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

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, James105 said:

The Tories were given a large majority (in part) to deal with illegal immigration.  If the UK public wanted open borders they would have voted for the Labour Party.  

 

I don't really understand why this is so difficult to get right.   If the problem is that lawyers can prevent the deportations then surely the simple solution is to make sure it's legal to do so.   It's my understanding that laws can be changed, and if the democratically elected government want to change laws to make sure something they promised they would sort out prior to being elected happens, then they should just do so, including withdrawing from ECHR if that is the problem.   

 

Personally I'd change the law to only allow legal aid to be claimed by UK citizens and not just anyone who rocks up on a rubber dinghy.   When the money runs out those "virtuous lawyers" will lose interest pretty quickly.   

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.

 

 

[ozimoron]

Britain canceled a flight that was scheduled to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda late Tuesday after the European Court of Human Rights intervened, saying the plan carried “a real risk of irreversible harm.”

British government officials had said earlier in the day that the plane would take off no matter how many people were on board. But after the appeals, no one remained.

https://apnews.com/article/uk-rwanda-migration-deportations-boris-johnson-9ca56e7a1736dd803690ceac544fc7e8

[transam]

1 hour 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.

 

How do you know what it costs in the long term....?  ????

[James105]

51 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

The people of the UK didn't vote for the Tories based on a promise to remain in the ECHR either.  What they did vote for was immigration controls (which was part of the manifesto), including stopping the illegal crossings that can result in loss of life for those making the dangerous crossing.  

 

If the ECHR is the reason that the UK government is not able to fulfil its manifesto commitments, then the UK should remove itself from this court and ensure the highest court in the land is the UK Appeals court (which agreed the deportation flights were legal).   

[Mac Mickmanus]

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Britain canceled a flight that was scheduled to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda late Tuesday after the European Court of Human Rights intervened, saying the plan carried “a real risk of irreversible harm.”

British government officials had said earlier in the day that the plane would take off no matter how many people were on board. But after the appeals, no one remained.

https://apnews.com/article/uk-rwanda-migration-deportations-boris-johnson-9ca56e7a1736dd803690ceac544fc7e8

Australia have been sending illegal immigrants to other Countries for the previous 20 years , does Australia not have to comply with the ECHR ?

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Australia have been sending illegal immigrants to other Countries for the previous 20 years , does Australia not have to comply with the ECHR ?

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

[ozimoron]

15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Australia have been sending illegal immigrants to other Countries for the previous 20 years , does Australia not have to comply with the ECHR ?

off topic

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

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’

[Rimmer]

Some baiting and off topic bickering posts and replies removed

 

And now a post about Australia that is trying to hijack the topic has been removed.

 

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

[transam]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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’

Illegal immigrants, are folk doing so to get out of their country, so what does it matter what country they end up in...?

 

Of course, they all want to creep into the UK as they have been told its an easy touch and has yellow brick roads.

 

So why didn't they set up shop in one of the many countries on route, eeeer, my second paragraph..????

[James105]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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’

The High court, Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal all agreed that this was legal and within the UK government remit.  An out of hours judge in the ECHR in Strasburg decided he knew better.   

 

Not really sure what your point is unless you believe a sovereign country should not be able to make its own laws.    

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

The High court, Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal all agreed that this was legal and within the UK government remit.  An out of hours judge in the ECHR in Strasburg decided he knew better.   

 

Not really sure what your point is unless you believe a sovereign country should not be able to make its own laws.    

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).

[James105]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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).

The High court decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which in turn was challenged in the Court of Appeals.    It wasn't just a single court or a single judge until it got to the point where apparently all those courts can be overturned by an out of hours judge in a foreign land.   

 

The UK can and should leave the ECHR court if it goes against its highest courts on a whim, as appears to have happened in this case.  The ECHR judge in this case is probably just another racist who thinks that every country in Africa is a hellhole and its against anyone's human rights to be sent there, rather than making a decision based on the legal arguments.   

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

The High court decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which in turn was challenged in the Court of Appeals.    It wasn't just a single court or a single judge until it got to the point where apparently all those courts can be overturned by an out of hours judge in a foreign land.   

 

The UK can and should leave the ECHR court if it goes against its highest courts on a whim, as appears to have happened in this case.  The ECHR judge in this case is probably just another racist who thinks that every country in Africa is a hellhole and its against anyone's human rights to be sent there, rather than making a decision based on the legal arguments.   

Clearly Human Rights Law was not correctly addressed.

 

Your bizarre accusation against the ECHR are noted.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[transam]

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

The High court decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which in turn was challenged in the Court of Appeals.    It wasn't just a single court or a single judge until it got to the point where apparently all those courts can be overturned by an out of hours judge in a foreign land.   

 

The UK can and should leave the ECHR court if it goes against its highest courts on a whim, as appears to have happened in this case.  The ECHR judge in this case is probably just another racist who thinks that every country in Africa is a hellhole and its against anyone's human rights to be sent there, rather than making a decision based on the legal arguments.   

The anti-UK brigade should really read up on the facts, but being anti-UK, it must be expected. Sadly...????

[James105]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Clearly Human Rights Law was not correctly addressed.

 

Your bizarre accusation against the ECHR are noted.

 

 

So what "human rights" are being violated by transporting someone to Rwanda for asylum processing?   Rwanda is a safe place.   The only people who are objecting to this tend to think that sending someone to Africa is a horrible thing to do as they have such a low opinion of African countries (due to racism) that they cannot believe that it is not a human rights violation.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, James105 said:

So what "human rights" are being violated by transporting someone to Rwanda for asylum processing?   Rwanda is a safe place.   The only people who are objecting to this tend to think that sending someone to Africa is a horrible thing to do as they have such a low opinion of African countries (due to racism) that they cannot believe that it is not a human rights violation.

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

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

The High court decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which in turn was challenged in the Court of Appeals.    It wasn't just a single court or a single judge until it got to the point where apparently all those courts can be overturned by an out of hours judge in a foreign land.

While ever we were part of the EU our Supreme Court was not supreme. They are now. Some people like to think our courts are still bound by the whims of another organisation the tin pot ECHR. They are not. 

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, Loiner said:

While ever we were part of the EU our Supreme Court was not supreme. They are now. Some people like to think our courts are still bound by the whims of another organisation the tin pot ECHR. They are not. 

And yet the flight was stopped...and it appears the govt will try to challenge the decision by appealing it in the ECHR..

 

''Thérèse Coffey, the work and pensions secretary, played down the idea that the UK could withdraw from the European convention on human rights in response to the court’s decision, which halted the flight on Tuesday night.

 

But she told Sky News the government would “go back, I am sure, to the ECHR to challenge this initial ruling”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/15/uk-challenge-european-court-ruling-rwanda-deportations-asylum

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, Loiner said:

While ever we were part of the EU our Supreme Court was not supreme. They are now. Some people like to think our courts are still bound by the whims of another organisation the tin pot ECHR. They are not. 

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

 

 

[NanLaew]

The controversial Rwandan deportation law was already submitted to and accepted by the UK's High Court for judicial review. The Tories showed their contempt for legal due process by going ahead with the deportations before this review had been completed. Once again, trying to pull a fast one on legal due process.

 

Looks like another premature ejaculation by  Boris but luckily, nobody got pregnant this time.

Edited June 15, 2022 by NanLaew

[Loiner]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

 

Some people don’t realise or admit there are plenty of examples where the UK does not agree or comply with the wishes of the ECHR. 
There’s no real need to and no real implications. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Some people don’t realise or admit there are plenty of examples where the UK does not agree or comply with the wishes of the ECHR. 
There’s no real need to and no real implications. 

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

 

 

[NanLaew]

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Some people don’t realise or admit there are plenty of examples where the UK does not agree or comply with the wishes of the ECHR. 
There’s no real need to and no real implications. 

The United Kingdom, along with 45 other nations, were signatories to the ECHR when it was set up in 1953, founded in the wake of World War II to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

 

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.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The United Kingdom, along with 45 other nations, were signatories to the ECHR when it was set up in 1953, founded in the wake of World War II to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

 

 

Although the ECHR didn't accept the U.K.s rule of law

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The United Kingdom, along with 45 other nations, were signatories to the ECHR when it was set up in 1953, founded in the wake of World War II to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

 

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's always the same side of politics which doesn't like human rights laws and agreements.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Although the ECHR didn't accept the U.K.s rule of law

Sometimes I wonder, I really do.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, ozimoron said:

It's always the same side of politics which doesn't like human rights laws and agreements.

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

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sometimes I wonder, I really do.

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

[ozimoron]

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