Prince Charles told by U.K. leaders to stop meddling in politics amid immigration comment backlash

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, ozimoron said:

the UK agrees to abide by ECHR rulings, that has been pointed out several times now.

.........................and the U.K has indeed done that 

[Loiner]

7 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

It serves a very real need and with the present state of play in Europe and the world, the implications of ignoring it are increasingly significant.

It may have had a real need when it was established by the UK. Since then despots and rogue state members have been allowed to stain its’ reputation. It means nothing and those states who continually break its’ rules know that they can continue with impunity. 
 

The UK has nothing to learn from, or be party to, rulings from another European toothless tiger with only hot air implications. Boris should fill the plane and send it tonight. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

Yes, but if you were a homeless British family living in emergency accommodation , would you happily step aside and give the Council house  , a house that you have been waiting years for , would you happily step aside and have no objection when an Afghani family straight off the boat at Dover gets given the house and you remaining homeless ?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No need to wonder . 

The U.K made numerous judiciary rulings that the flights were legal .

All the U.K Courts made the ruling that they were legal .

I thought that the ECHR were there to uphold the law, rather than over ruling the law

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.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Loiner said:

It may have had a real need when it was established by the UK. Since then despots and rogue state members have been allowed to stain its’ reputation. It means nothing and those states who continually break its’ rules know that they can continue with impunity. 
 

The UK has nothing to learn from, or be party to, rulings from another European toothless tiger with only hot air implications. Boris should fill the plane and send it tonight. 

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

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, but if you were a homeless British family living in emergency accommodation , would you happily step aside and give the Council house  , a house that you have been waiting years for , would you happily step aside and have no objection when an Afghani family straight off the boat at Dover gets given the house and you remaining homeless ?

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

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

Of course, always someone else's fault .

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

ECHR orders flight cancelled:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan

That isn't true ,

The ECHR did not order the flights to be cancelled , they ruled that three of the passengers must be removed from the flight , and then the whole flight was cancelled .

   The ECHR removed some of the passengers, it didn't cancel the flights or rule them to be illegal 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That isn't true ,

The ECHR did not order the flights to be cancelled , they ruled that three of the passengers must be removed from the flight , and then the whole flight was cancelled .

   The ECHR removed some of the passengers, it didn't cancel the flights or rule them to be illegal 

Same result.

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Same result.

For yesterday, yes .

But other future flights can be arranged , as theres nothing legal to stop the flights 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Deleted as it seems Australian situation off topic. Then accidentally created new thing.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

For yesterday, yes .

But other future flights can be arranged , as theres nothing legal to stop the flights 

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.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

.........................and the U.K has indeed done that 

Only after being told to stop the flight.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

It may have had a real need when it was established by the UK. Since then despots and rogue state members have been allowed to stain its’ reputation. It means nothing and those states who continually break its’ rules know that they can continue with impunity. 
 

The UK has nothing to learn from, or be party to, rulings from another European toothless tiger with only hot air implications. Boris should fill the plane and send it tonight. 

So why didn't he just ignore the EHCR and do that? What exactly stopped Boris staining its reputation?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

6 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:Deleted as I see Australian situation deemed off topic.

 

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

the UK agrees to abide by ECHR rulings, that has been pointed out several times now.

Although the UK did not actually need to, in this case some more of the spongers were saved and the flight did not take off for the remainder. 
What has failed to be pointed out by the gloating virtue signallers and posters here, is that the UK does not always follow what the ECHR thinks. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Only after being told to stop the flight.

Well yes, the UK complied with the EHCR ruling .

(Although the UK wasn't told to stop the flight , some of the passengers developed mental problems are werent fit to fly, so their Lawyers say)

[Chomper Higgot]

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.

[Loiner]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

So why didn't he just ignore the EHCR and do that?

Probably just building up even more public opinion against the ECHR. When it gets close to needing votes for an election he will kick the ECHR into touch and enjoy another landslide. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Although the UK did not actually need to, in this case some more of the spongers were saved and the flight did not take off for the remainder. 
What has failed to be pointed out by the gloating virtue signallers and posters here, is that the UK does not always follow what the ECHR thinks. 

So the flight left, loaded with refugees then?

 

I missed that!

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Loiner said:

Probably just building up even more public opinion against the ECHR. When it gets close to needing votes for an election he will kick the ECHR into touch and enjoy another landslide. 

I think it’s building up more public opinion that the Government doesn’t  know what it’s doing.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, but if you were a homeless British family living in emergency accommodation , would you happily step aside and give the Council house  , a house that you have been waiting years for , would you happily step aside and have no objection when an Afghani family straight off the boat at Dover gets given the house and you remaining homeless ?

Citation or it never happened.

 

How about all this throwing the door open to all those NON-ECONOMIC refugees from Ukraine? If you were an Afghani family who had worked with the Allied forces in Kabul and spent years getting to a refugee holding camp, how would you feel when you are pushed aside for those Ukrainians that DROVE or FLEW to the UK?

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

Governments fault again ?

Nothing at all to do with people entering the U.K illegally , its the Governments fault for trying to stop them ?

[NanLaew]

8 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Although the UK did not actually need to, in this case some more of the spongers were saved and the flight did not take off for the remainder. 
What has failed to be pointed out by the gloating virtue signallers and posters here, is that the UK does not always follow what the ECHR thinks. 

But they just did.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Citation or it never happened.

 

How about all this throwing the door open to all those NON-ECONOMIC refugees from Ukraine? If you were an Afghani family who had worked with the Allied forces in Kabul and spent years getting to a refugee holding camp, how would you feel when you are pushed aside for those Ukrainians that DROVE or FLEW to the UK?

If I were an Afghani in Kabul , I would tell those Ukrainians that I am ahead of them on the list for a UK Council house, as I had been on the waiting list for three years now and they had just joined 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If I were an Afghani in Kabul , I would tell those Ukrainians that I am ahead of them on the list for a UK Council house, as I had been on the waiting list for three years now and they had just joined 

Why would an Afghani in Kabul be talking to a Ukrainian about UK council house waiting lists?

 

That doesn’t make any sense at all.

[NanLaew]

10 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Probably just building up even more public opinion against the ECHR. When it gets close to needing votes for an election he will kick the ECHR into touch and enjoy another landslide. 

I recall a recent US President pulled out of about half a dozen international agreements and protocols. How did he fare in the court of international public opinion?How did his landslide go?

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I recall a recent US President pulled out of about half a dozen international agreements and protocols. How did he fare in the court of international public opinion?How did his landslide go?

Lets not talk about USA Politics .

Its off topic and will be deleted 

[NanLaew]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Governments fault again ?

Nothing at all to do with people entering the U.K illegally , its the Governments fault for trying to stop them ?

The Tories whole immigration policy is a shocker. Unless you're wealthy or have friends in high places, the formal UK immigration route is long, expensive and extremely discriminatory.

[NanLaew]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Lets not talk about USA Politics .

Its off topic and will be deleted 

We're not but you're as free to ignore the parallels as you are to report my comment for being off topic.