Chomper Higgot

So the flight left, loaded with refugees then? I missed that!

It’s difficult not to see this whole debacle as an example of a Government unable to produce workable policies. A totally unnecessary mess of their own making.

And there will be more appeals. Of course the Government could wait until the full judicial review next month but that would be far too sensible.

Same result.

Perhaps I’d recognize the failure of a twelve year Government to provide affordable housing, and not blame people in need,

I see you’ve not been keeping up with the news lately.

The ECHR is there to adjudicate matters arising within signatory nation courts with respect to compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and played a leading role in its drafting and establishment. These are matters for which the UK may be justly proud. Please, I urge you, spend some time to read about the history of these institutions, how they operate and how UK law relates to the Convention.

While seemingly forgetting that they themselves are protected by human rights law.

Sometimes I wonder, I really do.

But the UK has complied, the flight has been cancelled.

So you’ve got no facts to use in reasoned arguments then.

Clearly you do not understand what Article 27 of the Vienna Convention means. ”Article 27 Internal law and observance of treaties A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.”

I quoted the Vienna Convention, to which the UK is a signatory. Would you like to try and address that with some facts?

Some people understand the UK is bound by the international treaties to which it is a signatory.

I’m sorry you don’t know how the law works.

Clearly Human Rights Law was not correctly addressed. Your bizarre accusation against the ECHR are noted.

World food supplies are currently under threat, particularly grains and edible oils. Thailand is a prominent exporter of these food staples. I suggest you plan for the Bht to strengthen.

History is littered with examples of abuse that was perfectly ‘legal’. Clearly the High Court did not consider the implications of Human Rights law in these cases. The UK is entitled to make any laws it wishes within the bounds of the international treaties to which it is a signatory. (Something this Government doesn’t understand).

This is yet another home goal for the UK. 1. Deliberately evading review by Independent Council. 2. Refusing to accept criticism from legal experts and members of their own party. 3. Choosing to attempt to proceed within one month of a formal judicial review of the ‘policy’

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=005

What needs to be proved is ‘Mens Rae’. Sworn testimony from the paid officials who job it was to advise the President of facts that he then ignored is a long way towards proving ‘Mens Rae’. Then going on to promote the ‘Big Lie’ seek and obtain $250 million from his supporters to ‘fight the Big Lie’ but instead pocket the money is an even easier path to proving ‘Mens Rae’ - there’s a money trail.

Utter nonsense. The FBI is a large organization dealing with a wide range of criminal activity committed by people across the whole of the US. Some agents specialize in Drug related crimes, some agents specialize in financial crimes, some agents specialize in crimes of child abuse and some agents specialize in the threat of domestic terrorism. Each reports through the management of their department. The FBI management report the findings of individual departments. The opinion of individual FBI agents is reported through the chain of command, their opinion on matters they are not dealing with is irrelevant. What a random FBI Agent thinks or does not think about a issue in which they have no involvement is not an argument against the findings of FBI reports.

People voted for the Tories on the basis of their manifesto, which did not include withdrawing from the ECHR. Lawyers don’t prevent the Government from doing anything. The Government is, like everyone else in the UK subject to the law, there are nations in which the Government is above the law, thankfully the UK is not yet one of them.

Or do what I do, pay my taxes and have absolutely no objection to a tiny fraction of my taxes being spent helping people in need.

Projection?