What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

5 minutes ago, Spider said:

Like the middle of the countdown clock

2 from the top and 4 from the bottom...

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

Reform think that some of it's human rights protections affect border control and deportations. 

This is despite the fact that under ECHR all member states are free to set their own immigration policy and it isn't dictated centrally. ECHR also doesn't give people the right to stay in a country where they are not a national and/or claiming asylum. Wanting to 'leave the ECHR'. The problem isn't and has never been the ECHR - it's about how our courts have sometimes interpreted it.

If we pull out, we will will be the third country to leave after Greece (who temporarily did during the military dictatorship) and Russia (who were booted out in 2022). Which should give some idea about our direction of travel.

And ECHR is about far more than just immigration anyway (something that people conveniently forget -or just never knew in the first place). For example - it was used in the Hillsborough cases and at places like Stafford Hospital when there was the scandal over card standards. Basically it protects you as a British Citizen from things like abuse, arbitrary detention, unfair trials and more. 

Leaving the ECHR would have huge implications for us as a country, not least in Northern Ireland (the Good Friday Agreement requires NI to be part of ECHR - so that's a huge issue). We'd also likely receive less support than we currently do from the EU on joint intelligence around immigration issues (which could well make the problem worse). We'd be the first (real) democracy to leave and out international reputation would nose die amongst our peers (think Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreements etc). There's also some complicated stuff that I don't understand properly around data sharing with the EU that is bound up with membership of the ECHR which prevent free data flow between the EU and the UK and impact businesses. 

Plus - you would lose all the rights discussed earlier in the piece. 

Plus it wouldn't ACTUALLY do ANYTHING to stop small boats. 

Apart from that. It's a cracking idea, that's been well thought through and wouldn't have any negative impacts whatsoever. 

Leaving the ECHR is a badge of ideology for people who want to show they are 'anti immigration'. And incidentally the same visionaries who assured us Brexit would lead to a huge reduction in immigration 👍

thought I had missed something that's caused huge issues..

nope, just another "thing"

2 minutes ago, only1swanny said:

thought I had missed something that's caused huge issues..

nope, just another "thing"

Pretty much. 

But it's an easy scapegoat for a complex problem - and it's highly unlikely most people who vote Reform are going to read about the complexities of it. Or care. 

That's not to say it doesn't sometimes act as a barrier - but like my original post, it's more about the ways our courts interpret it as opposed to what we actually signed up to. 

The right thing to do would be to affect the way our courts make the decisions, as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

3 hours ago, Spider said:

What happens then?

That's when everything gets fixed. No more brown people, spitfires in the sky, all potholes fixed.

47 minutes ago, only1swanny said:

thought I had missed something that's caused huge issues..

nope, just another "thing"

Ultimately, nobody, even Farage and his crew, have any intention of leaving the ECHR, it's just a sound bite, that seems to rally some if their more gormless supporters.

4 hours ago, kent_white said:

Reform think that some of it's human rights protections affect border control and deportations. 

This is despite the fact that under ECHR all member states are free to set their own immigration policy and it isn't dictated centrally. ECHR also doesn't give people the right to stay in a country where they are not a national and/or claiming asylum. Wanting to 'leave the ECHR'. The problem isn't and has never been the ECHR - it's about how our courts have sometimes interpreted it.

If we pull out, we will will be the third country to leave after Greece (who temporarily did during the military dictatorship) and Russia (who were booted out in 2022). Which should give some idea about our direction of travel.

And ECHR is about far more than just immigration anyway (something that people conveniently forget -or just never knew in the first place). For example - it was used in the Hillsborough cases and at places like Stafford Hospital when there was the scandal over card standards. Basically it protects you as a British Citizen from things like abuse, arbitrary detention, unfair trials and more. 

Leaving the ECHR would have huge implications for us as a country, not least in Northern Ireland (the Good Friday Agreement requires NI to be part of ECHR - so that's a huge issue). We'd also likely receive less support than we currently do from the EU on joint intelligence around immigration issues (which could well make the problem worse). We'd be the first (real) democracy to leave and out international reputation would nose die amongst our peers (think Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreements etc). There's also some complicated stuff that I don't understand properly around data sharing with the EU that is bound up with membership of the ECHR which prevent free data flow between the EU and the UK and impact businesses. 

Plus - you would lose all the rights discussed earlier in the piece. 

Plus it wouldn't ACTUALLY do ANYTHING to stop small boats. 

Apart from that. It's a cracking idea, that's been well thought through and wouldn't have any negative impacts whatsoever. 

Leaving the ECHR is a badge of ideology for people who want to show they are 'anti immigration'. And incidentally the same visionaries who assured us Brexit would lead to a huge reduction in immigration 👍

Here’s what happens if Reform are elected.

They announce leaving ECHR and replacing with new bill of rights.

Bill of Rights needs writing and then passing through parliament - then takes months , years even 

Nothing gets better 

Reform blame ‘them’ for delaying the bill of rights. 

3 minutes ago, Ani said:

Reform blame ‘them’ for delaying the bill of rights. 

I think this sums it up pretty well. One thing they don't seem very good at is self reflection and/or taking accountability. 

So I've no doubt it will be the fault of someone else (probably left wing recalcitrants) or something equally vague and difficult to prove.

6 hours ago, kent_white said:

Reform think that some of it's human rights protections affect border control and deportations. 

This is despite the fact that under ECHR all member states are free to set their own immigration policy and it isn't dictated centrally. ECHR also doesn't give people the right to stay in a country where they are not a national and/or claiming asylum. Wanting to 'leave the ECHR'. The problem isn't and has never been the ECHR - it's about how our courts have sometimes interpreted it.

 

 

Unfortunately, no government here is prepared just to ignore rulings.

Moreover, it is enshrined into our own human rights act.

As such, too many lawyers and judges make their ridiculous rulings as you say.

Therefore, to remove vexatious, and possibly unlawful legal pursuits, it is has to be removed from our own.

Which in turn means altering our own as required afterwards.

I really don't understand why folk are so upset by the idea of not being involved in it anymore, given nations can just swerve it if it suits. 

Simply create a much better, fairer act that works in the interests of the country.

Future governments can amend such legislation in the future as the need arises.

Instead of shrugging shoulders and hiding behind it, instead of dealing with issues of the day.

43 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Unfortunately, no government here is prepared just to ignore rulings.

Moreover, it is enshrined into our own human rights act.

As such, too many lawyers and judges make their ridiculous rulings as you say.

Therefore, to remove vexatious, and possibly unlawful legal pursuits, it is has to be removed from our own.

Which in turn means altering our own as required afterwards.

I really don't understand why folk are so upset by the idea of not being involved in it anymore, given nations can just swerve it if it suits. 

Simply create a much better, fairer act that works in the interests of the country.

Future governments can amend such legislation in the future as the need arises.

Instead of shrugging shoulders and hiding behind it, instead of dealing with issues of the day.

Loads here mate......

"Nations can swerve it if suits"

No they can't just unilaterally break international obligations without diplomatic consequences

"We can just create a better act and then future governments can amend it"

This is EXACTLY why the ECHR exists as an external framework. Your human rights are enshrined and future governments CAN'T amend it. That's not a bug. That's the whole point! Anything else is dangerous ground. If a future authoritarian government could just repeal protections - then that's not a strength, it's a weakness. We can't have it both ways and withdraw from international human rights law but keep all the trade, cooperation and intelligence benefits. We should have learned that lesson after Brexit. 

"Just create a better act" assumes good faith, a rational government and stable values over time. We don't have a guarantee of any of those things which is why things like the ECHR are worth fighting for. Not giving them up. Domestic governments can't be trusted with this kind of thing indefinitely! And certainly not a Reform one. 

It's a really, REALLY bad idea. But I can see why Reform want it given their agenda. It'll be another green light to authoritarianism though - and I'm really surprised at how many people seem to welcome it with open arms on here. 

I think we need to get promoted every week, look how quiet this thread was

7 hours ago, kent_white said:

That's not to say it doesn't sometimes act as a barrier - but like my original post, it's more about the ways our courts interpret it as opposed to what we actually signed up to. 

It's not

It's the wording of the articles themselves that's the problem

There are judges within the immigration courts, for example,  who are sympatheic to a point of naivety to people wanting to avoid deportation but the wording of the articles is so vague and broad that it often forces judges hands in circumstances that appear farcical, mostly because any judgement not in line with the wording would be overturned on appeal to the ECtHR in any event

I won't claim to know what the answer is, but the articles of the ECHR weren't written with today's world in mind

12 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It's not

It's the wording of the articles themselves that's the problem

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

12 hours ago, only1swanny said:

I'm a tad nieve here.. 

Why are people so against the ECHR ? 

11 hours ago, Zico said:

 

because the E stands for European

Europe = bad

What fucking dog shit you two talk sometimes (in his case almost all the time).

You know why. You just don't want to expend the energy. Fuck all to do with what either of you two posted.

But you know this.

9 hours ago, kent_white said:

Reform think that some of it's human rights protections affect border control and deportations. 

This is despite the fact that under ECHR all member states are free to set their own immigration policy and it isn't dictated centrally. ECHR also doesn't give people the right to stay in a country where they are not a national and/or claiming asylum. Wanting to 'leave the ECHR'. The problem isn't and has never been the ECHR - it's about how our courts have sometimes interpreted it.

If we pull out, we will will be the third country to leave after Greece (who temporarily did during the military dictatorship) and Russia (who were booted out in 2022). Which should give some idea about our direction of travel.

And ECHR is about far more than just immigration anyway (something that people conveniently forget -or just never knew in the first place). For example - it was used in the Hillsborough cases and at places like Stafford Hospital when there was the scandal over card standards. Basically it protects you as a British Citizen from things like abuse, arbitrary detention, unfair trials and more. 

Leaving the ECHR would have huge implications for us as a country, not least in Northern Ireland (the Good Friday Agreement requires NI to be part of ECHR - so that's a huge issue). We'd also likely receive less support than we currently do from the EU on joint intelligence around immigration issues (which could well make the problem worse). We'd be the first (real) democracy to leave and out international reputation would nose die amongst our peers (think Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreements etc). There's also some complicated stuff that I don't understand properly around data sharing with the EU that is bound up with membership of the ECHR which prevent free data flow between the EU and the UK and impact businesses. 

Plus - you would lose all the rights discussed earlier in the piece. 

Plus it wouldn't ACTUALLY do ANYTHING to stop small boats. 

Apart from that. It's a cracking idea, that's been well thought through and wouldn't have any negative impacts whatsoever. 

Leaving the ECHR is a badge of ideology for people who want to show they are 'anti immigration'. And incidentally the same visionaries who assured us Brexit would lead to a huge reduction in (illegal) immigration 👍

Which it would without the treacherous running of interference.

8 hours ago, Traf said:

Like a tea-towel holder

Can you use this term on here these days?

Sickened.

9 hours ago, Traf said:

Restore & Reform are the two cheeks of the same shitty arsehole

Fuck knows what that makes Labour and The Greens then.

7 hours ago, only1swanny said:

thought I had missed something that's caused huge issues..

nope, just another "thing"

Naivete, thy name is Swanny.

7 hours ago, Sweep said:

That's when everything gets fixed. No more brown people, spitfires in the sky, all potholes fixed.

You're no fucking Confucius pal, that's for sure and certain.

7 hours ago, Sweep said:

That's when everything gets fixed. No more brown people, spitfires in the sky, all potholes fixed.

How do you get to this? You know full well that it is required to stop foreign lawyers meddling in our attempts to deport illegal arrivals. That's why and it is clearly a priority for many millions of UK voters.]

Keep that head in the sand.

4 hours ago, kent_white said:

I think this sums it up pretty well. One thing they don't seem very good at is self reflection and/or taking accountability. 

So I've no doubt it will be the fault of someone else (probably left wing recalcitrants) or something equally vague and difficult to prove.

Just carry on voting Labour with a few of the others on here matey. Everyone loves wasted votes don't they?

3 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

How do you get to this? You know full well that it is required to stop foreign lawyers meddling in our attempts to deport illegal arrivals. That's why and it is clearly a priority for many millions of UK voters.]

Keep that head in the sand.

We all know the country is turning to shit, we have a lawyer as PM and he can't lead, just advise "my client says this and my client says that"

28 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Which it would without the treacherous running of interference.

Did you read the bit about not taking any accountability?

23 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Just carry on voting Labour with a few of the others on here matey. Everyone loves wasted votes don't they?

Did you read the bit about not taking any accountability? 

46 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

The wording of Article 8 detailing respect for private and family life, and the reference to "degrading treatment" under Article 3 leave far too much to interpretation

I understand why - it's borderline impossible to agree a specific wording when the convention is supposed to apply to so many different countries/cultures - but it's often leading to perverse outcomes and what we do about that, I don't know

Something needs to be done, though