hypochondriac

Good on Adam pushing Still a bit on formation. I didn't really understand his answer. 4231 is his favourite formation that he would love to play? There's nothing stopping you. We concede multiple goals in most games whatever formation we play. We aren't winning either way so play the formation you want to play at home. The worst thing that could happen is that we lose which is what we've been doing with five at the back anyway.

The change would be turning the statutory obligation into judicial discretion. Judges could still look at ECHR rulings if they’re helpful, but they’d do so by choice, not because they are forced to do so. It’s less about changing outcomes overnight and more about making it clear that UK rights law develops on our own terms without laws that compel external influences.

I’m not against keeping the same rights or case law necessarily — just removing the legal obligation to take into account Strasbourg rulings. That way interpretation develops solely under UK law, with judges free to look abroad when it’s useful but not obliged to do so. If it's fully controlled in the UK then there's not a problem.

No. Leaving the ECHR without reforming the HRA would change little. Replacing the HRA to remove the obligation would. It’s about who sets the boundaries of interpretation: Parliament and the UK alone or some involvement from Strasbourg.

I know, that illustrates my point. The difference with Strasbourg is that it's the only one we are legally required to take into account under Section 2 of the HRA. Other foreign precedence is discretionary. Strasbourg is given a legal weight that no other court enjoys.

Not sure the tone is necessary mate. I’m not saying there’s some huge volume of “European law” dictating our judges. The UK isn’t bound by EU law and Strasbourg judgments don’t override our Supreme Court. But under the human rights act UK courts have to take into account Strasbourg rulings. It’s a statutory direction to treat those decisions as persuasive, which has a clear effect on how our courts interpret rights. Over time, that’s created a load of domestic case law that largely mirrors Strasbourg’s. Again, the argument isn't about scrapping rights. It’s about reasserting Pariliament and UK courts as the final word on how those rights apply in practice. So the main change is the requirement to take into account Strasbourg rulings — not the rights themselves necessarily.

I am. My posting persona has been one big psyop.

Human rights are currently defined domestically through the HRA and interpreted by UK judges. It is true that most cases never get near Strasbourg. But the issue isn’t how often Strasbourg steps in — it’s that our own courts are required under the HRA to “take into account” Strasbourg rulings. Over time, that’s shaped our domestic case law and tilted the balance of interpretation in a direction set by an external court. The argument I have heard from most is about resetting that relationship. It’s not saying our courts are entirely powerless at present or that Strasbourg is all powerful — it’s about ensuring that when UK judges make judgements they’re doing so based solely on UK legislative intent. A British HRA wouldn’t need to reinvent rights — it would just reassert domestic primacy. It could for example say that Strasbourg case law has no authority unless adopted by Parliament or the Supreme Court. That would make rights protections domestic.

Agree with that too. There's no doubt that the state of the country has impacted on labour's popularity. Starmer being the last charismatic politician ever hasnt also helped but they have to take their share of the blame regardless of the circumstances. Hammering all sorts of different groups since they got into power just pisses everyone off. They've shown no political nouse appointing Mandleson for example. I listened to a podcast today where they said that the time to raise taxes was when Trump came into power and we could have used the war in Ukraine as an excuse rather than now which just looks like incompetence. They need a strategy person with a bit of forward thinking.

I agree with most of that. It's debatable they've been better than the Tories so far for me. I think they've been better in some areas but worse in others. Certainly the communication has been the worst thing.

Right but it's obvious why government ministers get more scrutiny than MPs of opposition parties not in power.

Farage isn't in government though.

I don't really disagree but it's just another item to add to the ledger and another example of the overall impression of incompetence.

Only because Matsuki hasn't had an opportunity. I've seen nothing to suggest we aren't going to plat Robinson on the wing in which case he's competing with Scienza.

Why? Robinson is also a winger.

You’re correct that right now, the Human Rights Act gives effect to the ECHR in UK law and that was my point. If we leave the ECHR and keep the HRA unchanged, not much changes because the HRA requires the courts to take Strasbourg case law into account. The whole idea behind leaving — or at least reforming the current setup — is to break that automatic link so UK judges interpret human rights through British legislation, not an international convention drafted in 1950. Nobody serious is suggesting we scrap the right to family life or the ban on torture — what people are saying is that those rights should be defined domestically, through a British Bill of Rights or similar law written by the UK Parliament. So it would mean reviewing or replacing the HRA, because as long as it stands in its current form, we’re still following Strasbourg’s interpretations.

leaving the ECHR would mainly remove the ability to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and potentially weaken Article 8 (“right to family life”) arguments in domestic courts. Other avenues would remain hence looking at other things too as you mentioned.

As I understand it, most people calling for leaving aren't asking for human rights to be abandoned, they are asking for the to be put back under UK control through a British bill of rights or similar legislation written and interpreted domestically. The right to family life principle isn't the issue but how broadly it's been applied. It’s often been used to block deportations of people with criminal records or rejected asylum claims, sometimes on very tenuous grounds. The argument is that those decisions should be made by UK judges based on UK law, not by reference to an international convention that was drafted in 1950 and has been stretched far beyond its original intent. Those arguing for leaving don't want outsourced interpretations of human rights.

It would reduce some of the legal avenues asylum seekers currently use to avoid deportation but not all of them.

Sounds like he was bribed with £500 to withdraw an asylum claim.

Azaz or whoever we play when Azaz isn't on.

I know you don't but it's in your interest not to think we need a striker given you were the loudest voice in here in the summer saying we definitely didn't need any more strikers.

Absolutely, I have said that consistently even though some people say it's literally impossible. What is actually meant when someone says that is they mean they don't like the implications of acting, it makes them uncomfortable and policitcally it's very difficult to do.

Because it didn't become a political hot potato beforehand.

I agree with that. I do think we don't have as good players as some predicted at the start of the season. I do think we should be putting a team out that performs above where we are at present.