Farmer Saint

Defenders are top shit to play 4 at the back unfortunately. It's why we reverted to it under Martin and pretty much all the time since.

Morally bankrupt.

Defenders who can actually defend.

I wonder which half that was...

Yeah, that won't change much then. At the moment they may be forced to look at ECHR (which they likely would anyway), but even now they are not forced to follow the judgements. Going forward with leaving the ECHR they won't be forced to look at the ECHR (but they likely would anyway), and they are not forced to follow the judgements. The only thing it may change, is that they may not take a judgement at the moment against precedence set by the ECHR for fear of Appeal to ECHR. That is what may change, but again appeals would be made to a higher UK court and would cite ECHR judgements so not sure it'll make a huge amount of difference anyway.

But we don't have to follow those rulings from the ECHR - it is again persuasive and it just says we have to consider it. What I am struggling with here, is that this isn't going to change much. We will still most likely consider judgements from the ECHR as part of persuasive precedence.

You know you can take persuasive precedence from anywhere that the judges feels is relevant, so we take persuasive legal precedents from the US for instance, or Canada, Australia etc.

The irony was St George was an immigrant...half Turkish half Palestinian with a violent past. Assume he must have been a Muslim judging by peoples judgements of Palestinians on this board...

Which ones that aren't backed by other entities/legal frameworks?

You think Reform, who have never governed, have a snake oil salesman as leader (and you have said multiple times you supported staying in the EU), has no-one who knows anything about governing a country apart from that chancer Kruger, and you still think they are more credible than Labour? If you were a Remainer you would not vote for Reform. 110%. Who do you think are credible parties for the next election? Assume the Tory's aren't in there under Badenoch as no-one thinks they're credible.

Just out of interest, is it the ECHR that is stipulating the right to frivolous legal challenges?

So you're removing kids from their parents and putting them into our superbly funded and run social care system? What a good idea.

What's that got to do with the ECHR though? Essentially he's been paid to not appeal, which would cost far more in legal costs anyway.

To be fair this has been mooted many times - essentially paying illegal immigrants to fuck off back to their countries.

To be fair we sacked Jones and Selles fairly quickly and we got nowhere doing that.

The best type of being legal, is the legal type.

Are you going to tell us, or are you just parroting again without really knowing what you're arguing for?

Just more ammo for Digital IDs reading that story. Also looks like a migrant who has overstayed their Visa rather than an illegal immigrant.

Yes, I know you don't decrease the deficit by increasing spending - what I meant is we are in the difficult position where we need to do both. In respect of your questions above: 1. Interest Rates could come down now, so I think you could say what they've done so far has contributed to that. But, as I've said many times, interest rates at the moment aren't high or low due to government policy, it is due to the external factors on inflation. The issue is the BoE are managing this all very poorly and are using old school economic theory to try to solve it, when that is not what is needed now. 2. Decreasing planning laws for one will help building and construction and their supply chains. Green investment etc. Encouraging technology investment from the US. If they can get fuel/energy prices down then that is a big win for businesses and the public.

But you're the one who said it, you tell me.

You seem to think I'm defending Reeves here - that is also an issue. What I'm trying to do is show you that what you are saying the article says, it doesn't. We need to encourage investment and spending, and to do that we need to massively decrease interest rates to start with. But let's not kid ourselves, the current deficit needs to be dealt with and we need further investment in public services, alongside forcing the whip on tighter benefits controls. The Business NI increase was stupid. The Tories should not have decreased personal NI contributions - that was done to fuck up Labour in this government.

I'm not traditionally pro-tax by any means, and considering I spent the majority of my working life running my own businesses your second assertion is wrong. Where have I shown I am anti-business? I don't think you quite realise what a mess this country has been left in, and that's where we differ.

What would leaving the ECHR allow us to do?

Won't we find that out at the budget? I'm not sure why you're getting annoyed at that article, and what you think it proves.

I never said it has nothing to do with government policy, I said that the vast majority of inflation was due to external factors and not to do with interest rates, hence why I was encouraging large cuts to interest rates as it shouldn't affect inflation. This should encourage growth by the way. You've clearly not spent a lot of time in boardrooms, but I am genuinely interested in what you think my views are?