+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Culture (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-49.html)
+--- Forum: Games, Sports & Hobbies (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-53.html)
+--- Thread: Home Office admits 170 'dangerous' foreign nationals cannot be deported (UK games) (/thread-19340.html)
Home Office admits 170 'dangerous' foreign nationals cannot be deported (UK games) - C C - Dec 7, 2025
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15360493/Home-Office-dangerous-foreign-nationals-deported.html
EXCERPTS: Dozens of 'dangerous' foreign nationals are being allowed to keep living in the UK as the Home Office cannot deport them due to human rights laws. Some 170 people who pose a threat to public safety are currently being housed under restrictions across the country, government documents show.
And more than half of these individuals are reported to 'have been involved in terrorism or extremism-related activities'. It is understood that some of the restrictions imposed on the foreign nationals may include 24-hour surveillance and wearing an ankle monitor.
However, it is not clear exactly what measures are in force and on how many of the security threats who cannot be booted out. Currently failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals are avoiding being deported back to their home countries after claiming a right to family life.
This right is set out under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of which the UK remains a member. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has promised an overhaul of human rights laws and tighter controls on immigration.
[...] A Home Office minister told the Sunday Express that it was 'disgraceful' that dangerous foreign nationals have been allowed to stay in the UK.
[...] Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: 'Our broken borders are a national security emergency. We have to leave the ECHR and deport every single one of these terrorists and extremists. This government is clueless as to how bad the problem is and how to fix it.'
Meanwhile, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage added that the Labour government is 'filled to the brim with woke human rights lawyers'. He said Sir Keir Starmer's administration is 'prioritising' a court in Strasbourg over the British people.
It comes after it emerged this week that ministers don't know how many illegal migrants are in Britain or the number using human rights law to avoid deportation.
The research also raised how it is difficult to understand how many immigration cases are affected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the Conservatives and Reform UK have vowed to leave. Experts found there is little data to know who and how many people apply for and are granted permission to stay in the UK through the convention, or successfully appeal against their removal... (MORE - details)
RE: Home Office admits 170 'dangerous' foreign nationals cannot be deported (UK games) - stryder - Dec 7, 2025
(Dec 7, 2025 04:46 AM)C C Wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15360493/Home-Office-dangerous-foreign-nationals-deported.html
EXCERPTS: Dozens of 'dangerous' foreign nationals are being allowed to keep living in the UK as the Home Office cannot deport them due to human rights laws. Some 170 people who pose a threat to public safety are currently being housed under restrictions across the country, government documents show.
And more than half of these individuals are reported to 'have been involved in terrorism or extremism-related activities'. It is understood that some of the restrictions imposed on the foreign nationals may include 24-hour surveillance and wearing an ankle monitor.
However, it is not clear exactly what measures are in force and on how many of the security threats who cannot be booted out. Currently failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals are avoiding being deported back to their home countries after claiming a right to family life.
This right is set out under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of which the UK remains a member. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has promised an overhaul of human rights laws and tighter controls on immigration.
[...] A Home Office minister told the Sunday Express that it was 'disgraceful' that dangerous foreign nationals have been allowed to stay in the UK.
[...] Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: 'Our broken borders are a national security emergency. We have to leave the ECHR and deport every single one of these terrorists and extremists. This government is clueless as to how bad the problem is and how to fix it.'
Meanwhile, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage added that the Labour government is 'filled to the brim with woke human rights lawyers'. He said Sir Keir Starmer's administration is 'prioritising' a court in Strasbourg over the British people.
It comes after it emerged this week that ministers don't know how many illegal migrants are in Britain or the number using human rights law to avoid deportation.
The research also raised how it is difficult to understand how many immigration cases are affected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the Conservatives and Reform UK have vowed to leave. Experts found there is little data to know who and how many people apply for and are granted permission to stay in the UK through the convention, or successfully appeal against their removal... (MORE - details)
... and they wonder why Lowe suggested bringing back the death penalty.
Currently the UK's got a mixed opinion (50/50) on if the Death Penalty should be brought back. I would gather those against it might have concerns of how it might be misused or how innocents might find themselves in line for it.
There is the potentially of modern and future technologies alleviating those concerns. Various systems used to piece together evidence and detect issues.
Some might moan about the human rights concerns, however it should be considered that the types of people that would end up with a death penalty are likely those that have undermined other peoples human rights (Such as serial killers, terrorists etc).
I guess there is the point of law where someone could imply they have remorse for committing a violent act, and they can suggest a potential of rehabilitation in some instances but sometimes a line should be drawn.
I don't agree with Lowe on absolutely everything he thinks, says or does, but I do agree with him on this.