Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

So the gentleman concerned whom was wrongly said used Human Rights law to stay (because he had a cat) actually stayed because he was in a long-term relationship - not married, but these days many people aren't married so I accept that, but is it still right?

He should have registered his change in circumstances and applied to stay permanently, but he didn't so he should have gone back to Bolivia - with his partner, whom I assume he had told about the temporary nature of his residence.

Or have I totally got this wrong? People are sending me abuse (I've been called a vile person) but not actually correcting me on the facts.
 
El_george said:
So the gentleman concerned whom was wrongly said used Human Rights law to stay (because he had a cat) actually stayed because he was in a long-term relationship - not married, but these days many people aren't married so I accept that, but is it still right?

He should have registered his change in circumstances and applied to stay permanently, but he didn't so he should have gone back to Bolivia - with his partner, whom I assume he had told about the temporary nature of his residence.

Or have I totally got this wrong? People are sending me abuse (I've been called a vile person) but not actually correcting me on the facts.
Click to expand...

okay let’s take it back to the beginning.

I asked you which human rights you thought should have been changed.

you then went off on a rant about various cases that you thought were terrible without actually identifying the right that you thought should be changed

the closest you came was actually the cat one, but you said that decision was due to the right for family life.

you were wrong about that. There isn’t a right to family life. The right you were thinking of was article 8 of the human rights convention. So the rest of your opinion is built on that basic misconception. That’s why you were wrong.

I’m not going to tell you what article 8 actually says, you can look it up for yourself, think about it, and when you’ve done that, then you might actually have a valid opinion about how and why it should be changed. But article 8 doesn’t guarantee a right to family life.
 
Chris in London said:
okay let’s take it back to the beginning.

I asked you which human rights you thought should have been changed.

you then went off on a rant about various cases that you thought were terrible without actually identifying the right that you thought should be changed

the closest you came was actually the cat one, but you said that decision was due to the right for family life.

you were wrong about that. There isn’t a right to family life. The right you were thinking of was article 8 of the human rights convention. So the rest of your opinion is built on that basic misconception. That’s why you were wrong.

I’m not going to tell you what article 8 actually says, you can look it up for yourself, think about it, and when you’ve done that, then you might actually have a valid opinion about how and why it should be changed. But article 8 doesn’t guarantee a right to family life.
Click to expand...
I doubt he knows he’s conversing with a solicitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.