egg

The jury got it right, as did the Judge when directing them. Not sure the CPS did though, daft charge. They're still idiots though, and driving there, bless em.

That's lovely to hear Whitey. Congratulations to you all.

I hadn't appreciated that, but I'm not surprised. To be fair, my focus has always been on daft privatisations and sell offs which have cost us (and still do), but she did well re Europe.

But those people are obnoxious, and have disagreeable views. It's not always that way - I admired Thatcher as a person, she carried herself with grace, but I despised her politics and policies.

I don't think they stand a chance with Badenoch. Not terribly bright, and just unlikeable.

He's a good bloke and I'm surprised he ever got tied up them. Credit to him, and others, for realising their error.

That'll boost the high street, and get some good quality protein into the masses. You've saved the nation.

Perhaps they were racists or nonces escaping to somewhere where they're safer and more accepted.

Nice. Very succinct. Evicted, title stripped, all but acknowledges that he's a nonce, and sends the right message to the poor girls family.

Spies

Crazy that people would turn their noses up at Awoniyi, not that he'd drop to our level anyway.

Is that something you've been told, or concluded?

I think we've spent ages getting nowhere. Ultimately, we're not ditching our HRA, our existing UK case law remains regardless of what happens re ECHR, and foreign law will still be out there. This boils down to people having the belief that European law cuts off the autonomy of our legal system and judicial independence. I also think people calling for our removal from the EHCR have no idea that we have the HRA which ain't going anywhere.

I get that you want to cut off appeals at SC level. I have no issue with that as long as we have domestic law akin to what we have now. What changes do you seek to the HRA if we no longer have an appeal route to Europe? Regardless, existing domestic case law will still have a place. Foreign law will also still be persuasive as Farmer has said.

This is pointless. The HRA is domestic. The case law from it is domestic. What you seem to be getting at, I think, is keeping the HRA but exiting the EHCR. In reality, that'll make no meaningful difference on the ground.

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.