12 year old raped in nuneaton (6 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Why would any of those countries be in the European Convention on Human Rights?

Then us returning the constitutional settlement as it was in 1997 is hardly the same as North Korea or Russia.

It’s pretty clear that this a big misconception when criticising plans to leave the ECHR. Which is a condition of EU membership so all candidate countries and EEA would seek membership.

The UK, by comparison, is not obligated to remain in the ECHR but to observe its standards.

The point is that they operate perfectly well as a country without a further tier of court from a central bloc.

Well said.

 

---

[Sick Boy]

I doubt NF would leave the ECHR in reality, he wouldn’t have the discipline or will to negotiate over the north of Ireland for years.

 

[SBT]

You’d fall back on English common law which has a much richer tradition of safeguarded civil liberties centuries before the ECHR was dreamt up.

That doesn’t answer my question though?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

That doesn’t answer my question though?

That’s because I’m not a legal expert. I don’t know what law(s) or previous judgements would be used to argue the case.

You’ve missed the point going down this rabbit hole. The ruling is unpopular and gives Reform ammunition to support their policy of scrapping the ECHR.

The judgement was ‘correct’ in the sense that the law draws upon the ECHR which supersedes UK law. The law is the law (well, the HRA which enshrines the ECHR) but it’s right to question if the existing legal framework is fit for purpose.

 

[skybluetony176]

Why do this stupid routine continually?

Repealing the HRA brings us back to the state of Britain in 1997. The USA, Canada, Australia, NZ aren’t signed up to the ECHR.

It’s not a problem that you disagree on policy. You’re a bad faith actor.

If you think leaving the ECHR and repealing the HRA doesn’t solve the small boat crisis, then outline why you think that.

Alternatively, if the ECHR and HRA has a legal framework to prevent small boat crossings and other issues around illegal migration, then we’re all ears. As far as I can see, it’s not possible. Hence, this issue has proliferated and accelerated since these were implemented into UK law. It’s demonstrably not an issue of party politics either.

Why do you do this stupid routine continually.

Put the horse before the cart. They want us leave the ECHR to repeal the HRA. That doesn’t take us back to the state of Britain in 1997, it takes us back to the state of Britain in 1951. In 1997 we had the safety net of the ECHR without the the HRA.

You keep moronically naming countries that aren’t ECHR members that aren’t actually in Europe. Why?

The reason why scrapping the HRA and leaving the ECHR won’t stop the boats is because we’re signed up to other treaties that offer asylum seekers the same rights as the HRA and ECHR. The UDHR is the basis of the ECHR and thereafter the HRA, The non European countries you keep naming as a gotcha are signed up to the UDHR. To leave the UDHR we’ll have to leave the UN. Which we’ll never do.

Asylum seekers rights are protected by a series of safety nets, it doesn’t end with the ECHR or the HRA, that’s just where they’re policed on a national basis and then on a European basis, the next default is the ICJ. The only people’s rights who can be ultimately affected by leaving the ECHR to scrap the HRA is yours. It’s a Trojan horse. Just because they think you’re stupid doesn’t mean that you have to indulge them.

 

[skybluetony176]

That’s because I’m not a legal expert. I don’t know what law(s) or previous judgements would be used to argue the case.

You’ve missed the point going down this rabbit hole. The ruling is unpopular and gives Reform ammunition to support their policy of scrapping the ECHR.

The judgement was ‘correct’ in the sense that the law draws upon the ECHR which supersedes UK law. The law is the law (well, the HRA which enshrines the ECHR) but it’s right to question if the existing legal framework is fit for purpose.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word supersede you’ve put the cart before the horse again.

 

[SBT]

That’s because I’m not a legal expert. I don’t know what law(s) or previous judgements would be used to argue the case.

You’ve missed the point going down this rabbit hole. The ruling is unpopular and gives Reform ammunition to support their policy of scrapping the ECHR.

So you don’t know if the ECHR is actually why this ruling was handed down because you’re “not a legal expert” but you’re going to blame the ECHR for it anyway?

 

[skybluetony176]

So you don’t know if the ECHR is actually why this ruling was handed down because you’re “not a legal expert” but you’re going to blame the ECHR for it anyway?

From what I’ve read the Rough Sleeping Initiative was the actual basis of the appeal.

 

[skybluetony176]

Stupid comments from right wing MP’s this afternoon.

“the ECHR means that asylum seekers have more rights than everyone else “ er… no. It’s means they have the same rights as everyone else.

"Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of the British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities." err… so how is kicking them out into the street to rough sleep going to improve that? How will they get food? How will they get money? How will the police locate them when the inevitable rise in street crime directly from throwing them out on the streets leads to people with no fixed abode being wanted by the police?

 

[SBAndy]

Stupid comments from right wing MP’s this afternoon.

“the ECHR means that asylum seekers have more rights than everyone else “ er… no. It’s means they have the same rights as everyone else.

"Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of the British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities." err… so how is kicking them out into the street to rough sleep going to improve that? How will they get food? How will they get money? How will the police locate them when the inevitable rise in street crime directly from throwing them out on the streets leads to people with no fixed abode being wanted by the police?

It’s horrible but this feels really “better the devil you know”. No one wants them in hotels (me included) but the alternative is to either kick them onto the street en masse which would be absolute chaos and see violent crime increasing in both directions, or disperse them into HMOs everywhere at which point the perceived ‘risk to children’ grows exponentially.

Could have just shot all the asylum seekers out of a cannon aimed at the sun if it wasn’t for the pesky ECHR.

 

[Grendel]

It’s horrible but this feels really “better the devil you know”. No one wants them in hotels (me included) but the alternative is to either kick them onto the street en masse which would be absolute chaos and see violent crime increasing in both directions, or disperse them into HMOs everywhere at which point the perceived ‘risk to children’ grows exponentially.

Could have just shot all the asylum seekers out of a cannon aimed at the sun if it wasn’t for the pesky ECHR.

Although people are unlikely to be deported on mass individuals have been refused asylum, won a judgement from the ECHR and the country sent them anyway.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Why do you do this stupid routine continually.

Put the horse before the cart. They want us leave the ECHR to repeal the HRA. That doesn’t take us back to the state of Britain in 1997, it takes us back to the state of Britain in 1951. In 1997 we had the safety net of the ECHR without the the HRA.

You keep moronically naming countries that aren’t ECHR members that aren’t actually in Europe. Why?

The reason why scrapping the HRA and leaving the ECHR won’t stop the boats is because we’re signed up to other treaties that offer asylum seekers the same rights as the HRA and ECHR. The UDHR is the basis of the ECHR and thereafter the HRA, The non European countries you keep naming as a gotcha are signed up to the UDHR. To leave the UDHR we’ll have to leave the UN. Which we’ll never do.

Asylum seekers rights are protected by a series of safety nets, it doesn’t end with the ECHR or the HRA, that’s just where they’re policed on a national basis and then on a European basis, the next default is the ICJ. The only people’s rights who can be ultimately affected by leaving the ECHR to scrap the HRA is yours. It’s a Trojan horse. Just because they think you’re stupid doesn’t mean that you have to indulge them.

This is a hot mess.

The Human Rights Act enshrines the ECHR and the judgements of the ECJ above UK law. Turkey, by comparison, hasn’t enshrined this in Turkish law. Turkey is actually an authoritarian regime that abuses human rights, including ethnic minorities as well as illegally occupying part of another sovereign nation. Therefore, being a part of the ECHR in of itself does not guarantee human rights.

human rights before the ECHR was established because as you and others point out, British legal experts shaped its contents. Leaning heavily on English common law traditions and foundational documents such as the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights (1689).

The same UDHR Australia is a signatory of? They were able to stop the boats which doesn’t support your claims.

Again, the UDHR traces its roots back to Code Napoleon and US Declaration of Independence which all date back to English common law.

To summarise, our legal system and traditions on civil liberties is robust enough to scrap the HRA and leave the ECHR.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word supersede you’ve put the cart before the horse again.

So you don’t know if the ECHR is actually why this ruling was handed down because you’re “not a legal expert” but you’re going to blame the ECHR for it anyway?

No, because they cited it in their judgement. Your question was asking me what would’ve been cited if we weren’t in the ECHR…

The basis of the home office’s legal argument was the ECHR. I’m sure there would’ve been legal precedents to draw upon in existing UK law.

 

[SBT]

Your question was asking me what would’ve been cited if we weren’t in the ECHR…

My question was whether this appeal and ruling was possible without the ECHR - go back and read it. You freely admit you have no idea but are happy to blame it anyway, this is unbelievably tedious.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

My question was whether this appeal and ruling was possible without the ECHR - go back and read it. You freely admit you have no idea but are happy to blame it anyway, this is unbelievably tedious.

Yes, it could’ve been appealed but it’s not obvious what would’ve been cited in its place or if the government would have won.

 

[Grendel]

Even the ruling said Coopers comments of setting a hierarchy of rights by putting asylum seeker needs above local communities was not a wise communication

 

[Sick Boy]

There's next to no chance of it happening in reality.

 

[Grendel]

There's next to no chance of it happening in reality.

italy is a country that’s ignored the ruling and sent people back anyway to

 

[Sick Boy]

italy is a country that’s ignored the ruling and sent people back anyway to

The UK is still unlikely to leave it.

 

[shmmeee]

Did we ever find out if the plan was to not extend the bill of rights to everyone in the country or to remove rights we currently have?

 

[shmmeee]

Or, you know, what we’d replace the trade loss in Europe with etc.

 

[skybluetony176]

This is a hot mess.

The Human Rights Act enshrines the ECHR and the judgements of the ECJ above UK law. Turkey, by comparison, hasn’t enshrined this in Turkish law. Turkey is actually an authoritarian regime that abuses human rights, including ethnic minorities as well as illegally occupying part of another sovereign nation. Therefore, being a part of the ECHR in of itself does not guarantee human rights.

human rights before the ECHR was established because as you and others point out, British legal experts shaped its contents. Leaning heavily on English common law traditions and foundational documents such as the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights (1689).

The same UDHR Australia is a signatory of? They were able to stop the boats which doesn’t support your claims.

Again, the UDHR traces its roots back to Code Napoleon and US Declaration of Independence which all date back to English common law.

To summarise, our legal system and traditions on civil liberties is robust enough to scrap the HRA and leave the ECHR.

No, because they cited it in their judgement. Your question was asking me what would’ve been cited if we weren’t in the ECHR…

The basis of the home office’s legal argument was the ECHR. I’m sure there would’ve been legal precedents to draw upon in existing UK law.

Firstly Australia didn’t stop the all the boats. Secondly its outcome on the numbers of asylum seekers that they took was negligible especially when compared to the astronomical cost of implementing it. They’ve actually pretty much given up on offshore processing, the numbers are down to dozens. Thirdly Australias illegal immigration issues are not entirely comparable to the UK’s in that the majority of Australias are economic, they don’t have the numbers escaping places like Syria or Afghanistan like we do so the bulk of theirs don’t fall under the same rules as ours even under UDHR.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Firstly Australia didn’t stop the all the boats. Secondly its outcome on the numbers of asylum seekers that they took was negligible especially when compared to the astronomical cost of implementing it. They’ve actually pretty much given up on offshore processing, the numbers are down to dozens. Thirdly Australias illegal immigration issues are not entirely comparable to the UK’s in that the majority of Australias are economic, they don’t have the numbers escaping places like Syria or Afghanistan like we do so the bulk of theirs don’t fall under the same rules as ours even under UDHR.

This is evidence the Australian government submitted to our own parliament contradicts you.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18368/pdf/

50,000 illegal migrants arrived by boats between 2008-2013, 1,200 deaths at sea. Operation Sovereign Borders has all but eliminated illegal migration via sea and their third country processing scaled back in line with this.

People smugglers lose their customs if they cannot guarantee that people cannot reach their desired destination.

Actually, if these people don’t make it to sovereign UK territories, there is no obligation under various treaties and conventions.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Did we ever find out if the plan was to not extend the bill of rights to everyone in the country or to remove rights we currently have?

What rights would be removed if we scrapped the HRA? The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights (1689) are still active on the statute books.

The ECHR foundations is English common law. The UK, unlike most European countries, has a good track record on

Australia, Canada and NZ are proof of this.

Or, you know, what we’d replace the trade loss in Europe with etc.

Hysterical response.

Technically, the EU could rip up the entire TCA. More realistically, it would open up more negotiations with the EU and the UK would need to demonstrate how its commitments to HR is compatible with the EU. This won’t be problem since the EU has trade agreements with countries with genuine human rights abuses.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

This is evidence the Australian government submitted to our own parliament contradicts you.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18368/pdf/

50,000 illegal migrants arrived by boats between 2008-2013, 1,200 deaths at sea. Operation Sovereign Borders has all but eliminated illegal migration via sea and their third country processing scaled back in line with this.

People smugglers lose their customs if they cannot guarantee that people cannot reach their desired destination.

Actually, if these people don’t make it to sovereign UK territories, there is no obligation under various treaties and conventions.

Although to be fair you've got to cross about 400 miles of sea to get to Australia unlike the 40miles between France and England.

Would probably change a few minds if the English Channel stretched as far as Germany.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Although to be fair you've got to cross about 400 miles of sea to get to Australia unlike the 40miles between France and England.

Would probably change a few minds if the English Channel stretched as far as Germany.

Did their policies work? Yes.

Did they meet international obligations? Yes.

Did Australia become an international pariah? No.

Does Australia have a trade agreement with the EU? Yes.

People smuggling is an industry and they provide a service to their clients - they literally advertise on TikTok and other social platforms. Their business model relies on the near service guarantee that these people will get entry to the EU and then the UK and not be sent back.

Take that guarantee away and the demand for their services dissipates. Hence, the costs of Australia’s ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ was reducing over years.

If the UK implemented these policies and was successful, it’s the basis of future cooperation with the EU. In principle, I wouldn’t be against the Royal Navy supporting EU member states in providing operational support sending boats back to North Africa, Turkey and so on in the Mediterranean.

Illegal migration is an issue that is tearing Europe apart and why the traditional centre right and centre left parties are in retreat.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Did their policies work? Yes.

Did they meet international obligations? Yes.

Did Australia become an international pariah? No.

Does Australia have a trade agreement with the EU? Yes.

People smuggling is an industry and they provide a service to their clients - they literally advertise on TikTok and other social platforms. Their business model relies on the near service guarantee that these people will get entry to the EU and then the UK and not be sent back.

Take that guarantee away and the demand for their services dissipates. Hence, the costs of Australia’s ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ was reducing over years.

If the UK implemented these policies and was successful, it’s the basis of future cooperation with the EU. In principle, I wouldn’t be against the Royal Navy supporting EU member states in providing operational support sending boats back to North Africa, Turkey and so on in the Mediterranean.

Illegal migration is an issue that is tearing Europe apart and why the traditional centre right and centre left parties are in retreat.

But what about the complexities of it? Where do you send a boat 'back' to? Every other country could claim it didn't originate there so why should they take it? Those on the boat could say they originated in Britain - how do you disprove that?

Then there's the costs and dangers of sending them to a third country that we get an agreement to send them to, even without considering whether or not it complies with international law. Let's take an unscrupulous developing country that knows they'll get paid for taking our migrants. What's to stop them shipping them straight back out on a boat to Britain so they get paid a second time to take the same person?

And as I said, that journey is a lot longer, harder and more dangerous to get to Australia than to Britain which is going to put a lot more people off.

I don't disagree about having a secure place to process illegal migrants, especially those coming on boats, and somewhere not on the mainland would be an obvious choice. Though we would still need to massively increase border officials to process their claims.

I know trafficking is an industry and they're advertising on social media. But what's stopping us doing the same? Why can't we show the reality. Show them the filth laden streets, the people huddled up in sleeping bags on wet, cold doorways, show the reality of what little they actually get. If you really wanted to be underhand set up bot accounts showing the animosity and hatred towards people like themselves at rallies.

I know we need stricter laws towards this problem (especially those that commit crime but also those that are economically inactive) and there is a small element that are a soft touch. I'm pretty sure some of my ideas would be tested by international law, but I'd be all for putting in a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities setting out what they're entitled to but also what they have to do to stay. Top of those things would definitely be able to speak English within a couple of years but also provide access to classes etc. to help towards that. Others would be financial help only lasts for a set period, at which point they have to provide for themselves, and a driving style points system that if they fail to meet these criteria or commit crimes then at a certain point they lose the right to stay.

Even assuming these things were permissible by law I know there are issues, as people could just disappear if they thought they might be removed. How do you stop that without being draconian with things like ID cards 9which would have to be for everyone to prevent racial profiling) or even electronic tagging, which I'm uncomfortable with.

It's not as simple as you make out. And the fact you seem to pretty much gloss over the large number of people that have died trying to reach Australia I find uncomfortable.

 

[shmmeee]

Firstly Australia didn’t stop the all the boats. Secondly its outcome on the numbers of asylum seekers that they took was negligible especially when compared to the astronomical cost of implementing it. They’ve actually pretty much given up on offshore processing, the numbers are down to dozens. Thirdly Australias illegal immigration issues are not entirely comparable to the UK’s in that the majority of Australias are economic, they don’t have the numbers escaping places like Syria or Afghanistan like we do so the bulk of theirs don’t fall under the same rules as ours even under UDHR.

Talking about Australia is just nonsense. The boats that come can legally be sent back. They don’t border another country’s waters so can do things in international waters, they can meet the far enough out that the closest safe harbour isn’t Australia.

What rights would be removed if we scrapped the HRA? The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights (1689) are still active on the statute books.

The ECHR foundations is English common law. The UK, unlike most European countries, has a good track record on

Australia, Canada and NZ are proof of this.



Hysterical response.

Technically, the EU could rip up the entire TCA. More realistically, it would open up more negotiations with the EU and the UK would need to demonstrate how its commitments to HR is compatible with the EU. This won’t be problem since the EU has trade agreements with countries with genuine human rights abuses.

If there’s no changes whatsoever what is the point?

 

[skybluetony176]

Did their policies work? Yes.

Did they meet international obligations? Yes.

Did Australia become an international pariah? No.

Does Australia have a trade agreement with the EU? Yes.

To an extent but at a huge financial cost which was unpopular in Australia.

No they didn’t meet their international obligations.

Their policy was widely condemned.

They don’t have a trade deal with the EU.

 

[rob9872]

Chum the channel!

 

[chiefdave]

Had a quick catch up on the Epping trial. Seems it has fuck all to do with the ECHR, what a surprise.

The written arguments on behalf of the Home Secretary in this appeal included the contention that "the relevant public interests in play are not equal" and that one aspect of this is that the Home Secretary's statutory duty is a manifestation of the UK's obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This point was not pursued in oral argument.

Any argument in this particular context about a hierarchy of rights is in our view unattractive.

 

[shmmeee]

“Oh no guys Reform aren’t racist laughing emoji laughing emoji you liberal Julian clary sassy cuck”

Reform MP: *Calls Sky News Reporter a nigger on Twitter by starting a well known racist meme*

 

[shmmeee]

Amazing

Manchester’s chief flag-raiser has put his people smuggling days behind him

Flags protesting unchecked immigration have gone up across the city, led by a man caught smuggling migrants into the country in the back of a van

manchestermill.co.uk

 

[ccfc922]

Amazing

Manchester’s chief flag-raiser has put his people smuggling days behind him

Flags protesting unchecked immigration have gone up across the city, led by a man caught smuggling migrants into the country in the back of a van

manchestermill.co.uk

Soo... you're saying the people most for smuggling people are pushing "far-right" agendas?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Soo... you're saying the people most for smuggling people are pushing "far-right" agendas?

Probably

 

[Grendel]

Probably

Highly unlikely really