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 18 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 17 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[east-stand-nic]

On 28/10/2025 at 15:29, tdmickey3 said:

I wish the wanker was a subscribed member and we could ridicule the lying prick some more 

And there is the big difference between us. I do not feel a need to rush into posting to defend my correct statements. You are simply not worth the £5. On top of that, with the clear 2 tier rules on here I would not sign up just to be banned for giving back what I get in terms of abuse. 

On 28/10/2025 at 18:06, ChrisPY said:

Do you happen to have any experience of those living in Thailand and not being caught?

Fact is it happens here less than in the UK. Bangkok is also listed as a safer city than London, I wonder why that is? Simply put, they do not accept shit here. It gets dealt with. Idiotic childish claims of 14 year olds with guys in bars are simply myth and do not happen. The posters making that claim have never left Europe and hence have no experience of the world on a wider scale. So they make shit up and parrot what has been said by bar stool travelers. 

On 29/10/2025 at 01:29, sadoldgit said:

I’m not defending anyone you cretin. For someone who claims to be so intelligent you really are a clueless idiot. Little wonder you are also a Trump apologist. 

You have NEVER condemned a Muslim atrocity. You instead come back with, you are more likely to be XYZ by a white Englishman. The fact remains, letting in these males uncheked has created MORE dangers for women and children, so it should be sorted out, not just left to chance because sometimes whiteys do it. 

[Weston Super Saint]

24 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

And there is the big difference between us. I do not feel a need to rush into posting to defend my correct statements. You are simply not worth the £5. On top of that, with the clear 2 tier rules on here I would not sign up just to be banned for giving back what I get in terms of abuse. 

Fact is it happens here less than in the UK. Bangkok is also listed as a safer city than London, I wonder why that is? Simply put, they do not accept shit here. It gets dealt with. Idiotic childish claims of 14 year olds with guys in bars are simply myth and do not happen. The posters making that claim have never left Europe and hence have no experience of the world on a wider scale. So they make shit up and parrot what has been said by bar stool travelers. 

You have NEVER condemned a Muslim atrocity. You instead come back with, you are more likely to be XYZ by a white Englishman. The fact remains, letting in these males uncheked has created MORE dangers for women and children, so it should be sorted out, not just left to chance because sometimes whiteys do it. 

Posting time = 06:57 UK time or 13:57 Thailand time.

Which one do we think is more likely, someone in the UK pretending they live in Thailand and posting whilst having a morning shit or someone genuinely living in Thailand and posting after lunch?

Option 1 for me.

[whelk]

20 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

2 tier rules on here

Always the self pitying victim

Pretends no pedos in Thailand -lol, wonder why that is? bloke in Benidorm told me over a fry up

[Gloucester Saint]

52 minutes ago, whelk said:

Always the self pitying victim

Pretends no pedos in Thailand -lol, wonder why that is? bloke in Benidorm told me over a fry up

Nic’s the leader of the gang, oh yeah, he’s leader of the gang.

Edited 8 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

10 hours 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'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. 

[AlexLaw76]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

The UK can't cope overall, but still we do little to stop them coming.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The UK can't cope overall, but still we do little to stop them coming.

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.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

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.

The concept is a fair one. The reality is as you say, there are not the resources to achieve this remotely safely. Kind of like flirting around the edges whilst tens of thousands of men just waltz into the country.

[egg]

13 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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.
 

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. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The concept is a fair one. The reality is as you say, there are not the resources to achieve this remotely safely. Kind of like flirting around the edges whilst tens of thousands of men just waltz into the country.

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. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, egg said:

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. 

No risk? Any parent who puts a life of a child at risk for an unnecessary trip in an overloaded dinghy, sailing illegally across one of the busiest shipping lanes on earth, should be questioned about their parenting decisions at the very least.

Your point about resources should be extrapolated across the entire concept of just doing very little to deter them in the first place, given the state of the UK at the moment.

[egg]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

No risk? Any parent who puts a life of a child at risk for an unnecessary trip in an overloaded dinghy, sailing illegally across one of the busiest shipping lanes on earth, should be questioned about their parenting decisions at the very least.

Your point about resources should be extrapolated across the entire concept of just doing very little to deter them in the first place, given the state of the UK at the moment.

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...

[whelk]

Is the ‘busiest shipping lanes in the world’ now a line? 

82 deaths of 37000 who crossed in 2024 suggests the odds of fatalities are minuscule, 0.002%

Edited 6 hours ago by whelk

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

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...

Where there is a will....

If a mum or dad unnecessarily risks the life of the child with an illegal/dangerous crossing, they are not fit to be a parent.

You can disagree, but there we are.

Edited 6 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, whelk said:

Is the ‘busiest shipping lanes in the world’ now a line? 

82 deaths of 37000 who crossed suggests the odds of fatalities are minuscule, 0.002%

is not one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world?

[egg]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Where there is a will....

If a mum or dad unnecessarily risks the life of the child with an illegal crossing, they are not fit to be a parent.

You can disagree, but there we are.

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.  

[whelk]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

is not one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world?

Might as well mention the depth of the channel as well

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

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.  

Crossing the channel like they do is a significant risk for all of them (and breaking countless laws at the same time)

Change the law then. The slow march to laws being changed is happening/will happen, so why not

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, whelk said:

Might as well mention the depth of the channel as well

so it is. 

Ta

[egg]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Crossing the channel like they do is a significant risk for all of them (and breaking countless laws at the same time)

Change the law then. The slow march to laws being changed is happening/will happen, so why not

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? 

 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, egg said:

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? 

 

You call them mistakes, others would call them gross failure of basic safety in parenting in an unnecessary situation. 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[whelk]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

so it is. 

Ta

Making the chances of rescue higher,  whereas you seem to seem under some misapprehension that these ships are mowing down their babies. Understood ta

[egg]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You call them mistake, others would call them gross failure of basic safety in parenting.

 

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? 

Edited 6 hours ago by egg

[Gloucester Saint]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

The decommissioned Army barracks will fulfil some of the need and be a lot less attractive than the concept of a hotel. Fuck knows what Boris thought he was doing there. Costs will reduce a lot on us as taxpayers. Also, I’d go further and reduce/cut off legal aid access for the more activist law firms who are making spurious last minute claims in appeals of torture unless they engage with the process better. The judges are starting to see through them more often, but still not often enough. Braverman caused the claims backlog issue through grandstanding. Some progress made since but needs real acceleration now and some ruthlessness. 

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

And there is the big difference between us. I do not feel a need to rush into posting to defend my correct statements. You are simply not worth the £5. On top of that, with the clear 2 tier rules on here I would not sign up just to be banned for giving back what I get in terms of abuse. 

Fact is it happens here less than in the UK. Bangkok is also listed as a safer city than London, I wonder why that is? Simply put, they do not accept shit here. It gets dealt with. Idiotic childish claims of 14 year olds with guys in bars are simply myth and do not happen. The posters making that claim have never left Europe and hence have no experience of the world on a wider scale. So they make shit up and parrot what has been said by bar stool travelers. 

You have NEVER condemned a Muslim atrocity. You instead come back with, you are more likely to be XYZ by a white Englishman. The fact remains, letting in these males uncheked has created MORE dangers for women and children, so it should be sorted out, not just left to chance because sometimes whiteys do it. 

Did you know you’re more likely to abused by an Englishman on a football forum than an illegal immigrant?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

The decommissioned Army barracks will fulfil some of the need and be a lot less attractive than the concept of a hotel. Fuck knows what Boris thought he was doing there. Costs will reduce a lot on us as taxpayers. Also, I’d go further and reduce/cut off legal aid access for the more activist law firms who are making spurious last minute claims in appeals of torture unless they engage with the process better. The judges are starting to see through them more often, but still not often enough. Braverman caused the claims backlog issue through grandstanding. Some progress made since but needs real acceleration now and some ruthlessness. 

Some? They will be full in 1 day of new arrivals when opened.

Cut off legal aid? You sound like a Reform voter 😜

[Turkish]

33 minutes ago, whelk said:

Is the ‘busiest shipping lanes in the world’ now a line? 

82 deaths of 37000 who crossed in 2024 suggests the odds of fatalities are minuscule, 0.002%

Did you know you’ve got more chance of being part of the busiest shipping lane in the world as a British person than an illegal immigrant?

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Some? They will be full in 1 day of new arrivals when opened.

Cut off legal aid? You sound like a Reform voter 😜

Just finished putting St George up in Gloucester on a lamppost. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

The decommissioned Army barracks will fulfil some of the need and be a lot less attractive than the concept of a hotel. Fuck knows what Boris thought he was doing there. Costs will reduce a lot on us as taxpayers. Also, I’d go further and reduce/cut off legal aid access for the more activist law firms who are making spurious last minute claims in appeals of torture unless they engage with the process better. The judges are starting to see through them more often, but still not often enough. Braverman caused the claims backlog issue through grandstanding. Some progress made since but needs real acceleration now and some ruthlessness. 

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. 

[hypochondriac]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

 Human rights are currently defined domestically through the HRA and interpreted by UK judges. It is true that most cases never get near Strasbourg. But the issue isn’t how often Strasbourg steps in — it’s that our own courts are required under the HRA to “take into account” Strasbourg rulings. Over time, that’s shaped our domestic case law and tilted the balance of interpretation in a direction set by an external court.

The argument I have heard from most is about resetting that relationship. It’s not saying our courts are entirely powerless at present or that Strasbourg is all powerful — it’s about ensuring that when UK judges make judgements they’re doing so based solely on UK legislative intent. 

A British HRA wouldn’t need to reinvent rights — it would just reassert domestic primacy. It could for example say that Strasbourg case law has no authority unless adopted by Parliament or the Supreme Court. That would make rights protections domestic. 

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Did you know you’re more likely to abused by an Englishman on a football forum than an illegal immigrant?

How many IIs do you think there are on here?

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How many IIs do you think there are on here?

I am. My posting persona has been one big psyop.

[Turkish]

20 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How many IIs do you think there are on here?

My user name has been a trick to fool the authorities into thinking i'm named after a character from Snatch, when i fact im a Syrian refugee who came here via Turkey.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

My user name has been a trick to fool the authorities into thinking i'm named after a character from Snatch, when i fact im a Syrian refugee who came here via Turkey.

Are you also actually a barber?

[Turkish]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Are you also actually a barber?

Yes i have a shop in a small village in Kent.

[egg]

26 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

 Human rights are currently defined domestically through the HRA and interpreted by UK judges. It is true that most cases never get near Strasbourg. But the issue isn’t how often Strasbourg steps in — it’s that our own courts are required under the HRA to “take into account” Strasbourg rulings. Over time, that’s shaped our domestic case law and tilted the balance of interpretation in a direction set by an external court.

The argument I have heard from most is about resetting that relationship. It’s not saying our courts are entirely powerless at present or that Strasbourg is all powerful — it’s about ensuring that when UK judges make judgements they’re doing so based solely on UK legislative intent. 

A British HRA wouldn’t need to reinvent rights — it would just reassert domestic primacy. It could for example say that Strasbourg case law has no authority unless adopted by Parliament or the Supreme Court. That would make rights protections domestic. 

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.

 

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yes i have a shop in a small village in Kent.

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

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

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.

 

 

Not sure the tone is necessary mate. 

I’m not saying there’s some huge volume of “European law” dictating our judges. The UK isn’t bound by EU law and Strasbourg judgments don’t override our Supreme Court.

But under the human rights act UK courts have to take into account Strasbourg rulings. It’s a statutory direction to treat those decisions as persuasive, which has a clear effect on how our courts interpret rights. Over time, that’s created a load of domestic case law that largely mirrors Strasbourg’s.

Again, the argument isn't about scrapping rights. It’s about reasserting Pariliament and UK courts as the final word on how those rights apply in practice. So the main change is the requirement to take into account Strasbourg rulings — not the rights themselves necessarily.

 

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Just finished putting St George up in Gloucester on a lamppost. 

The irony was St George was an immigrant...half Turkish half Palestinian with a violent past. Assume he must have been a Muslim judging by peoples judgements of Palestinians on this board...

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure the tone is necessary mate. 

I’m not saying there’s some huge volume of “European law” dictating our judges. The UK isn’t bound by EU law and Strasbourg judgments don’t override our Supreme Court.

But under the human rights act UK courts have to take into account Strasbourg rulings. It’s a statutory direction to treat those decisions as persuasive, which has a clear effect on how our courts interpret rights. Over time, that’s created a load of domestic case law that largely mirrors Strasbourg’s.

Again, the argument isn't about scrapping rights. It’s about reasserting Pariliament and UK courts as the final word on how those rights apply in practice. So the main change is the requirement to take into account Strasbourg rulings — not the rights themselves necessarily.

 

You know you can take persuasive precedence from anywhere that the judges feels is relevant, so we take persuasive legal precedents from the US for instance, or Canada, Australia etc.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You know you can take persuasive precedence from anywhere that the judges feels is relevant, so we take persuasive legal precedents from the US for instance, or Canada, Australia etc.

I know, that illustrates my point. The difference with Strasbourg is that it's the only one we are legally required to take into account under Section 2 of the HRA. Other foreign precedence is discretionary. Strasbourg is given a legal weight that no other court enjoys. 

Edited 4 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Gloucester Saint]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yes i have a shop in a small village in Kent.

Reminds me of Soccer Saturday in the early 00s

🎵 Are you watching Romney Marsh? 🎵 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure the tone is necessary mate. 

I’m not saying there’s some huge volume of “European law” dictating our judges. The UK isn’t bound by EU law and Strasbourg judgments don’t override our Supreme Court.

But under the human rights act UK courts have to take into account Strasbourg rulings. It’s a statutory direction to treat those decisions as persuasive, which has a clear effect on how our courts interpret rights. Over time, that’s created a load of domestic case law that largely mirrors Strasbourg’s.

Again, the argument isn't about scrapping rights. It’s about reasserting Pariliament and UK courts as the final word on how those rights apply in practice. So the main change is the requirement to take into account Strasbourg rulings — not the rights themselves necessarily.

 

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. 

[Turkish]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

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

there is one, mixed race girl, trouble is you can never get to speak to her because there's always some old boy at the bar chewing her ear off.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg 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. 

No. Leaving the ECHR without reforming the HRA would change little. Replacing the HRA to remove the obligation would. It’s about who sets the boundaries of interpretation: Parliament and the UK alone or some involvement from Strasbourg.

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

No. Leaving the ECHR without reforming the HRA would change little. Replacing the HRA to remove the obligation would. It’s about who sets the boundaries of interpretation: Parliament and the UK alone or some involvement from Strasbourg.

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.