hypochondriac

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.

If labour were smart- no guarantee there -they'd get together with like minded European countries and try to make proper changes to the ECHR to prevent frivolous legal challenges and some of the ridiculous spectacles we have seen holding up reasonable deportations. I reckon there's a good chance they will do that before the end of their term to allow them to ramp up deportation over the next couple of years. You'd have to say their political future depends on it.

Who is worse?

Personally I'd say fuck it and either play the youth team bloke or Downs and just give them the majority of the game to see if they can get close to something. We don't have an awful lot to lose and without Stewart we have little choice until January other than to cross our fingers that Downs does something and gives us more of a presence up top. I'd probably drop Armstrong as well and play Fellows and Scienza to give us some creativity.

I don't disagree. Personally I wanted Rohl but I would have settled for an alternative manager with good man management skills and a bit of experience in this league who can handle the fact that we'd just been shafted every week in the prem. Whatever Will's faults, the primary reason we are where we are is because we are shot to pieces mentally and IMO Still is struggling to address that. We should have identified that in the summer and got someone in who could do something about it. And bought a proper championship striker of course.

I agree. The paedo isn't responsible for the absolute fuck up that allowed him to go free. It sounds like he was largely oblivious to what was happening. I think everyone can be glad he's gone though. Still infuriating that we had to pay him to get him to leave quietly.

The issue of course is how it is addressed. I certainly understand the issue, that some people are worried that treating all small boat migrants with suspicion risks tarring "inocent" asylum seekers with the same brush and that the amount that are sex criminals or who break the law in other ways are still in the minority. Others will argue that there's little sympathy for people who enter the country in a dinghy and that reasonable measures to detain them and prevent the bad apples from harming innocent members of the public is a sensile and proportionate response to people entering the country in this fashion.

I think we have to be honest. If we want to work within the current system and think that detaining those who come over illegally is too extreme and that they should be accommodated for an extended period without any restriction of movement then things like this are the price you're going to have to pay unfortunately. Some people will think that detaining young men from small boats or other measures that might act as a deterrent aren't the actions of a civilised country and that there are downsides to taking more drastic action but the trade off is that rapes, murder and harassment from the number of bad apples will continue.