Priti Patel has reportedly called the last-minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) that grounded the government’s first deportation flight to Rwanda “scandalous”.

 

The flight was halted minutes before its scheduled take-off on Tuesday after the ECHR ruled two of the asylum seekers due to be on board should not be removed from the UK until their appeals had been heard.

 

The home secretary said soon after that the new deportation scheme would continue despite the false start.

...

But on Friday, in an interview with The Telegraph, Ms Patel said: “The opaque way this court has operated is scandalous.”

 

(more)

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-rwanda-flight-echr-b2103928.html

 

 

Loving the ECHR. 

 

Keep up the good work. 

Well she would say that wouldn’t she.

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well she would say that wouldn’t she.

She would, because she is absolutely right. There was no need for our government to even consider what somebody in Strasbourg says when our own supreme courts have already ruled in the matter. We often don't comply with them anyway.

Who are the anonymous 'judges' in the ECHR anyway and why does the ECHR refuse to name them? There is always something wrong about secret justice. 

17 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

Priti Patel has reportedly called the last-minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) that grounded the government’s first deportation flight to Rwanda “scandalous”

Ah the irony of a member of this cabinet accusing others of scandalous behaviour.

 

LOL indeed.

41 minutes ago, Loiner said:

She would, because she is absolutely right. There was no need for our government to even consider what somebody in Strasbourg says when our own supreme courts have already ruled in the matter. We often don't comply with them anyway.

Who are the anonymous 'judges' in the ECHR anyway and why does the ECHR refuse to name them? There is always something wrong about secret justice. 

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/judges&c

7 hours ago, candide said:

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/judges&c

Not a useless list to pick and chose from.  Which ones were ready to sit late at night and think they have authority to reverse a UK Supreme Court decision.

6 hours ago, Loiner said:

Not a useless list to pick and chose from.  Which ones were ready to sit late at night and think they have authority to reverse a UK Supreme Court decision.

They applied the EHR Convention. And they did not "think they have authority", they do have authority as international law (the convention UK actively contributed to design, and signed) is above national law.

 

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

She would, because she is absolutely right. There was no need for our government to even consider what somebody in Strasbourg says when our own supreme courts have already ruled in the matter. We often don't comply with them anyway.

Who are the anonymous 'judges' in the ECHR anyway and why does the ECHR refuse to name them? There is always something wrong about secret justice. 

I guess it's a real problem for the right to see legal process take its course.

Keep going and worse will happen if a solution with a sufficient deterrent to the immigration problem is not found soon. 

 

British people are sick to the back teeth of it, which is why drastic (and some may argue questionable) projects like the Rwandan flights are gaining popularity.

 

Personally I have no problem with the Rwandan idea, I think it is brilliant. Get rid of the lot of them I say.

6 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Keep going and worse will happen if a solution with a sufficient deterrent to the immigration problem is not found soon. 

 

British people are sick to the back teeth of it, which is why drastic (and some may argue questionable) projects like the Rwandan flights are gaining popularity.

 

Personally I have no problem with the Rwandan idea, I think it is brilliant. Get rid of the lot of them I say.

But you know for every immigrant sent to Uganda, the UK has to accept one from Rwanda, probably a Congolese. 

4 hours ago, candide said:

It doesn't matter. They applied the EHR Convention. And they did not "think they have authority", they do have authority as international law (the convention UK actively contributed to design, and signed) is above national law.

 

They have no real authority at all. ECHR is not above national law. From its' original conception, it has developed into ust another European talk shop. If countries don't like the findings of the ECHR they simply ignore them, as we should have done in this case. 

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

They have no real authority at all. ECHR is not above national law. From its' original conception, it has developed into ust another European talk shop. If countries don't like the findings of the ECHR they simply ignore them, as we should have done in this case. 

The UK has signed an agreement decades ago to recognise the ECHR. As such it does transcend conflicting national laws as was demonstrated recently in the cancellation of the deportment flight to Rwanda.

58 minutes ago, Loiner said:

They have no real authority at all. ECHR is not above national law. From its' original conception, it has developed into ust another European talk shop. If countries don't like the findings of the ECHR they simply ignore them, as we should have done in this case. 

By definition  international laws are above national laws. Mind you, why do you think sovereign UK cancelled the flight? 

1 minute ago, candide said:

By definition  international laws are above national laws. Mind you, why do you think sovereign UK cancelled the flight? 

The ECHR is not above national laws. I think I have already stated that we don't know the full details of why the flight with remaining illegals was cancelled. It was not a directive of the ECHR though.

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

The ECHR is not above national laws. I think I have already stated that we don't know the full details of why the flight with remaining illegals was cancelled. It was not a directive of the ECHR though.

Got a link? The OP quotes Patel as saying the EHCR did stop the flight. Can you point to any legal opinion that supports your view that the ECHR is not above national law?