Farmer Saint

Doesn't stop illegal immigrants though does it? Instead of applying for asylum they'll just disappear - tbh that's worse than what's happening now.

You seem very supportive of Reform - considering you are a remainer it seems an odd party to support. Reform are constantly in trouble for extremely serious stuff. Just look at Pochin earlier this week - that's worse than what Rayner resigned for.

Interesting case this. Thoughts on the judgement? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjekdqj7529o

Is that what he means? He can't think that.

"No, Alan, no, you can't..."

Well, we know you didn't meet them in Thailand, that's for sure. What I find very odd is you met 7 SA's in a year, and each one you got onto them leaving for fear of their lives. I don't even know how you got to that point in conversation, considering you live in Thailand and they would most likely be there on holiday. Do you ask all holiday goers whether they were being persecuted in their own countries? Is that your schtick?

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.