What Is Happening To Our Country?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

12 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

 

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.
 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, egg said:

What about the women? Kept separate from the men, 

Obviously. 
 

If they want to stay together, stay in France 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, egg said:

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. 

People who put their kids lives at risk, should have them taken into care. The snap dragon deals with this weekly, unfit mothers having babies taken into care as soon as they’ve given birth , sometimes for the 4th or 5th time. Affordability plays no part in it, if the children are at risk, they’re placed in care. Anyone who puts their kids into a small boat to try and make a dangerous sea crossing is an unfit parent. If they want to stay together as a family, stay in France.

One thing for sure, if Boris Johnson took one of his kids fishing in a leaky old boat out into the middle of one of the worlds busiest shipping lanes , you’d be the first one calling for them to be taken off him.

Edited 5 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Gloucester Saint]

33 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

People who put their kids lives at risk, should have them taken into care. The snap dragon deals with this weekly, unfit mothers having babies taken into care as soon as they’ve given birth , sometimes for the 4th or 5th time. Affordability plays no part in it, if the children are at risk, they’re placed in care. Anyone who puts their kids into a small boat to try and make a dangerous sea crossing is an unfit parent. If they want to stay together as a family, stay in France.

One thing for sure, if Boris Johnson took one of his kids fishing in a leaky old boat out into the middle of one of the worlds busiest shipping lanes , you’d be the first one calling for them to be taken off him.

I’m trying not to click like on this post - and Egg is correct about resources - but I agree that it is reckless to risk your kids on a dangerous sea crossing when other safe nations are available for asylum as a basic point. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Gloucester Saint