What Is Happening To Our Country?

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

He said we can’t send them back now, because we’ve left the EU and therefore   no longer in the Dublin convention.
 

Pointing out the numbers when we were in said convention, doesn’t make him right, however much you’d like him to be. 

The point is that we can't just send them back now. What is incorrect about that statement? 

He is correct about that. You know that. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

The point is that we can't just send them back now. What is incorrect about that statement? 

He is correct about that. You know that. 

 

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

in being successful in his campaign to get us out of the EU has made a rod for his own back in that we can’t just send them back to France now.

He’s saying that we could send them back to France before Nigel “made a rod for his own back” by successfully winning the Brexit referendum. Pointing out that this is rubbish and we actually received more under the Dublin convention.
 

 That was the point I was making, but you knew that…..

Edited Tuesday at 21:15 by Lord Duckhunter

[AlexLaw76]

When we quickly exhaust all the bare-useful ex military barracks, the pressure on the Government will grow (along with the crime in the local areas of said barracks), and, as said before, we will probably see the UK military acting as a deterrent in the Channel. Maybe even get a few Royal Marines towing the boats back over the sea-border.

 

Probably not the last bit, but this government will get desperate, and as Lord Duck hunter said a few pages back, the UK is clearly walking towards what Reform want to do anyway.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

He’s saying that we could send them back to France before Nigel “made a rod for his own back” by successfully winning the Brexit referendum. Pointing out that this is rubbish and we actually received more under the Dublin convention.
 

 That was the point I was making, but you knew that…..

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

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

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

We are about to 'send back' the wandering sexual assaulter. Wonder why we did not send him back in the first instance.

[Gloucester Saint]

There are many other things happening in this country, eyewatering levels of corruption for one https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/profits-of-doom.pdf

We paid for these firms and Tory donors to gorge themselves on the taxpayer teat. That’s without the damning report about the asylum hotel contracts this week as well.

Edited Tuesday at 21:26 by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

When we quickly exhaust all the bare-useful ex military barracks, the pressure on the Government will grow (along with the crime in the local areas of said barracks), and, as said before, we will probably see the UK military acting as a deterrent in the Channel. Maybe even get a few Royal Marines towing the boats back over the sea-border.

 

Probably not the last bit, but this government will get desperate, and as Lord Duck hunter said a few pages back, the UK is clearly walking towards what Reform want to do anyway.

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. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

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. 

Appeals, then last min challenges, then more appeals etc. Rinse and repeat.

In the mean time, HMOs everywhere, crime by illegal immigrants freely wandering around, sexual assaults and more random attacks that we have seen today, will just all be part and parcel of this weird act of self-harm of the UK we are seeing take place with our own eyes.

Wont be long before Remembrance parades are actually banned within certain 'communities' (probably those stuffed with HMOs).

[egg]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Appeals, then last min challenges, then more appeals etc. Rinse and repeat.

In the mean time, HMOs everywhere, crime by illegal immigrants freely wandering around, sexual assaults and more random attacks that we have seen today, will just all be part and parcel of this weird act of self-harm of the UK we are seeing take place with our own eyes.

Wont be long before Remembrance parades are actually banned within certain 'communities' (probably those stuffed with HMOs).

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. 

[AlexLaw76]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

We can change pretty much what we like. Everything is a political choice. Many of said choices that we were told were never an option will creep in anyway as this Government gets more f-ing desperate.

We all know their 'silver bullet' will be just to grant anyone and everyone who wants it, asylum. Then that will get exposed for what it is and they get slammed anyway. 

As for the problem on the ground, again all choices. The Government could choose to make the UK an unattractive destination, ie reduce the pull factor. Make it impossible for Deliveroo to hire these people, or go big on the ridiculous number of cash-only barbers on every corner, or any other obvious things. Declare that if you enter the country illegally you will never ever be granted the right to remain. Do not give them tickets to Chelsea, or the fun fair, or mobile phones, or paid for taxi service to go shopping/doctors/where ever they want. Any of them who commit any sort of crime are immediately deported (those that can)......All choices.

One thing is for sure, Digital ID will do jack shit.

Edited Tuesday at 21:53 by AlexLaw76

[egg]

14 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We can change pretty much what we like. Everything is a political choice. Many of said choices that we were told were never an option will creep in anyway as this Government gets more f-ing desperate.

We all know their 'silver bullet' will be just to grant anyone and everyone who wants it, asylum. Then that will get exposed for what it is and they get slammed anyway. 

As for the problem on the ground, again all choices. The Government could choose to make the UK an unattractive destination, ie reduce the pull factor. Make it impossible for Deliveroo to hire these people, or go big on the ridiculous number of cash-only barbers on every corner, or any other obvious things. Declare that if you enter the country illegally you will never ever be granted the right to remain. Do not give them tickets to Chelsea, or the fun fair, or mobile phones, or paid for taxi service to go shopping/doctors/where ever they want. Any of them who commit any sort of crime are immediately deported (those that can)......All choices.

One thing is for sure, Digital ID will do jack shit.

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. 

[LuckyNumber7]

5 hours ago, egg said:

Plenty of people walking the streets are potentially bloody dangerous. That's not a reason to lock them away. 

WTF? Are you seriously saying that people who come here illegally (clue is in the name) should just be given the freedom to roam around as they please, and if any of them are a danger then oh well, we have dangerous natives too?

Ridiculous soft arsed attitudes like this are exactly why they keep coming over. 

A government's main responsibility is to keep it's own people safe, and if that means holding these people in a secure area away from the public until we can determine whether they should be here or not and what risk they pose, then that's what we should be doing.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

WTF? Are you seriously saying that people who come here illegally (clue is in the name) should just be given the freedom to roam around as they please, and if any of them are a danger then oh well, we have dangerous natives too?

Ridiculous soft arsed attitudes like this are exactly why they keep coming over. 

A government's main responsibility is to keep it's own people safe, and if that means holding these people in a secure area away from the public until we can determine whether they should be here or not and what risk they pose, then that's what we should be doing.

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. 

[LuckyNumber7]

Lol, how many kids and elderly are coming over on the boats? The vast majority are young men. If any of them don't like the idea of being separated from the public while their applications are processed, then don't come here. We give them free accommodation, food and essentials. If that's so horrible, then bloody stay where you are. Why is it ok for the public to be subjected to these potential scumbags but not their fellow illegals?

If that's what international law says then it needs to be urgently rewritten and we need to ignore it, because it's trash. You cannot decide to just enter a country illegally and have the freedom to wander around as you please, that's madness.

And I actually agree with you that it's almost impossible to determine how much of a risk someone is, which is why I personally wouldn't let any of them stay. Tow the boats back out to the middle of the channel. Make it clear that if you attempt to come over on a boat you will never be granted asylum in this country and will be deported asap. Make it as unattractive as possible to come here.

Won't happen because this country is soft as shit.

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Lol, how many kids and elderly are coming over on the boats? The vast majority are young men. If any of them don't like the idea of being separated from the public while their applications are processed, then don't come here. We give them free accommodation, food and essentials. If that's so horrible, then bloody stay where you are. Why is it ok for the public to be subjected to these potential scumbags but not their fellow illegals?

If that's what international law says then it needs to be urgently rewritten and we need to ignore it, because it's trash. You cannot decide to just enter a country illegally and have the freedom to wander around as you please, that's madness.

And I actually agree with you that it's almost impossible to determine how much of a risk someone is, which is why I personally wouldn't let any of them stay. Tow the boats back out to the middle of the channel. Make it clear that if you attempt to come over on a boat you will never be granted asylum in this country and will be deported asap. Make it as unattractive as possible to come here.

Won't happen because this country is soft as shit.

We could pull out of them, but I think then we'd be akin to Russia and Belarus, and I don't think that is what we really want, is it?

What we need to do is deal with them quicker. More cash, more people, shorter stays.

Maybe the way to deal with it is open up all channels to apply from overseas. You can then rightly make coming across on a boat illegal, with anyone coming across on a boat being automatically detained. The problem is these people will look to disappear rather than claim asylum...but then if we have ID cards then this should help. If we also moved to a cashless society then they would no longer be able to live here.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We could pull out of them,........

 

We cannot simply nullify the ECHR because it underpins a lot of domestic Law. 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

We cannot simply nullify the ECHR because it underpins a lot of domestic Law. 

Oh I know, I'm not saying we feasibly can - it's more a muse of types.

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Oh I know, I'm not saying we feasibly can - it's more a muse of types.

But it is an easy throw away comment for people like Farage and BadEnoch to spout to the easily misled.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But it is an easy throw away comment for people like Farage and BadEnoch to spout to the easily misled.

Lets see what ChatGPT thinks (headline items).

 

Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would not be easy for the UK — legally possible, but politically and constitutionally very complex. Here’s a breakdown of what’s involved 👇

 

---

 

 

⚖️ 1. 

Legal Mechanism

 

 

Under Article 58 of the ECHR, any member state can withdraw by:

 

• Giving six months’ notice to the Council of Europe (not the EU — they’re different),

• After which, the UK would no longer be bound by the Convention.

 

 

So, technically it’s simple — just a formal notification.

But the consequences are far-reaching.

 

---

 

 

🏛️ 2. 

Domestic Legal Impact

 

 

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) incorporates the ECHR into UK law.

If the UK left the ECHR:

 

• Parliament would likely need to repeal or rewrite the HRA.

• UK courts would no longer be bound to interpret laws in line with ECHR rights.

• People could no longer appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

 

 

That would create a major constitutional shift, especially in how fundamental rights are enforced domestically.

 

---

 

 

🧩 3. 

Impact on Devolution

 

 

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have devolved settlements that explicitly reference the ECHR:

 

• The Good Friday Agreement (1998) requires the ECHR to be incorporated into Northern Irish law.

• Leaving the ECHR could breach that international treaty and destabilize the Northern Ireland peace process.

• Scotland’s and Wales’ devolved governments would strongly oppose leaving, possibly sparking constitutional tension.

 

 

---

 

 

🌍 4. 

International and Political Fallout

 

 

• The UK would become the only European country (apart from Belarus and Russia) outside the ECHR system — a major reputational hit.

• It could strain relations with allies, especially the Council of Europe, EU, and NATO members.

• Could also affect extradition, law enforcement, and security cooperation (many treaties assume ECHR compliance).

 

 

---

 

 

🗳️ 5. 

Political Reality

 

 

While some politicians (especially on the right) have floated withdrawal, there’s no broad parliamentary majority for it.

 

• The Lords, devolved governments, and much of the legal establishment would fiercely resist.

• The public reaction would likely be mixed, but polling suggests many still support keeping ECHR rights.

 

[badgerx16]

So I was right, it is an easy throw away comment, but difficult to actually carry out.

[Farmer Saint]

But it's not just the ECHR we have to leave. 

It's the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's not just the ECHR we have to leave. 

It's the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Stop bringing facts into this. It's as if politicians are making vacuous promises they know they cannot keep.

Edited yesterday at 08:16 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

So I was right, it is an easy throw away comment, but difficult to actually carry out.

but not impossible. Well, impossible for our politicians from any party

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

but not impossible. Well, impossible for our politicians from any party

Of course it's not impossible, Russia and Belarus manage without it.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Of course it's not impossible, Russia and Belarus manage without it.

As do most of the word outside of the this continent. 

[Farmer Saint]

31 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

As do most of the word outside of the this continent. 

What do you think leaving the ECHR will allow you to do?

[AlexLaw76]

22 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What do you think leaving the ECHR will allow you to do?

If the country wanted to do it, it could.

What it allows 'me' to do is irrelevant. 

 

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If the country wanted to do it, it could.

What it allows 'me' to do is irrelevant. 

 

Sorry, what do you think it would allow the country to do? Or are you just saying we could do something? Is this like saying that we "could" just shoot them as they get to our beaches?

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, what do you think it would allow the country to do? Or are you just saying we could do something? Is this like saying that we "could" just shoot them as they get to our beaches?

it could allow the country to do many things, good or bad.

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

it could allow the country to do many things, good or bad.

What things?

Edited yesterday at 09:49 by Farmer Saint

[egg]

20 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

it could allow the country to do many things, good or bad.

Become an international pariah alongside Russia and Belarus? 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

Become an international pariah alongside Russia and Belarus? 

And Canada, and Australia, and any other developed nation not in Europe

[egg]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

And Canada, and Australia, and any other developed nation not in Europe

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

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

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

Lets not, in a globalised world of today.

[skintsaint]

Wouldn't the ECHR just be replaced with a UKCHR?

Basically HR ruling decisions made within the UK and not by a foreign court, which seeing as we have one of the best justice systems going shouldnt be a problem.

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Lets not, in a globalised world of today.

What would leaving the ECHR allow us to do?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

What would leaving the ECHR allow us to do?

Have a look for yourself, it is all available online.

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Have a look for yourself, it is all available online.

But you're the one who said it, you tell me.

Edited yesterday at 10:18 by Farmer Saint

[ecuk268]

13 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

WTF? Are you seriously saying that people who come here illegally (clue is in the name) should just be given the freedom to roam around as they please, and if any of them are a danger then oh well, we have dangerous natives too?

 

You do not come here illegally if you claim asylum on arrival.

If your claim is rejected you are then here illegally.

[egg]

11 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

You do not come here illegally if you claim asylum on arrival.

If your claim is rejected you are then here illegally.

People struggle with these basics. 

[Sir Ralph]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

People struggle with these basics. 

It’s the same thing. It’s semantics if you want to get into the legal interpretation you are technically correct but essentially the majority of people shouldn’t be here when they arrive as they aren’t fleeing from risk of life or persecution so most people see them as illegal, rather than using the technically correct terms. If my gran from Bolivia came here and tried to claim asylum I would describe her as illegal because she has no reason or right to enter the country’s shores coming from a safe country

Edited yesterday at 12:13 by Sir Ralph

[AlexLaw76]

Just a daily occurrence. At least she was not stabbed to death

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37155231/migrant-assaulted-women-delivery/

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Just a daily occurrence. At least she was not stabbed to death

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37155231/migrant-assaulted-women-delivery/

but, but, but youre more likely to be assaulted on you doorstep by a British person

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

As do most of the word outside of the this continent.

Only Europe counts to the little Europeans on here. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, forget them. It’s Russia/ Belarus territory or the ECHR, and they’re the ones pontificating about simplistic arguments 😂😂

Edited yesterday at 12:29 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Only Europe counts to the little Europeans on here. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, forget them. It’s Russia/ Belarus territory or the ECHR, and they’re the ones pontificating about simplistic arguments 😂😂

Msny other countries have their own Human Rights legislation, including such as Australia, Canada, etc. In principle their legislation provides the same rights and protections as the ECHR and has been developed over decades.

The point about the ECHR that you and many others prefer to obfuscate is that it is not a simple matter of giving 6 months notice and revoking it. A lot of replacement legislation would be needed to backfill domestic Law. 

This is what Farage and Badenoch are being disingenuous about.

[tdmickey3]

35 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Msny other countries have their own Human Rights legislation, including such as Australia, Canada, etc. In principle their legislation provides the same rights and protections as the ECHR and has been developed over decades.

The point about the ECHR that you and many others prefer to obfuscate is that it is not a simple matter of giving 6 months notice and revoking it. A lot of replacement legislation would be needed to backfill domestic Law. 

This is what Farage and Badenoch are being disingenuous about.

All for the benefit of the gullible and dense.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Only Europe counts to the little Europeans on here. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, forget them. It’s Russia/ Belarus territory or the ECHR, and they’re the ones pontificating about simplistic arguments 😂😂

Jesus wept. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s the same thing. It’s semantics if you want to get into the legal interpretation you are technically correct but essentially the majority of people shouldn’t be here when they arrive as they aren’t fleeing from risk of life or persecution so most people see them as illegal, rather than using the technically correct terms. If my gran from Bolivia came here and tried to claim asylum I would describe her as illegal because she has no reason or right to enter the country’s shores coming from a safe country

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

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Just a daily occurrence. At least she was not stabbed to death

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37155231/migrant-assaulted-women-delivery/

Just more ammo for Digital IDs reading that story.

Also looks like a migrant who has overstayed their Visa rather than an illegal immigrant.

Edited 23 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Have a look for yourself, it is all available online.

Are you going to tell us, or are you just parroting again without really knowing what you're arguing for?