egg

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.

A friend of mine was intending to stand as a Reform candidate. He came to his senses today and resigned his membership. He's posted this: "I have today resigned from Reform UK Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that our country is in urgent need of significant reform, I find myself unable to reconcile my personal beliefs with the direction the party has recently taken. In particular, I cannot condone the ongoing and relentless barracking of local councils, which has escalated into a level of rhetoric so intense that it has fostered an environment where individuals are genuinely fearful for their safety. Such conduct is, in my view, wholly unacceptable and detrimental to the principles of respectful political discourse. Although I sincerely wish Reform UK every success in its future endeavours, I must express my deep concern that the recent behaviour exhibited does not serve the best interests of local communities, nor does it align with my values. This disconnect has compelled me to step away from the party, as I believe that our focus should remain on addressing the pressing local issues with integrity and civility. I remain committed to working towards the betterment of our society, albeit through different avenues" Hopefully more decent people will see the party for what it is.

Pretty daft to knock an article that you haven't read.

People often criticise the source when an article is correct but differs from their views. In what way is it wrong?

Let's stick to Europe when discussing a European convention.

Become an international pariah alongside Russia and Belarus?

Yes. That's international law - asylum seekers should not be detained solely for seeking asylum. Detention must be a matter of last resort and necessary. Why's it necessary to detain a kid and it's mother? An old lady? An old man? Why keep them locked up with the people you're concerned may be dangerous? Duck and Hyo have avoided those issues so feel free to answer - I'd like someone to. What process do you have mind to find out if someone is a potential risk to others? I'll answer, there isn't one. If there was, we'd be living in a world free of violent crime. You get irritated by what you regard as soft arsed attitudes. I get irritated by people who don't play the tape forwards and think about the feasibility of what they want.

None of that addresses that we need to process thousands of people, and have the resources to do it. Where we agree is that we need to become a less attractive proposition.

We can't just abandon our legal system, or change the process that people are in midstream. There's christ knows how many people here claiming asylum. We all know that many of them have left somewhere safe, but, their claims have to be processed. The home office needs cash to process the claims, and the Tribunal system needs resources to deal with the appeals from that. The delay in getting to that stage is unacceptable. Sorting that is the only realistic way of dealing with the people here. The problem on the ground won't go away in the meantime, and, we have to accept that there'll be wrong uns amongst those who successfully claim asylum.

That's the issue, what happens after the space is used up. There needs to be a massive speed up of dealing with the appeals, and removing people who've been through the system and lost. Whether direct action will be taken in the channel, I'm not sure, but the government will be aware of the sentiment of the masses.

Whatever the reason, we cannot just send people back. That's the point I was making. You know that.