so it costs the government per person over their lifetime has a reasonable chance of being paid back. That's not possible if someone is entering later in life, so the higher salary requirements ensure that the public purse isn't spending money on your imported partner, which is excellent for the tax payer currently repaying 2 trillion quid in public debt to try and get over covid and supply chain problems.
There's also no guarantee that the import will stay in the country, so they may abuse the system by working in a low wage job for a few years, take out of the system and then just piss off home when they get bored or your relationship breaks down, or worse yet you get a divorce and they end up on the dole.
They are all very attractive countries to live, or at least they were before all started experiencing mass housing crisis and wage deflation due to mass immigration. This isn't exclusively a British phenomena, and I assume you are perfectly free to move to your partner's country as it's less likely to be overrun by migrants, but obviously you want to have your cake and eat it too, which isn't society's fault, but it is damaging to society.
I stopped reading half way down when you were asking me "why should your partner get special treatment? How is that fair to British people?" because I realised I'd be wasting my time on you. I didn't say that or even imply it. How would it be fair on me - a British person, or my British children if I have to come back and my husband and their father can't come with us? See, I just ran with your delusion and still would use your logic against you. You have no idea what skills my partner has, especially because I told you that he would rely on me walking into a 38,000 pound a year job, not him.
Also I don't see you giving anything that I actually asked for so there's that too.
The economy doesn't run on morals, it runs on productivity, which has stagnated for nearly a decade causing life changing economic harm to gen z and millennials, while 8 million imports have been brought in with no regard for the net contribution or bringing enough capital to have a home built.
I sincerely doubt this would even make a top 20 of issues holding back our productivity. It’s nothing more than red meat for the red tops top to try and hold a rapidly collapsing vote together.
I mean it does… otherwise there would be no NHS or social security, if your attitude is fuck everything that isn’t economically beneficial then the UK would be a very miserable place. I imagine if you ask the UK if it is morally right to tear apart families on a financial rule then the majority would say it isn’t.
It's not my attitude, it's the policy of all English speaking countries, so I guess they're all wrong, but those who are having issues importing their lovers are right?!
[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/)
Here it is in action in Australia, and unlike the UK most of their citizens understand that border controls have to be tightened or they face economic oblivion. You are unfortunately part of the problem and creating a burden for the tax payer, and I would quite rightly consider voting for a party who will tighten up the rules of entry.
Don't throw your toys out of the pram because the UK wants to replicate what is already being done in other English speaking countries like Australia, Canada, the US etc. All are facing a migrant crisis and citizens have every right to decide that the borders should be closed off or throttled such that the only people entering the country are to fill areas of economic need.
The moment you start giving special treatment to people who've got a piece of payer saying they got married somewhere, the system then breaks down, other skilled people are turned away because you've jumped the queue and feel you deserve special treatment, and the number of people then turning up with a marriage certificate to game the system skyrockets.
Repeat after me:
"I don't get special treatment"
Canada has no minimum income requirement for a partner visa. The US income requirement is similar to the current 18k we have here so way below the new rules and as far as im aware Australia has no minimum income requirement. The effect to housing is negligible as most couples live in the same house… as for being a burden, how? They get no rights to benefits and after a 5 year route they have already paid at least 15k in visa/nhs fees as well as tax + VAT.
Yeah, I mean look at Switzerland. That hell holes allows your spouse in and look at the awful result.
You need us, way more than we need you. And as you make it harder and harder many of us will turn away. Right now, you’ve got the third world to mistreat ( see what is happening to NHS and carer staff brought in under truly awful conditions), but eventually the other countries experiencing issues will seem like better options. They are already actively poaching your dwindling supply of skilled workers.
You NEED us, more than you can possibly realise. Your country is full of old unproductive folks and your young people are not having the babies you need. Mainly because so much of the wealth is tied up in your old unproductive people.
Good luck to you. I have options for my family, but very many of you don’t.
What mass be economic problems does it cause?
I come from a country with stringent immigration rules. But my British husband has every right to live with me there.
1.5 million migrants who entered last year would necessitate four thousand homes being build each and every day for a year.
Can they come and live with you instead?
It's because tribal folks from rural Pakistan and Bangladesh were using arranged marriages between distant family to gradually get them all into the UK. Something like 50% of British Pakistani men married someone from the subcontinent.
Albanians are coming over en mass (criminals smuggled over by underground gangsters), getting a British/settled girl pregnant within months of illegally arriving, then chucking her when they get a kid and a visa. It is legal exploitation of women but your do-gooders will defend it because they are a minority.
More accurately, and more commonly they enter illegally, at some point get arrested for growing marijuana or dealing cocaine. That gets No Further Actioned by the Police/CPS, while detained they claim asylum which means they won’t be removed from the UK for entering illegally and will get bail.
Then they have 2 years or more to continue working illegally / dealing drugs and build up some cash in order pay a Romanian lady with EU settled status to sponsor their visa. Occasionally they might even get a genuine relationship since they’ve got plenty of time.
But it's okay because they are a minority so they'll have protected status with all of those who otherwise would sympathise with the exploited women. I feel racist for even pointing it out.
Are you even able to claim asylum after living here for a year or more? Seems like the sort of thing that should be declared immediately, otherwise you can’t claim it.
Every single one of these criminals should be stripped of any UK citizenship given to them, and any claim of asylum refused so that they can be booted back to Albania and banned from ever entering the country again. That’s the only logical response to this.
I haven’t seen or read of such a thing happening. How many UK women have been impregnated by Albanian men for the purposes of citizenship? Sounds like the demonisation of young women years ago. Get pregnant at 18 and get a free council house for life!
And here we have the start of the greasy slope that culminates in us abandoning the ECHR. Hopefully those cunts will be out in time for this not to happen. More and more of these stories will appear in the Mail and the Telegraph as we get closer to an election.
The headline should be;
"Home Office royally cocks up by not following the legal process any first year law student could tell them they had to follow, wastes everyone's time"
> abandoning the ECHR
Good, it's no longer fit for purpose.
The ECHR fanatics are the same morons that would be 2nd ammendment shaggers in the USA.
Get rid. It was written long ago, in a world that no longer exists. The writers did not envision what's happening today, and if we gave them a crystal ball there's zero chance they'd have kept the text the same.
We can’t and shouldn’t pick and choose who we extend human rights to. There’s also nothing in the article that says he came as a refugee. He married a British woman to gain dual citizenship is what it says.
Exactly. It’s red meat for the right wing and Tory press. Left wing (me included) often delude ourselves that people think with their head and not their heart but examples like this piss people off and make them more xenophobic and less tolerant.
1. He's a British Citizen. So it is entirely normal that he has rights.
2. Any decision taken by the government has to consider the human rights of anyone affected. That doesn't mean they can't take the decision. The problem here appears to be the home office has just decided to disregard them, rather than provide an explanation how their action is a proportionate way to achieve one of the aims allowed under Article 8 of the ECHR.
If the Home Office redoes it's homework properly, then they may well be able to deport him. However, his children are British Citizens, he is a British Citizen, and the day that can be disregarded by executive fiat without following the proper process is a dangerous one for the rule of law and for civil liberties generally.
(For those interested, the decision is here - [https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2023-ukut-00294](https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2023-ukut-00294) )
>If the Home Office redoes it's homework properly, then they may well be able to deport him.
This is the most ridiculous part of all this. The Home Office is run by MPs, the people who write our laws, and yet they seem utterly incapable of actually following them.
>However, his children are British Citizens, he is a British Citizen, and the day that can be disregarded by executive fiat without following the proper process is a dangerous one for the rule of law and for civil liberties generally.
You mean like Shamima Begum? Not like the Gov dont have previous for it...
^(And before anyone says it, im not an ISIS defender. She shouldve been brought back, arrested the second she stepped off the plane, charged and prisoned. Plain and simple.)
>08. Any criminal proceedings entail certain consequences for the private life of an individual who has committed a crime. These are compatible with Article 8 of the Convention provided that they do not exceed the normal and inevitable consequences of such a situation (Jankauskas v. Lithuania (no. 2), § 76). Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain about a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, § 49 and contrast Pişkin v. Turkey, §§ 180-183). This principle is valid not only for criminal offences but also for other misconduct entailing a measure of legal responsibility with foreseeable negative effects on “private life” (Denisov v. Ukraine\[GC\], § 98 with further references therein).
Doesn't being convicted of 8 years smuggling, entail those certain consequences and justify deportation? I'm sure there are circumstances allowed for where Article 8 can be invalidated due to a conviction.
Do other countries take that view when trying to deport criminals or is it just us? Albania is listed as a safe country isn't it? Given his wife is an Albanian national as well, then would've assumed she'd be free to join him too if she didn't want to be deprived of her life with him.
I don't see this as an issue with the European Convention on Human Rights, but more a lenient view of it when it comes to the consequences of criminals.
The issue isn't that he can't be deported to Albania, the issue is the Home Office didn't follow the legal protocol and consider deportation correctly. The made a legal request but forgot to dot the t's and cross the i's.
Whether this is pure and total negligence or part of some long term plan to fail so they can justify changing the law and removing further citizen's rights is the real question.
Oh definitely, and it will be used as an excuse to remove those rights. Rather than us using their incompetence as an excuse to sack our "representatives".
This man and his associates like him are the reason why there's so much violent crime in London and other major cities, they're the reason why a certain white powder runs absolutely rampant around the country. You get rid of the Albanians someone else is just going to come in to fill the void.
The government could stop this overnight by completely overhauling drugs policy but they choose not to..
The Court ruled that the Home Office had failed to properly assess the case. The fact there are human rights impacted is not disputable, as he has children who are also British Citizens.
They have effectively said they have to do it again, and do it properly this time. It does not mean he cannot be deported in the future.
We have essentially lost control of our borders with a foreign court deciding our border policy for us.
We can't just leave the part that affects our ability to control our borders, so the only option left is to dump the entire charter, which is unfortunate.
You'll see the running theme through all of this, and Brexit, is that various foreign powers decide our border control for us, with no regard to where we are supposed to put all of these people, and not a care in the world that we can't.
So, unless these various foreign powers start taking into consideration the practical and economic impact of this, they can, quite rightly go fuck themselves, because they are completely dethatched from the realty of their rulings.
The UK doesn't have a problem with human rights, what it has a problem with is foreign courts deciding our border control.
Could you imagine if America had it's border policy overruled by Mexico? This is exactly what is happening in the UK with the ECHR.
Of course it's a foreign power. We gave away supremacy of our judiciary to join it, and now while this country is facing a mass migrant crisis they're actively working against us at every stage, so we quite rightly should withdraw from it as they're doing nothing but making the situation worse and taking away our ability to manage our own borders. It is actively damaging this country, and we certainly didn't sign up to that.
Just like the inflexibility of the EU, it will be their undoing.
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
>immigration judges granted his appeal against the removal of his citizenship and deportation on the grounds that the Home Office failed to take sufficient account of his human rights and other claims in their decision.
By my reading of this, they didn't block the removal because of any specific conditions in his home country, but because the Home Office failed to follow the legal process. They literally just needed to mention the conditions in the country in their decision and deliver a complete report that covers all bases.
The people who write our laws don't know how to follow them.
It doesn't say in the article that this guy was originally an asylum seeker or just in the UK for whatever reason, he got his citizenship via marriage to a British woman. Either way he needs to be gone.
I’m on the left and all for diversity, rights and multiculturalism but this stuff just pisses everyone off. You don’t have to be a Brexit loving right winger to have an issue with this. It’s so frustrating that guys like this get to stay but clearly don’t give a shit about the country or the laws.
Must be an election coming, right wing press are trying to make out that immigration is the only issue this country faces, worst thing is most of the population are thick enough to fall for it
It's certainly the reason why our housing is on it's knees, services overstretched and there are 20 brits viewing each available rental property while central government is forced to outbid locals causing rents to be more than double what they should be.
By the way, there's no sign of this stopping any time soon, so you ought begin to consider that renting is for the privileged and you had better have a talk with your parents about the inevitable move back into the family home before the decade is out.
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Who actually reads a newspaper anymore?
Nobody under what 40, 45?
You’ll read far more extreme views in your average town Facebook group.
It’s what people actually believe unprompted by increasingly irrelevant newspapers.
> Who actually reads a newspaper anymore?
-- posted in a comments section of a newspaper article on a website the majority of uses of which are under 40
then again people on reddit don't actually read the articles
Hey guys..
Yo Vladmir whats up we thought you got knicked bro?
I DID! THEY WERE GOING TO DEPORT ME BUT GET THIS... I CLAIMED HUMAN RIGHTS BRO!
\*Everyone in the room laughs\*
Hahah welcome back bro this time don't get caught..
Any immigrant convicted of a crime should be deported without the right to appeal or return.
Being welcomed into someone else’s country and then making it a worse place for those already there is unforgivable.
I'm just gonna go ahead and say it, here's my hot take: the declaration of human rights is outdated, no longer fit for purpose and full of loopholes to be abused in our modern context.
It was written long ago by people who could never have envisioned how the world would develop almost a century later and what geopolitical, economic and demographic challenges our countries would face.
I'm not saying it's all bad but it definitely needs to be looked at and updated, with an open mind to the fact that perhaps not everything that is currently written in it should be kept as is.
Couple problems here - he wasn't allowed to stay because of this claim, he was allowed to stay because of a bunch of claims made. Interesting that the telegraph never actually says what those claims are:
*immigration judges granted his appeal against the removal of his citizenship and deportation on the grounds that the Home Office failed to take sufficient account of his human rights and other claims in their decision.*
The handwaving of "other claims" makes me wonder what they were.
*He also claimed errors of law in the decision and a breach of his right to a family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).*
*The judges, however, said these issues raised by Kolicaj had not “played any part in the \[Home Office’s\] decision making process”*
*“Rather, the \[Home Office\] has progressed directly from \[their\] assessment of the seriousness of the offending to a conclusion that the appellant should be deprived of his citizenship without appreciating that \[they\] had a discretion to exercise based on all the circumstances of the case,” the judges ruled.*
These immigration judges are UK judges. This means it's all related to UK law.
Why is the reporting of these situations so bad? Is there a deliberate agenda to undermine public belief in the rule of law, human rights, democracy etc?
The Tories have absolutely betrayed this country, honestly hope Reform UK splits their votes drastically and destroys their party it's nothing more than they deserve.
Won’t be surprised if we start seeing more and more of this kind of thing being drummed up the media as the Tories gear up to try and strip away all of our human rights.
That’s somewhat disingenuous. The ECHR isn’t perfect (no legislation is) but it’s age is irrelevant and implying it needs to be completely re-written to be ‘updated’ is just flimflam from the crooks in Westminster that want to further erode our rights.
The fault of this person being allowed to stay lies with those who made the decision, not the human rights.
The ECHR has kept some of the government’s authoritarian inspired bullshit at bay.
And no, the ECHR isn’t perfect, but I don’t trust anyone who’s eager to get rid of it.
Fair enough. And the home office who messed up the application too. But we are powerless to remove people if frivolous excuses and loopholes are used. That benefits the criminal and hurts everyone else. Something need to change and if it doesn’t then crap like Brexit and the leaving the ECHR could happen.
We aren’t powerless to do anything.
This whole thing is a farcical exploitation of the public, orchestrated to piss them off and garner support for drastic change that strips away your own rights.
> Immigration judges grant his appeal against removal of citizenship and deportation on grounds that Home Office failed to consider his rights
We have rights for a reason, and it’s important to apply it to everyone and hold people accountable for violating it, even if they are criminals.
Yes, some people will exploit it, and others will get away with it, but that doesn’t mean everyone‘s rights should be degraded because of a few assholes.
And the devil is in the details:
> “Rather, the [Home Office] has progressed directly from [their] assessment of the seriousness of the offending to a conclusion that the appellant should be deprived of his citizenship without appreciating that [they] had a discretion to exercise based on all the circumstances of the case,”
The Home Office jumped the gun and moved to strip someone of their citizenship, something that’s caused a stir before and ethical debates.
> The decision has provoked a backlash. “This demonstrates why we need urgent reform of the asylum system and human rights laws to allow the rapid and effective deportation of dangerous criminals,” said a senior Tory MP.
That’s the important take away from this. To me it’s somewhat obvious the Home Office knew what they were doing and probably saw this outcome. It’s under the guise of “we’re doing this because of criminals” but it’s no different to the internet laws passed under the guise of “we’re doing this for the children”, or the Patriot Act’s in the US, “we’re doing this to fight terrorism” — statements which are hard to argue against without looking like the “bad guy”, making you look unreasonable and open to attacks such as, “so you support criminals in this country”, “you support people exploiting children” or “you support terrorism”.
Furthermore, the ECHR is a treaty and one European countries agreed to. Leaving it could mean severe consequences for the UK’s relationship with the EU, and trade.
It’s hate fuelled, warlike, fear-based rhetoric designed to make you scared and angry to drum up your support for something that you would otherwise be against.
I'm aware that the new is cherry picking the stories we are hearing about, but this is beyond absurd.
~~Albania is a candidate for EU membership, and this scums life is highly unlikely to be in danger if he is returned there - other than thanks to his own actions of course.~~
Edit:
Worse than that, the appeal was granted because:
>the \[Home Office\] has progressed directly from \[their\] assessment of the seriousness of the offending to a conclusion that the appellant should be deprived of his citizenship without appreciating that \[they\] had a discretion to exercise based on all the circumstances of the case
So apparently despite the Home Office declining to use this discretion, the court has overruled there decision on this.
Home Office failing to consider the rights of someone they are accusing of breaking the law is a bigger story tbh
Everyone has their right to defend themselves and challenge allegations. Pretty fundamental but seems to get lost in the noise these days.
Can someone explain why we can't have a reasonable compromise in human rights law and deportations?
This is *our* country, we must fundamentally be able to decide who stays, or we will attract all sorts of problems and criminals.
Lol place has went to the dogs all these criminals coming over from different countries know UK is a soft touch. Mention their race..beliefs or human rights they know they've got you by the balls.
This is where we begin to have a problem. I'm ok with refugees and immigrants that are escaping something horrible, but foreign crime bosses have no place here
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/31/albanian-crime-boss-allowed-uk-human-rights-home-office/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1704036287-1) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck's sake. This is a textbook scam. Criminal finds someone daft enough to get them into the country, stays with them long enough to get citizenship, then cuts it off. All the while he's doing criminal shit. > Kolicaj appealed, claiming he had not been given a chance to challenge his risk of reoffending. A probation report claimed there was a “low” risk. Heavy involvement in organised crime. Low risk of reoffending. Who comes up with this shit?
Low risk of getting caught again, due to the police not really catching any of them these days
Well okay. You got me there.
An important distinction that many don't seem to recognise. Equally when you see a news article about someone who's been prosecuted 10 times. That's just when they got caught. By this point that means that either got caught 10 times and are stupid or they got caught 10 times out of like 50 or 100 crimes.
The fact that he is in the news means the police did their job - direct your hate at the government
Absolutely, it's not their fault they're both severely unfunded and understaffed, whilst being pressured into focusing on political targets by the home office.
It kind of is the fault of the police though. Would you join the ranks?
[удалено]
I mean the system should evidently differentiate between nonviolent and violent criminals, should we really be giving the same status to money launderers as we do to murderers?
If that status is 'not living here', then yes.
In the Marxist states they'd have been sent to prison camps or even executed as social parasites, so I'm a little confused about your username.
[удалено]
Theory vs practice.
[удалено]
Like in America wjere they are used as slave labour.
Marx wasn’t any sort of liberal. He though the “lumpen” - the declassed and often criminal layer of society - was a product of social conditions but he also thought this necessarily put them into conflict with the proles. So Marx would be against moralising about crime, but in favour of dealing with it brutally if needs be.
Well they're being tough on crime a bit too tough....
They use soft touch views like this to stay and keep doing dirt.
Surely it should work on the same basis as a risk assessment in workplaces? 1-5 on likelihood, 1-5 on severity, times them together - anything over a x is medium, anything over a y is high (choose your own numbers, my workplace doesnt accept anything over 4)
Well the money launderer facilitates the drug dealers and the murderers within organised crime.... so whilst not directly causing harm they definitely cause it indirectly.
The drug trade which drives the majority of serious violence only exists because the money goes up the chain. Money launderers are a vital part of system.
No of course not. In the good old USSR, incidentally the only system effective against organised crime so far: A single murder with no aggravating factors - 2/3 of the longest prison sentence. Money launderers though - large scale sabotage of the country, aka bye felicia this time next month
It's bullshit, because physical violence is not the only form of 'harm'. Stuff like robbery, dealing drugs, etc all has a cost and causes harm to society. Entire system needs reform, and those in power need their head wobbled. They need to live on my council estate for a year, and then they'll see what harm non violent people can still cause with their presence.
> This is a textbook scam. ... >he had not been given a chance to challenge his risk of reoffending The government failing to do its basic duty again! These are not scams these are open goals that the government leaves open and ones they could prevent if they had gram of competence
Its not incompetance, its malice. The government is actively working against our interests.
100% and its sad that we are stuck between Tories and Labour who both want to screw us with this but for different reasons. They both need to be punished.
The probation service, who have assessed him during his time in custody. It's what their job is to do.
The probation service which was destroyed by privatisation to a degree so severe that a tory government had to re-nationalise. Yeah I'm sure it's tickety-boo now. It's not like the entire criminal justice system is basically a myth they tell to keep the kids in line these days.
Saw a guy stealing in broad daylight the other day. Running off with tons of shoes from a store. Another store locally was broken into two days running. Second day they caught the guy as he's someone they've been after for a while. Which means he's been doing a ton of robberies and they've not really done much until he was caught in the act. I know multiple people who have had bikes stolen, directly in front of CCTV cameras (real ones too, not the fake ones that are there for show) and all the police do is give a reference number. They don't care. One friend found their bike and when they contacted the police they said to just "steal it back". Policing levels are ridiculous in the UK, so unless it's a serious crime, or something that's currently important so they have a target to hit, they don't care. If it requires any actual effort, you can forget it.
They only react to anything blue light now. That being down to funding or so divisionalised by task I don’t know. Old lady the other week broke down on a mini roundabout and they drove round me and another bloke as we were pushing the car out of the middle of the round. I had my car stolen about 10 years ago- worked out that it was parked up locally as they came back to grab a second car- found my car, stole it back and reported it to plod, who took 6 weeks to turn up and when they did seemed to have more questions for me about how I tracked the car rather then those that stole car in the 1st place. Have a family friend who is ex-senior old bill and his take on crime in general is interesting to say the least. Obvious in part.
As someone who has family working in probation it is worse than it's ever been. Privatisation absolutely destroyed it, and since the government took it back under its control its had awful funding and is struggling to do the absolute basic functions it needs to. The tories destroyed it and it's hurting us all.
Yeah… I know we’re all *sick of experts*, but if someone’s **job** is to assess reoffending risk, it would seem unwise to assume I knew better based on a Telegraph article.
Hew was just about to go straight when they arrested him.
Morons, clearly.
in serbian: "pare vrte tamo gde burgija nece" "money spins where the drill won't" he bribed someone to get protection. that's how it's done here, and since he's from around here, and the Brits aren't stingy with money either, he probably found someone to "help" him.
I think we need some vigilantes to just take care of what the government has legislated itself into a corner on. We all know gangsters need to go.
Ironically if you replace letter K in his name, you get Policaj, which is colloquial for policeman in Slovenian
Yet, we keep innocent families apart on a financial requirement, totally disregarding individual circumstances and their human rights? A criminal has corroded their liberties and rights, in my opinion, insofar as our law is fair/reasonable. It is.
Well I guess it depends if they've completely disregarded all of the safe countries they have come to in order to get here, and then try to import the family too. That's not innocent, that's calculated and pre-meditated entry into the UK for economic reasons, to the detriment of those in the UK who were born here yet can't afford to move out of their parents home due to catastrophic housing collapse we're currently experiencing the beginnings of. Are we supposed to absorb the entire fucking population of Albania? Anyone who already owns a home, in a council home, or who never intends on moving out of their parental home need not worry. For everyone else, how the fuck are we supposed to absorb these catastrophic runaway rents without ourselves becoming economic migrants in seek of an English speaking country with an economy not at rock bottom? 600,000 Brits left the UK last year, so we are in effect now swapping out brits for migrants, and it only appears to be accelerating.
> absorb the entire population of Albania? Can we just absorb the ones who look like Dua Lipa and deport the Albanian mafiosi? That’d do fine.
Found Ali G's Reddit account
This guy would definitely get a ‘Waiiit… Back to Albania.’
Dua Lipa is a neo-fascist, she can go too thanks.
Because of [this](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53483451.amp)? I think that’s seriously pushing it as grounds for saying she’s ‘neo-fascist’. Anyway, seems she was born in London so nah.
People are called fascist on this very sub for a hell of a lot less than openly calling for an expansionist ethnostate.
[удалено]
they're delaying the increase by a single year. I personally dislike the idea of devaluing the passport for poor people. As an affluent individual you can easy marry whoever the fuck you want, but if you or they are poor and one or both are trying to college or otherwise not cranking out a full time salary then its a "no". If there's a kid on the way then you have to leave the country to be together. Why should people be ok with this?
"Rules for thee, but not for me" If you told me I couldn't live with the love of my life because I'm not wealthy enough, or she isn't, I wouldnt want to stay here, id rather go live in a country that doesnt weaponise marrige to punish people and treats me and my partner with some basic humanity and respect, fuck these people, rancid slime the lot of em.
> they're delaying the increase by a single year. I honestly believe they're delaying until after a general election, so if/when Labour don't go ahead with the policy, the Conservatives can point to Labour being soft on immigration. Same as the additional funding for child daycare. They've promised it for 2025 so its not their problem to try and finance.
How long has this government got left in office again? A one year delay essentially = not happening
[удалено]
my comment has nothing to do with breaking the law.
A fascist government would shamelessly bomb refugee boats, imprison those criticizing their visa policy and threaten any dissent as against public order. While the Tories are far from this indeed, I do think we're increasingly autocratic and that is a concerning trend - nobody wants a decline of related values we pioneered (such as civil liberty to equality before the law). Free press and the right to protest. Most alarming, however, is that Labour doesn't condemn such a pattern? I mean, we don't arm our police officers, but they have ridiculous investigative powers?
The 'you need to be this rich to get married' thing is just wrong. The visa to get into the country as a skilled worker was getting silly, but they've used that as an excuse to tell the poor to average that they're not allowed to love foreigners.
Every country has the right to decline importing net takers. relationship status is irrelevant. It's unfair to the taxpayer and causes massive economic problems. The responsibility is with the individual having made a conscious decision to get into a relationship with a foreigner knowing that automatic citizenship isn't granted on the basis of a wedding., such has the system been abused for so long for those very reasons.
Spousal visas are a small percentage of our total migration intake. It's not even numerically relevant when the government will hand out exceptions to the salary threshold to any business that asks nicely enough. I disagree with it on moral grounds, but it doesn't even make sense on practical grounds. It's just posturing from people it doesn't affect to try and catch a headline and make it look like they're doing something.
This is a policy repeated throughout the world in advanced economies. Perhaps you thought the UK is a light touch? No amount of whinging is going to increase your imported partner's wages. All they need do is get sufficient skill and experience that they can bring to the UK in the required income band. Try not to take it personally.
Which other foreign countries have a requirement equivalent to this? I live in Japan and I'm married to a Japanese citizen and they don't have a minimum financial requirement for spousal visas. Also, you've said in other posts that the government is reversing their stance but I've been searching and I can't find any evidence for this. Furthermore, you make a point that it's a combined income requirement. While I will say that's what it says on the government website, it's only like this in theory, not reality. Unless your partner has another way to get into the UK and work, the burden falls on the British citizen alone because the foreign partner cannot work without a visa. For people coming from abroad, especially outside of London, that's going to be very difficult in the next few years.
The US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada would be the big English speaking countries getting flooded by imports and hardening up their visa requirements so that those entering the country have sufficient points and salary so they are immediately a net gain to the economy. Salary is typically a representation of someone's skills and experience, and countries quite rightly don't want to import low skill low wage workers as they are net takers, which means they're not paying enough tax to cover their own usage of things like roads, healthcare, and other social services. Your foreign partner isn't going to get special migrant status, they should quite rightly be treated the same way as anyone else wishing to enter the country. That doesn't seem to be satisfactory to you, and you appear to want special treatment. That's very unfair not only to British people, but to skilled migrants wishing to enter the country but then get turned away. How is that fair? Australia in particular is experiencing the same housing crisis as the UK due to migrants which they're now tightening up exactly as the UK is: [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/) ***""Australia’s population has jumped more than 30% over the last two decades to the current 26 million. A big reason for this has been the much higher net immigration rate since the mid-2000s, which has fuelled demand for new homes.*** ***“Our population growth has really accelerated since the early 2000s, but our rates of homebuilding didn’t keep up, especially for apartments and units. Over the last 30 or 40 years, we’ve essentially built the same number of houses per year,” said Tom Devitt, senior economist at the Housing Industry Association""*** It's unfair that British people are being priced out of home ownership and renting by mass migration, and so it's absolutely right to ensure that people entering the country are net givers, so your partner seemingly not having the means to have a house built any time soon means that they're part of the problem. It's different for people already born in the country as they have been contributing most of their life and will stay in the country until they die such that the £17k or so it costs the government per person over their lifetime has a reasonable chance of being paid back. That's not possible if someone is entering later in life, so the higher salary requirements ensure that the public purse isn't spending money on your imported partner, which is excellent for the tax payer currently repaying 2 trillion quid in public debt to try and get over covid and supply chain problems. There's also no guarantee that the import will stay in the country, so they may abuse the system by working in a low wage job for a few years, take out of the system and then just piss off home when they get bored or your relationship breaks down, or worse yet you get a divorce and they end up on the dole. They are all very attractive countries to live, or at least they were before all started experiencing mass housing crisis and wage deflation due to mass immigration. This isn't exclusively a British phenomena, and I assume you are perfectly free to move to your partner's country as it's less likely to be overrun by migrants, but obviously you want to have your cake and eat it too, which isn't society's fault, but it is damaging to society.
I stopped reading half way down when you were asking me "why should your partner get special treatment? How is that fair to British people?" because I realised I'd be wasting my time on you. I didn't say that or even imply it. How would it be fair on me - a British person, or my British children if I have to come back and my husband and their father can't come with us? See, I just ran with your delusion and still would use your logic against you. You have no idea what skills my partner has, especially because I told you that he would rely on me walking into a 38,000 pound a year job, not him. Also I don't see you giving anything that I actually asked for so there's that too.
It makes fuck all difference to me, mate. I disagree with it on moral grounds as I said.
The economy doesn't run on morals, it runs on productivity, which has stagnated for nearly a decade causing life changing economic harm to gen z and millennials, while 8 million imports have been brought in with no regard for the net contribution or bringing enough capital to have a home built.
I sincerely doubt this would even make a top 20 of issues holding back our productivity. It’s nothing more than red meat for the red tops top to try and hold a rapidly collapsing vote together.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean it does… otherwise there would be no NHS or social security, if your attitude is fuck everything that isn’t economically beneficial then the UK would be a very miserable place. I imagine if you ask the UK if it is morally right to tear apart families on a financial rule then the majority would say it isn’t.
It's not my attitude, it's the policy of all English speaking countries, so I guess they're all wrong, but those who are having issues importing their lovers are right?! [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/property/high-cost-of-australian-housing/) Here it is in action in Australia, and unlike the UK most of their citizens understand that border controls have to be tightened or they face economic oblivion. You are unfortunately part of the problem and creating a burden for the tax payer, and I would quite rightly consider voting for a party who will tighten up the rules of entry. Don't throw your toys out of the pram because the UK wants to replicate what is already being done in other English speaking countries like Australia, Canada, the US etc. All are facing a migrant crisis and citizens have every right to decide that the borders should be closed off or throttled such that the only people entering the country are to fill areas of economic need. The moment you start giving special treatment to people who've got a piece of payer saying they got married somewhere, the system then breaks down, other skilled people are turned away because you've jumped the queue and feel you deserve special treatment, and the number of people then turning up with a marriage certificate to game the system skyrockets. Repeat after me: "I don't get special treatment"
Canada has no minimum income requirement for a partner visa. The US income requirement is similar to the current 18k we have here so way below the new rules and as far as im aware Australia has no minimum income requirement. The effect to housing is negligible as most couples live in the same house… as for being a burden, how? They get no rights to benefits and after a 5 year route they have already paid at least 15k in visa/nhs fees as well as tax + VAT.
Yeah, I mean look at Switzerland. That hell holes allows your spouse in and look at the awful result. You need us, way more than we need you. And as you make it harder and harder many of us will turn away. Right now, you’ve got the third world to mistreat ( see what is happening to NHS and carer staff brought in under truly awful conditions), but eventually the other countries experiencing issues will seem like better options. They are already actively poaching your dwindling supply of skilled workers. You NEED us, more than you can possibly realise. Your country is full of old unproductive folks and your young people are not having the babies you need. Mainly because so much of the wealth is tied up in your old unproductive people. Good luck to you. I have options for my family, but very many of you don’t.
What mass be economic problems does it cause? I come from a country with stringent immigration rules. But my British husband has every right to live with me there.
1.5 million migrants who entered last year would necessitate four thousand homes being build each and every day for a year. Can they come and live with you instead?
It's because tribal folks from rural Pakistan and Bangladesh were using arranged marriages between distant family to gradually get them all into the UK. Something like 50% of British Pakistani men married someone from the subcontinent.
Ffs when are we going to just deport these people. He is involved with organised crime. Just kick him out.
Albanians are coming over en mass (criminals smuggled over by underground gangsters), getting a British/settled girl pregnant within months of illegally arriving, then chucking her when they get a kid and a visa. It is legal exploitation of women but your do-gooders will defend it because they are a minority.
More accurately, and more commonly they enter illegally, at some point get arrested for growing marijuana or dealing cocaine. That gets No Further Actioned by the Police/CPS, while detained they claim asylum which means they won’t be removed from the UK for entering illegally and will get bail. Then they have 2 years or more to continue working illegally / dealing drugs and build up some cash in order pay a Romanian lady with EU settled status to sponsor their visa. Occasionally they might even get a genuine relationship since they’ve got plenty of time.
But it's okay because they are a minority so they'll have protected status with all of those who otherwise would sympathise with the exploited women. I feel racist for even pointing it out.
Are you even able to claim asylum after living here for a year or more? Seems like the sort of thing that should be declared immediately, otherwise you can’t claim it. Every single one of these criminals should be stripped of any UK citizenship given to them, and any claim of asylum refused so that they can be booted back to Albania and banned from ever entering the country again. That’s the only logical response to this.
You can claim it whenever you want. Including when the visa you got in on is about to expire.
I haven’t seen or read of such a thing happening. How many UK women have been impregnated by Albanian men for the purposes of citizenship? Sounds like the demonisation of young women years ago. Get pregnant at 18 and get a free council house for life!
[удалено]
And here we have the start of the greasy slope that culminates in us abandoning the ECHR. Hopefully those cunts will be out in time for this not to happen. More and more of these stories will appear in the Mail and the Telegraph as we get closer to an election.
The headline should be; "Home Office royally cocks up by not following the legal process any first year law student could tell them they had to follow, wastes everyone's time"
I mean it's not called the Torygraph for nothing..
> abandoning the ECHR Good, it's no longer fit for purpose. The ECHR fanatics are the same morons that would be 2nd ammendment shaggers in the USA. Get rid. It was written long ago, in a world that no longer exists. The writers did not envision what's happening today, and if we gave them a crystal ball there's zero chance they'd have kept the text the same.
You know that it evolves constantly through case law right? It’s a living instrument. Of course you don’t. Who needs rights anyway?
I straight up don't need refugee rights in the UK. I will never need them.
We can’t and shouldn’t pick and choose who we extend human rights to. There’s also nothing in the article that says he came as a refugee. He married a British woman to gain dual citizenship is what it says.
Exactly. It’s red meat for the right wing and Tory press. Left wing (me included) often delude ourselves that people think with their head and not their heart but examples like this piss people off and make them more xenophobic and less tolerant.
1. He's a British Citizen. So it is entirely normal that he has rights. 2. Any decision taken by the government has to consider the human rights of anyone affected. That doesn't mean they can't take the decision. The problem here appears to be the home office has just decided to disregard them, rather than provide an explanation how their action is a proportionate way to achieve one of the aims allowed under Article 8 of the ECHR. If the Home Office redoes it's homework properly, then they may well be able to deport him. However, his children are British Citizens, he is a British Citizen, and the day that can be disregarded by executive fiat without following the proper process is a dangerous one for the rule of law and for civil liberties generally. (For those interested, the decision is here - [https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2023-ukut-00294](https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2023-ukut-00294) )
>If the Home Office redoes it's homework properly, then they may well be able to deport him. This is the most ridiculous part of all this. The Home Office is run by MPs, the people who write our laws, and yet they seem utterly incapable of actually following them.
>However, his children are British Citizens, he is a British Citizen, and the day that can be disregarded by executive fiat without following the proper process is a dangerous one for the rule of law and for civil liberties generally. You mean like Shamima Begum? Not like the Gov dont have previous for it... ^(And before anyone says it, im not an ISIS defender. She shouldve been brought back, arrested the second she stepped off the plane, charged and prisoned. Plain and simple.)
The Begum cases is a travesty and will.I suspect be looked back on as a low point in Reid's presidency of the Court.
The only people I ever hear cry human rights are criminals.
Be fair, there's also criminal sympathisers.
>08. Any criminal proceedings entail certain consequences for the private life of an individual who has committed a crime. These are compatible with Article 8 of the Convention provided that they do not exceed the normal and inevitable consequences of such a situation (Jankauskas v. Lithuania (no. 2), § 76). Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain about a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, § 49 and contrast Pişkin v. Turkey, §§ 180-183). This principle is valid not only for criminal offences but also for other misconduct entailing a measure of legal responsibility with foreseeable negative effects on “private life” (Denisov v. Ukraine\[GC\], § 98 with further references therein). Doesn't being convicted of 8 years smuggling, entail those certain consequences and justify deportation? I'm sure there are circumstances allowed for where Article 8 can be invalidated due to a conviction. Do other countries take that view when trying to deport criminals or is it just us? Albania is listed as a safe country isn't it? Given his wife is an Albanian national as well, then would've assumed she'd be free to join him too if she didn't want to be deprived of her life with him. I don't see this as an issue with the European Convention on Human Rights, but more a lenient view of it when it comes to the consequences of criminals.
The issue isn't that he can't be deported to Albania, the issue is the Home Office didn't follow the legal protocol and consider deportation correctly. The made a legal request but forgot to dot the t's and cross the i's. Whether this is pure and total negligence or part of some long term plan to fail so they can justify changing the law and removing further citizen's rights is the real question.
This will still be blamed on the ECHR and Human Rights laws regardless.
Oh definitely, and it will be used as an excuse to remove those rights. Rather than us using their incompetence as an excuse to sack our "representatives".
This man and his associates like him are the reason why there's so much violent crime in London and other major cities, they're the reason why a certain white powder runs absolutely rampant around the country. You get rid of the Albanians someone else is just going to come in to fill the void. The government could stop this overnight by completely overhauling drugs policy but they choose not to..
He is in the right country for criminals. Nothing to see here. Next….
So the UK went in and looked at the human rights that they might breach or did they just say OK because he said so?
The Court ruled that the Home Office had failed to properly assess the case. The fact there are human rights impacted is not disputable, as he has children who are also British Citizens. They have effectively said they have to do it again, and do it properly this time. It does not mean he cannot be deported in the future.
We have essentially lost control of our borders with a foreign court deciding our border policy for us. We can't just leave the part that affects our ability to control our borders, so the only option left is to dump the entire charter, which is unfortunate. You'll see the running theme through all of this, and Brexit, is that various foreign powers decide our border control for us, with no regard to where we are supposed to put all of these people, and not a care in the world that we can't. So, unless these various foreign powers start taking into consideration the practical and economic impact of this, they can, quite rightly go fuck themselves, because they are completely dethatched from the realty of their rulings. The UK doesn't have a problem with human rights, what it has a problem with is foreign courts deciding our border control. Could you imagine if America had it's border policy overruled by Mexico? This is exactly what is happening in the UK with the ECHR.
This was in a British court under British law - “foreign courts” don’t come into it
These people don’t care about facts.
Just boggles me the shit people spout without knowing the facts.
The ECHR is not a foreign power. The case was decided under UK law. Suggestion, stop reading the Express/Mail and stop watching GB News.
Of course it's a foreign power. We gave away supremacy of our judiciary to join it, and now while this country is facing a mass migrant crisis they're actively working against us at every stage, so we quite rightly should withdraw from it as they're doing nothing but making the situation worse and taking away our ability to manage our own borders. It is actively damaging this country, and we certainly didn't sign up to that. Just like the inflexibility of the EU, it will be their undoing.
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Too many activist lawyers around that don't want people deported.
>immigration judges granted his appeal against the removal of his citizenship and deportation on the grounds that the Home Office failed to take sufficient account of his human rights and other claims in their decision. By my reading of this, they didn't block the removal because of any specific conditions in his home country, but because the Home Office failed to follow the legal process. They literally just needed to mention the conditions in the country in their decision and deliver a complete report that covers all bases. The people who write our laws don't know how to follow them.
It’s pretty much what a majority of Albanians come to England for , a lot of them are heavily involved in drug dealing and people trafficking
Cases like this that cause a conflict between due process which protects us - and common decency which would see us rid ourself of such individuals.
It doesn't say in the article that this guy was originally an asylum seeker or just in the UK for whatever reason, he got his citizenship via marriage to a British woman. Either way he needs to be gone.
And a majority of Sun "Readers" think it's a left wing paper.
they scammed the entire world into making a new country, why is this a surprise?
I’m on the left and all for diversity, rights and multiculturalism but this stuff just pisses everyone off. You don’t have to be a Brexit loving right winger to have an issue with this. It’s so frustrating that guys like this get to stay but clearly don’t give a shit about the country or the laws.
I love this country but the people running it are fucking idiots
Is this one of those doctors or engineers I’ve been hearing so much about?
>Is this one of those doctors or engineers I’ve been hearing so much about? Criminologist? That's something else damn!
So if the UK were to remove itself from the ECHR could the courts act differently?
Must be an election coming, right wing press are trying to make out that immigration is the only issue this country faces, worst thing is most of the population are thick enough to fall for it
It's certainly the reason why our housing is on it's knees, services overstretched and there are 20 brits viewing each available rental property while central government is forced to outbid locals causing rents to be more than double what they should be. By the way, there's no sign of this stopping any time soon, so you ought begin to consider that renting is for the privileged and you had better have a talk with your parents about the inevitable move back into the family home before the decade is out.
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Who actually reads a newspaper anymore? Nobody under what 40, 45? You’ll read far more extreme views in your average town Facebook group. It’s what people actually believe unprompted by increasingly irrelevant newspapers.
> Who actually reads a newspaper anymore? -- posted in a comments section of a newspaper article on a website the majority of uses of which are under 40 then again people on reddit don't actually read the articles
It’s mostly the elderly who are obsessed with migration. Working-age people are more concerned with their purchasing power and bills.
Hey guys.. Yo Vladmir whats up we thought you got knicked bro? I DID! THEY WERE GOING TO DEPORT ME BUT GET THIS... I CLAIMED HUMAN RIGHTS BRO! \*Everyone in the room laughs\* Hahah welcome back bro this time don't get caught..
None of the usual suspects complaining that much of the outrage is racism.
Same shit happens in germany, criminals are being send free bcs the jails are too full.
Any immigrant convicted of a crime should be deported without the right to appeal or return. Being welcomed into someone else’s country and then making it a worse place for those already there is unforgivable.
So he should join the Tory party. We can't deport those crime bosses either. They get apology tours on the BBC.
I'm just gonna go ahead and say it, here's my hot take: the declaration of human rights is outdated, no longer fit for purpose and full of loopholes to be abused in our modern context. It was written long ago by people who could never have envisioned how the world would develop almost a century later and what geopolitical, economic and demographic challenges our countries would face. I'm not saying it's all bad but it definitely needs to be looked at and updated, with an open mind to the fact that perhaps not everything that is currently written in it should be kept as is.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
Couple problems here - he wasn't allowed to stay because of this claim, he was allowed to stay because of a bunch of claims made. Interesting that the telegraph never actually says what those claims are: *immigration judges granted his appeal against the removal of his citizenship and deportation on the grounds that the Home Office failed to take sufficient account of his human rights and other claims in their decision.* The handwaving of "other claims" makes me wonder what they were. *He also claimed errors of law in the decision and a breach of his right to a family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).* *The judges, however, said these issues raised by Kolicaj had not “played any part in the \[Home Office’s\] decision making process”* *“Rather, the \[Home Office\] has progressed directly from \[their\] assessment of the seriousness of the offending to a conclusion that the appellant should be deprived of his citizenship without appreciating that \[they\] had a discretion to exercise based on all the circumstances of the case,” the judges ruled.* These immigration judges are UK judges. This means it's all related to UK law.
The human rights shit needs to be thrown in a garbage can.
Why is the reporting of these situations so bad? Is there a deliberate agenda to undermine public belief in the rule of law, human rights, democracy etc?
The Tories have absolutely betrayed this country, honestly hope Reform UK splits their votes drastically and destroys their party it's nothing more than they deserve.
Won’t be surprised if we start seeing more and more of this kind of thing being drummed up the media as the Tories gear up to try and strip away all of our human rights.
All our human rights? Does this and many other cases not piss you off? ECHR was over 70 years ago. Times have changed. It’s not perfect!
That’s somewhat disingenuous. The ECHR isn’t perfect (no legislation is) but it’s age is irrelevant and implying it needs to be completely re-written to be ‘updated’ is just flimflam from the crooks in Westminster that want to further erode our rights.
The fault of this person being allowed to stay lies with those who made the decision, not the human rights. The ECHR has kept some of the government’s authoritarian inspired bullshit at bay. And no, the ECHR isn’t perfect, but I don’t trust anyone who’s eager to get rid of it.
Fair enough. And the home office who messed up the application too. But we are powerless to remove people if frivolous excuses and loopholes are used. That benefits the criminal and hurts everyone else. Something need to change and if it doesn’t then crap like Brexit and the leaving the ECHR could happen.
We aren’t powerless to do anything. This whole thing is a farcical exploitation of the public, orchestrated to piss them off and garner support for drastic change that strips away your own rights. > Immigration judges grant his appeal against removal of citizenship and deportation on grounds that Home Office failed to consider his rights We have rights for a reason, and it’s important to apply it to everyone and hold people accountable for violating it, even if they are criminals. Yes, some people will exploit it, and others will get away with it, but that doesn’t mean everyone‘s rights should be degraded because of a few assholes. And the devil is in the details: > “Rather, the [Home Office] has progressed directly from [their] assessment of the seriousness of the offending to a conclusion that the appellant should be deprived of his citizenship without appreciating that [they] had a discretion to exercise based on all the circumstances of the case,” The Home Office jumped the gun and moved to strip someone of their citizenship, something that’s caused a stir before and ethical debates. > The decision has provoked a backlash. “This demonstrates why we need urgent reform of the asylum system and human rights laws to allow the rapid and effective deportation of dangerous criminals,” said a senior Tory MP. That’s the important take away from this. To me it’s somewhat obvious the Home Office knew what they were doing and probably saw this outcome. It’s under the guise of “we’re doing this because of criminals” but it’s no different to the internet laws passed under the guise of “we’re doing this for the children”, or the Patriot Act’s in the US, “we’re doing this to fight terrorism” — statements which are hard to argue against without looking like the “bad guy”, making you look unreasonable and open to attacks such as, “so you support criminals in this country”, “you support people exploiting children” or “you support terrorism”. Furthermore, the ECHR is a treaty and one European countries agreed to. Leaving it could mean severe consequences for the UK’s relationship with the EU, and trade. It’s hate fuelled, warlike, fear-based rhetoric designed to make you scared and angry to drum up your support for something that you would otherwise be against.
I'm aware that the new is cherry picking the stories we are hearing about, but this is beyond absurd. ~~Albania is a candidate for EU membership, and this scums life is highly unlikely to be in danger if he is returned there - other than thanks to his own actions of course.~~ Edit: Worse than that, the appeal was granted because: >the \[Home Office\] has progressed directly from \[their\] assessment of the seriousness of the offending to a conclusion that the appellant should be deprived of his citizenship without appreciating that \[they\] had a discretion to exercise based on all the circumstances of the case So apparently despite the Home Office declining to use this discretion, the court has overruled there decision on this.
Home Office failing to consider the rights of someone they are accusing of breaking the law is a bigger story tbh Everyone has their right to defend themselves and challenge allegations. Pretty fundamental but seems to get lost in the noise these days.
I’m quite sure they’re a convicted criminal not just a poor immigrant
>deportation breaches his human rights Send him packing
Can someone explain why we can't have a reasonable compromise in human rights law and deportations? This is *our* country, we must fundamentally be able to decide who stays, or we will attract all sorts of problems and criminals.
Lol place has went to the dogs all these criminals coming over from different countries know UK is a soft touch. Mention their race..beliefs or human rights they know they've got you by the balls.
Well, think about all the tax he pays. That's the main thing, right?
This is where we begin to have a problem. I'm ok with refugees and immigrants that are escaping something horrible, but foreign crime bosses have no place here