egg

I gather it's quite liberal round there. Any decent barmaids in the local?

I'm not sure where you're doing your research mate, but you have this mistaken belief that there's a plethora of European law which binds our judges. There isn't. I still want to know what part of our HRA you want to replace/get rid of.

I can't get on board with the lawyers point. The lawyers argue the law, nothing more, and people need access to justice, even with a shit case. The Tribunal system hears far more cases for social entitlement and send than it does for immigration and asylum. The resources aren't there to hear more, and that needs addressing urgently.

Kids do not go into care where there's no current significant harm or risk of future significant harm. It's really simple. Is your law change just for immigrants? Or will all parents be in danger of losing their kids because they've put their kids in danger in the past?

So you want to change our laws to allow for taking kids into care for past parental mistakes, but where there is no evidence of current or future of the same or similar harm? Do you realise how daft an idea that sounds. Does this law change apply to all, or is it just for immigrants?

So no answer. I'll answer for you - there's no suggestion that the child is suffering significant harm, or could. That's not me disagreeing. It's applying our domestic law.

This is tedious, and is another example of people calling for things without thought to what the law allows for. The test for a care order is whether a child is suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm. Not that they could have previously. If a kid came over on a boat last month, is now in a hotel with his parents who are seeking to stay here permanently as a family, explain the current or future risk to that kid of suffering significant harm...

The concept is what Duck wants, not what the law allows for. Indeed, the majority of what people seem to be screaming for is not legal or feasible - pushing boats back, detaining people, taking kids into care where there's no current or future risk of harm, etc, are all pie in the sky concepts that can't and won't happen. The solutions are to make us less attractive - basic accomodation that meets basic needs, tougher criteria to be able to remain, and shit loads of resources thrown at processing claims and appeals to get people out quickly, but legally. The other stuff people call for is populist bollox.

You still ignore that human rights are already defined domestically in the HRA! Case law is defined by our Judges, very rarely does a case get past the SC to Europe. The family courts, civil courts, criminal courts and tribunal system all determine cases based on our established case law - we're not beholden to the ECHR as you and others wrongly suggest. I'm still unsure what you're saying from our domestic law needs to change? If we ditch the HRA and replace with HRA Mark 2 (we won't as it'd be utterly pointless), Judges will still be persuaded by relatable case law established under HRA Mark 1.

That's a completely different point to the concept of taking kids into care where there's no suggestion that they're currently suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm.

I've worked in the child care system. A risk that has no prospect of being repeated will not get close to the threshold of a child being at risk of suffering significant harm. Unless you're suggesting that these kids will be taken back over the channel, your point doesn't stack up as the risk has passed. Regardless, our system - social services, foster care, judiciary, legal aid lawyers - is unable to cope with the care cases that we have, and cannot cope with the influx you're advocating. And snapdragon FFS. It's 2025 mate.

I don't follow, and I think you've confused yourself. What are the fundamental changes to the ECHR that you referred to above? The principles of the ECHR are already enshrined in our law, namely the HRA. We don't need a new law because if we exit the ECHR, the HRA remains. Are you suggesting that the HRA goes? The decisions re the right to family life are made by our Judges under the HRA. The case law flowing from that will remain if we exit the ECHR, and will apply to the HRA. I'm not sure what change you actually seek, and how you think it'll work.

Um, HRA?

You'll also see that your post was edited, and that having read the edited post I acknowledged that I may have misunderstood. Apologies if so.

The incidents that have happened are appalling, on that I'm sure we all agree. We all seem to agree that immigration (legal and otherwise) needs m urgently addressing, and the accomodation of asylum seekers needs to be addressed. The detail of that people have different views on, that's understandable, and reasonable. The issue I have is with emotional and ill thought suggestions on the solution. The military in the channel, taking kids into care, unlawfully detaining non criminals, separating families, coming out of the EHCR (and presumably HRA), etc, just isn't going to happen. Whether I misinterpreted Mixedkebabs post, I'm unsure, but I took it as a sardonic rant.

I took it as a kind of, I want to make a point, but actually haven't got a sensible word to say, so will just post a senseless rant.

The nonsense gets worse. Local authorities are skint, so let's hire non existent social workers, pay non existent foster carers, and divert the judiciary away from dealing with immigration and asylum cases so they can deal with more care cases. Brilliant idea. It's almost as though the red mist makes people unable to think sensibly.

I'm glad you asked...people keep banging on about the EHCR and overlook the HRA. If we exit the EHCR, we still have the HRA. I guess they expect both to go. I'm intrigued to understand what people actually want us to give up. I'm assuming it's the right to family life, but I'd be surprised if people really want our legal system to relinquish a right to family life. I'd appreciate a response from those calling for an end or amendment to EHCR.

So the kids fot into care. Ok. Our system won't cope, but I appreciate the answer. What about the women? Kept separate from the men, or do they stay together?

You still haven't said what you want to do with the women and kids. Separate them from their spouses/fathers? What about single parent dads - separate from their kids?

Another interpretation is that a wrong un is booted out, saving us a fortune.

Legal is not illegal. That's not semantics. It's basics.

Jesus wept.

People struggle with these basics.

I'll do a you and presume that's bollox and save my time.