One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
The monarchy will be next.
Hurrah for Prince Charles and when he becomes King.
It won't be, even Charles has a higher favourable rating than Johnson and Starmer and the Queen and William far higher than all of them.
Note Starmer too now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the Republican Corbyn
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
This stuff isn't hard.
All people are equal, except some are more equal than others...
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Indeed.
Labour needs to learn to mostly ignore stories like this, which energise the Guardian readers but matter little in the grand scheme of things, and concentrate all their efforts on cost of living.
Petrol is still £1.80 a litre, and what will the government do about it?
€1.15 and $1.20!! won't help.
Sterling is in the toilet. Almost as bad as crypto
The Fed is looking seriously at a full percentage point rise tonight too - which will make the dollar appreciate even higher.
BoE need to be targeting 2% rates by the end of the summer, painful as that will be.
Oh, and obviously the Chancellor needs to suspend fuel duty, which is the single biggest cause of inflation at the moment.
Tbh judging by the government's rather pathetic response this morning I'll still probably be voting for lefty lawyer Starmer at the next GE. He might be able to get sterling back on track with some backroom EU deal.
I’m mildly fascinated by the Donbass ultra nationalist and critic from the right, Igor Girkin. Definite PB ‘I am utterly right and will accept no counter argument’ vibe off him.
So, no, Armenia’s markedly low crime rate is nothing to do with that
2 thoughts:
1. If like the UK the authorities don’t actually count the most common form of crime, which is fraud (including tax evasion and money laundering), then I expect both countries’ actual crime rates may be somewhat higher 2. Violent and personal property crime seem to be worst in cities with high levels of both wealth and poverty. My experience of countries like Armenia and a number of others in the Eastern bloc is that the cities are rich and the countryside poor. Perhaps cities being middle class enclaves helps.
Little or no drugs trade probably helps too. Vs Latin America for example, which has by far the worst crime rates.
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
This stuff isn't hard.
All people are equal, except some are more equal than others...
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Indeed.
Labour needs to learn to mostly ignore stories like this, which energise the Guardian readers but matter little in the grand scheme of things, and concentrate all their efforts on cost of living.
That is about as likely as any of them defining what a woman is.
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Indeed.
Labour needs to learn to mostly ignore stories like this, which energise the Guardian readers but matter little in the grand scheme of things, and concentrate all their efforts on cost of living.
Petrol is still £1.80 a litre, and what will the government do about it?
€1.15 and $1.20!! won't help.
Sterling is in the toilet. Almost as bad as crypto
GBP never went below $1.40 under the last Labour govt, just saying.
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
Oh cut the crap.
Somehow every other country on the planet apart from Iran and the Vatican manages to have centre-right parties without having established Churches within the legislature.
I am perfectly happy with bishops in the HoL on Burkean grounds - they are a part of the way in which the past continues into the present in fruitful ways. Comparison with Iran fails with a moment's inspection. I look forward to the secular establishment suddenly finding reasons to keep them as a tea drinking bulwark against much worse forms of the exercise of power.
The bishops are a mediaeval hangover from the times when the Roman Church was the only permitted religion in ENgland, modified by Henry VIII's hostile takeover. No provision for the modern multi- and no-faith world, or the fact that the UK is a lot more than "England". Even Burke might blench at that. And now we have the ECHR being jettisoned, some of us can now freely campaign for burning heretics at the stake. Which I do not approve of.
There are former rabbis in the Lords, I would have no problem with a few imams and Hindu priests too. The Vatican bans Roman Catholic bishops from being in the Lords now as it is a challenge to the supremacy of Rome in their view. There are also scientists, lawyers, business people, journslists, sportsmen and women, ex politicians in the Lords, it encompasses a wide spectrum
None of what you say is in the least relevant to the basic point. Which is that the bishops are appointed ex officio whereas the others* are not. Eric Wakefield+ liked trains, for instance, but he was not appointed for his knowledge of steam locomotives.
*Apart from the hereditaries. Another unacceptable blot on a modern state.
Oh it is extremely relevant. The Church of England must remain our established church not least as it distinguishes us from Rome. You Scots of course have a significantly higher percentage of Catholics in your population than we do in England since you have no established Anglican church.
There is also nothing wrong with some hereditary peers alongside our glorious hereditary monarchy
I’m mildly fascinated by the Donbass ultra nationalist and critic from the right, Igor Girkin. Definite PB ‘I am utterly right and will accept no counter argument’ vibe off him.
Pinner and Aislin won't be shot. We'll either cough up some cash, a whole bunch of Russian POWs or do some deal directly with Russia for them.
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
If @HYUFD is struggling to tolerate this government what does it say for their electoral prospects?
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
I assume you want the human rights protected of you and yours. You were (rightly) affronted by the proposal to make RNLI volunteers criminals for doing their jobs.
So if we downgrade human rights and it isn't your human rights you want downgrading, can you be more specific about which people are less deserving than you of these basic protections written by the UK into international law and ratified as UK law?
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Indeed.
Labour needs to learn to mostly ignore stories like this, which energise the Guardian readers but matter little in the grand scheme of things, and concentrate all their efforts on cost of living.
Petrol is still £1.80 a litre, and what will the government do about it?
€1.15 and $1.20!! won't help.
Sterling is in the toilet. Almost as bad as crypto
GBP never went below $1.40 under the last Labour govt, just saying.
If we can't control our borders, and we self evidently can't we might as well join the Euro.
The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.
And that, for me, is what makes it pernicious. Why should some unlucky souls get sent to a country with which they have no connection and where they don't want to be on what is being presented as a one way ticket just to allow the Home Secretary to pretend that she is up to the job? It is deeply immoral and wrong, using human beings as a gesture. I find such callousness nauseating.
We desperately need a new Home Secretary. Her actions bring shame on to this government or at least would if it was capable of shame.
I agree with the view that this policy is likely to be ineffective. But I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda. These are people that are happy to risk drowning, so ending up in Rwanda should be no big deal.
If I were in charge, I would do the following. Let them come over, but don't go near them. Let them make their own way on to shore and, again, just ignore them. And then only accept asylum claims from people who have entered the country via a legal route.
I think things have got worse since we've effectively been providing a taxi service across. It would be a lot less attractive if you got here and then were completely ignored by the state.
Though as @rcs1000 says they want to be ignored by the state. They want to be working in the black economy.
So why don't we just go after the companies who employ people in the black economy? We know this strategy works as other countries demonstrate. But we don't - is it because too many friends of this government make money off it (as happens with the GOP in America), or because the Home Office led by Patel are incapable, or what?
Also worth noting - yesterdays boats were full of Afghans. Who this country abandoned. Who don't have a legal working route to get here and claim asylum. So if we actually did asylum properly like the Dutch that would be another big step forward.
There are solutions. Its just that this government aren't interested.
We do, for decades we have done. HMRC does it because of the taxes lost, people can go to jail for employing illegal migrants, its called the hostile environment policy and was introduced by Tony Blair.
And it just makes life more difficult for people who are here legally. How much more hostile of an environment do you want?
The people in yesterday's boats were coming from France, which is not a third world wartorn nation. We have schemes to resettle people from Afghanistan and other refugees, but not France, we should never allow queue jumping from France.
You say that we do go after dodgy employers, but we don't. Which is why we have so many of them. You rightly recognise that people come here to be illegally employed. We COULD end this - as Switzerland and Norway have. But we don't.
I would support going after dodgy employers, but not by doubling down on hostile environment policies which we already have.
The route is pretty clear: 1. Anyone legally permitted to work in the UK issued with an NI number. Managed securely centrally. 2. All employers have to register the NI details of their employees 3. No NI number no job. 4. Regular database checks between employers and HMRC. Which we all have to do for anything to do with taxes (VAT etc) already 5. Massive fines and punitive prison sentences for people employing people without the requisite NI number
This isn't a hostile environment. This is management of taxes. Employees need to personally register. Onus on the individual. Employers need to input correct information - onus on the employer. If the NI number given isn't approved by the HMRC computer they can't be employed. Done.
Of course that means spending money. And Patel has slashed the Border Force whilst screeching about securing the borders.
And there will be "shock horror" cases where people's perfectly legit NI numbers are blocklisted etc. but those cases will be few and far between, and processes need to be in place and tested to sort them out, to stop it becoming an embarassment.
There should also be a phase-in period (because the majority of these problematic cases will occur during initial registration) with extra resources to sorting it out.
So, no, Armenia’s markedly low crime rate is nothing to do with that
2 thoughts:
1. If like the UK the authorities don’t actually count the most common form of crime, which is fraud (including tax evasion and money laundering), then I expect both countries’ actual crime rates may be somewhat higher 2. Violent and personal property crime seem to be worst in cities with high levels of both wealth and poverty. My experience of countries like Armenia and a number of others in the Eastern bloc is that the cities are rich and the countryside poor. Perhaps cities being middle class enclaves helps.
Little or no drugs trade probably helps too. Vs Latin America for example, which has by far the worst crime rates.
It’s a fascinating question. You’re definitely right about drugs
Another is religiosity. Armenia and Georgia are terrifically religious - and Christian. I made a mingrelian friend in Tbilisi - 30 year old guy, looked Italian and acted French. You’d presume he is Western European if you met him. He took me to a famous cathedral in the countryside and when we walked in he got down on his knees and kissed a shrine. He really meant it
You just don’t see that in Western Europe any more. Must play a part
This is just one reason, multiple factors create a high trust low crime society
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Indeed.
Labour needs to learn to mostly ignore stories like this, which energise the Guardian readers but matter little in the grand scheme of things, and concentrate all their efforts on cost of living.
Petrol is still £1.80 a litre, and what will the government do about it?
€1.15 and $1.20!! won't help.
Sterling is in the toilet. Almost as bad as crypto
The Fed is looking seriously at a full percentage point rise tonight too - which will make the dollar appreciate even higher.
BoE need to be targeting 2% rates by the end of the summer, painful as that will be.
Oh, and obviously the Chancellor needs to suspend fuel duty, which is the single biggest cause of inflation at the moment.
It shows how over-leveraged the consumer economy is that a rise to 2% rates (a historically low figure) will be painful.
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
This stuff isn't hard.
All people are equal, except some are more equal than others...
Well, yes. Are you arguing anyone from around the whole planet should enjoy the same rights as British citizens?
There was a very attractively shot commercial by a director called Howard Guard in the 90's which showed a series of images of young children who then turned out to be famous adults. All were refugees. One that I remember was Einstein and there there was a scene on a Penny Farthing bicycle. I can't remember who the ad was for other than that it was for a refugee service.
I don't suppose anyone can remember the ad or who it was for?
We don't want the forrin. What part of that isn't clear? Remember that every single forrin who gets let in and turns out to be a genius is taking the job of some bloke called Dave living in Barnsley who would have growed up to be clevver had it not been for refugees making him bunk skool and smoke all those fags instead.
“Clevver”
“Skool”
Sweet Jesus cringeing Christ
Mine is satire. What was your drunken abuse last night? Time to regenerate again old love, this sock puppet smells.
Tbh judging by the government's rather pathetic response this morning I'll still probably be voting for lefty lawyer Starmer at the next GE. He might be able to get sterling back on track with some backroom EU deal.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
I assume you want the human rights protected of you and yours. You were (rightly) affronted by the proposal to make RNLI volunteers criminals for doing their jobs.
So if we downgrade human rights and it isn't your human rights you want downgrading, can you be more specific about which people are less deserving than you of these basic protections written by the UK into international law and ratified as UK law?
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
There was a very attractively shot commercial by a director called Howard Guard in the 90's which showed a series of images of young children who then turned out to be famous adults. All were refugees. One that I remember was Einstein and there there was a scene on a Penny Farthing bicycle. I can't remember who the ad was for other than that it was for a refugee service.
I don't suppose anyone can remember the ad or who it was for?
We don't want the forrin. What part of that isn't clear? Remember that every single forrin who gets let in and turns out to be a genius is taking the job of some bloke called Dave living in Barnsley who would have growed up to be clevver had it not been for refugees making him bunk skool and smoke all those fags instead.
“Clevver”
“Skool”
Sweet Jesus cringeing Christ
Mine is satire. What was your drunken abuse last night? Time to regenerate again old love, this sock puppet smells.
Federal Reserve are meeting today, the expectation is for a 75bp rise in US interest rates, but there are thoughts that they might go for the full percentage point.
European Central Bank’s governing council are holding an emergency meeting this morning, to discuss the sell-off in Euro bond markets over the past few days.
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Hand-wringers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the next election.
Not so much falling into the trap as jumping in to it.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
Old Big Ears better watch his step too. There is only room for one king, and King Boris is in the driving seat. Who'd have thought Bozza a republican?
On current polls it will be PM Starmer before Charles becomes King
No chance! BigDog has his own January 6th 2020 up his sleeve. However it will be bloodless and "legal".
So, no, Armenia’s markedly low crime rate is nothing to do with that
2 thoughts:
1. If like the UK the authorities don’t actually count the most common form of crime, which is fraud (including tax evasion and money laundering), then I expect both countries’ actual crime rates may be somewhat higher 2. Violent and personal property crime seem to be worst in cities with high levels of both wealth and poverty. My experience of countries like Armenia and a number of others in the Eastern bloc is that the cities are rich and the countryside poor. Perhaps cities being middle class enclaves helps.
Little or no drugs trade probably helps too. Vs Latin America for example, which has by far the worst crime rates.
It’s a fascinating question. You’re definitely right about drugs
Another is religiosity. Armenia and Georgia are terrifically religious - and Christian. I made a mingrelian friend in Tbilisi - 30 year old guy, looked Italian and acted French. You’d presume he is Western European if you met him. He took me to a famous cathedral in the countryside and when we walked in he got down on his knees and kissed a shrine. He really meant it
You just don’t see that in Western Europe any more. Must play a part
This is just one reason, multiple factors create a high trust low crime society
Membership of the national church is pretty much part of the definition of nationality for Armenians and Georgians.
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
If @HYUFD is struggling to tolerate this government what does it say for their electoral prospects?
I can’t believe it’s still just a ruin. The owners were going to sell for £1.5m in 2010. Yet they’ve just let it tumble into ruins and they’ve let vandals erase Crowley’s hideous but remarkable murals
It’s a famous site.
I wonder if it is SO notoriously evil buyers get the heebie Jeebies
Federal Reserve are meeting today, the expectation is for a 75bp rise in US interest rates, but there are thoughts that they might go for the full percentage point.
European Central Bank’s governing council are holding an emergency meeting this morning, to discuss the sell-off in Euro bond markets over the past few days.
I think that's an underestimate. If you took the money saved from simply not "generating" it, and the actuarial cost of the environmental impact, we'd all be much better off without the bitcoin.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
I assume you want the human rights protected of you and yours. You were (rightly) affronted by the proposal to make RNLI volunteers criminals for doing their jobs.
So if we downgrade human rights and it isn't your human rights you want downgrading, can you be more specific about which people are less deserving than you of these basic protections written by the UK into international law and ratified as UK law?
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
This stuff isn't hard.
Human rights are universal. THAT isn't hard.
Tell that to people who live in Russia.
People who live in the UK should be subject to UK laws and UK courts, just as Kiwis are subject to Kiwi laws and Kiwi courts, Canadians are subject to Canadian laws and Canadian courts etc
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
I assume you want the human rights protected of you and yours. You were (rightly) affronted by the proposal to make RNLI volunteers criminals for doing their jobs.
So if we downgrade human rights and it isn't your human rights you want downgrading, can you be more specific about which people are less deserving than you of these basic protections written by the UK into international law and ratified as UK law?
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
This stuff isn't hard.
Human rights are universal. THAT isn't hard.
Would that they were. If pretty basic human rights were universal there would not be maybe 2-3 billion people with a legitimate claim to asylum. In the long run there are only two ways to deal with the problem of asylum. One is radical change in the countries from which they come to render it unnecessary. The other, sadly, is to put up impenetrable barriers to the countries to which they seek entry.
Why, BTW does the UN tolerate within its own membership behaviour from the state which causes citizens to flee, while criticising countries like us for not doing enough about taking them in?
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
Mr. Pulpstar, that's impressively bad, even worse than some NFT purchases I heard about a little while ago (individuals throwing millions down the drain now the market's dried up).
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Indeed.
Labour needs to learn to mostly ignore stories like this, which energise the Guardian readers but matter little in the grand scheme of things, and concentrate all their efforts on cost of living.
Petrol is still £1.80 a litre, and what will the government do about it?
€1.15 and $1.20!! won't help.
Sterling is in the toilet. Almost as bad as crypto
The Fed is looking seriously at a full percentage point rise tonight too - which will make the dollar appreciate even higher.
BoE need to be targeting 2% rates by the end of the summer, painful as that will be.
Oh, and obviously the Chancellor needs to suspend fuel duty, which is the single biggest cause of inflation at the moment.
It shows how over-leveraged the consumer economy is that a rise to 2% rates (a historically low figure) will be painful.
Oh, very much so.
It’s a very wierd situation around the world at the moment, some way outside most of the economics textbooks.
We’d spent a decade just about getting back on track from the last recession, with another recession likely just around the corner, when the pandemic hit. The response to that, in an era of unprecedented globalisation and just-in-time logistics, have resulted in the economy fundamentally breaking down.
It’s the same everywhere, with all the policymakers suddenly appearing surprised that printing hundreds of billions of (insert your favourite currency here) causes inflation, because printing tens of billions of them was just about okay a decade ago.
Then came Putin, war in Ukraine and an oil supply shock - and now we are where we are.
The one saving grace for the UK is that we ended freedom of movement of labour with the EU, which has kept a lid on unemployment and seen pay rises for those at the bottom of the pile, who would be most affected by inflation. The recession, and associated unemployement, is probably six months down the line, Q4/22 and Q1/23.
Energy prices over the winter, in particular, are going to be a massive shock to the economy. Buy diesel generators now, everyone will want one by Christmas.
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
If @HYUFD is struggling to tolerate this government what does it say for their electoral prospects?
Well, he certainly can´t count. There are 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, and a total membership of 768. so 3%, not 10%. The Lords is the second largest Parliamentary Chamber in the World, after the Chinese National Peoples Congress. It still has 92 hereditaries for goodness sake... Major League reform cannot be put off forever.
I can’t believe it’s still just a ruin. The owners were going to sell for £1.5m in 2010. Yet they’ve just let it tumble into ruins and they’ve let vandals erase Crowley’s hideous but remarkable murals
It’s a famous site.
I wonder if it is SO notoriously evil buyers get the heebie Jeebies
But really how evil was he? He did a bit of coke and probably a lot of anal, but that sort of thing is routine Mumsnet discussion now
Like Oscar Wilde. Lord Thing with the Unspeakable Secret would be married to his butler these days and giving it large on twitter about their shared interest in BDSM. Kinda spoils the effect.
It's interesting that the Kigali Express was scheduled to leave from Boscombe Down. It was obviously chosen for reasons of secrecy and security but it also has no infrastructure or capacity to handle large numbers of, possibly unwilling, passengers. It's almost like the government knew that there would be next to nobody, or as it turned out actually nobody, on the flight. If the intent of the policy was to get as many people as possible to Rwanda you certainly wouldn't launch it out of BD.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
I assume you want the human rights protected of you and yours. You were (rightly) affronted by the proposal to make RNLI volunteers criminals for doing their jobs.
So if we downgrade human rights and it isn't your human rights you want downgrading, can you be more specific about which people are less deserving than you of these basic protections written by the UK into international law and ratified as UK law?
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
This stuff isn't hard.
Human rights are universal. THAT isn't hard.
Would that they were. If pretty basic human rights were universal there would not be maybe 2-3 billion people with a legitimate claim to asylum. In the long run there are only two ways to deal with the problem of asylum. One is radical change in the countries from which they come to render it unnecessary. The other, sadly, is to put up impenetrable barriers to the countries to which they seek entry.
Why, BTW does the UN tolerate within its own membership behaviour from the state which causes citizens to flee, while criticising countries like us for not doing enough about taking them in?
Because like the Council of Europe and the rest of them, the United Nations is nothing more than a self-serving corrupt bureaucracy. Just like the Council of Europe, at the turn of the year the United Nations found it appropriate to have the Russian Federation as a member of its Human Rights Council.
Too many people put stale, failed bureaucracies ahead of sensible liberalism. The whole 'international order' of bureaucratic institutions is stale, corrupt and not fit for purpose.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
I assume you want the human rights protected of you and yours. You were (rightly) affronted by the proposal to make RNLI volunteers criminals for doing their jobs.
So if we downgrade human rights and it isn't your human rights you want downgrading, can you be more specific about which people are less deserving than you of these basic protections written by the UK into international law and ratified as UK law?
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
It is. And the European countries involved are both in the EU and in the ECHR. I wonder what these great bodies are doing about it.
BTW listening to David Lammy on R4 today it is pretty obvious by the way he evaded every single question completely that Labour don't think they have a winning line on this one. It is quite easy for any policy to hack off both the populist right and Hampstead thinkers/Geoffrey Robertson at the same time. This is characteristic for ethnicity related questions that won't go away and don't have solutions.
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
The difference between the National and International judgements seems to be that national courts believed Government assurances, and International courts did not.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
World Cup Group B: England (ranked 5th) were humped last night by Hungary (ranked 40th) at home - after also being beaten by them away last week USA (ranked 15th) were beaten last night by mighty El Salvador (ranked 74th) Wales (ranked 18th) have narrowly lost two games in last minute against NL (ranked 10th) and drawn against Belgium (ranked 2nd) Iran (ranked 20th) were beaten a few days ago by Algeria (ranked 44th) in their only WC world cup game.
I predict Wales will win Group B - cant decide whether second place will be USA or Iran. But I confidently predict who is taking an early flight home.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? 🙄
If the law says its illegal, then change the law, just as other nations have done, so their courts accept it is legal.
I can’t believe it’s still just a ruin. The owners were going to sell for £1.5m in 2010. Yet they’ve just let it tumble into ruins and they’ve let vandals erase Crowley’s hideous but remarkable murals
It’s a famous site.
I wonder if it is SO notoriously evil buyers get the heebie Jeebies
But really how evil was he? He did a bit of coke and probably a lot of anal, but that sort of thing is routine Mumsnet discussion now
Like Oscar Wilde. Lord Thing with the Unspeakable Secret would be married to his butler these days and giving it large on twitter about their shared interest in BDSM. Kinda spoils the effect.
He got a goat to fuck his mistress, in that house, with his wife holding her down
He probably murdered his friend by giving him poisonous cat’s blood to drink. In that house
It is quite a list. It goes on. He was seriously depraved (his parents were mad Plymouth Brethren)
Federal Reserve are meeting today, the expectation is for a 75bp rise in US interest rates, but there are thoughts that they might go for the full percentage point.
European Central Bank’s governing council are holding an emergency meeting this morning, to discuss the sell-off in Euro bond markets over the past few days.
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
If @HYUFD is struggling to tolerate this government what does it say for their electoral prospects?
Everyone has a line. If the government crosses that line, that's it, and generally there's no way back for the government.
Federal Reserve are meeting today, the expectation is for a 75bp rise in US interest rates, but there are thoughts that they might go for the full percentage point.
European Central Bank’s governing council are holding an emergency meeting this morning, to discuss the sell-off in Euro bond markets over the past few days.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
There was a very attractively shot commercial by a director called Howard Guard in the 90's which showed a series of images of young children who then turned out to be famous adults. All were refugees. One that I remember was Einstein and there there was a scene on a Penny Farthing bicycle. I can't remember who the ad was for other than that it was for a refugee service.
I don't suppose anyone can remember the ad or who it was for?
World Refugee Council perhaps
Found it! It was a Cinema Commercial for UNHCR with the soundtrack 'Where Have all the flowers Gone' sung by Marlene Dietrich. Unfortunately I can't locate the film itself but when I do I'll post it on here. Very moving.
Federal Reserve are meeting today, the expectation is for a 75bp rise in US interest rates, but there are thoughts that they might go for the full percentage point.
European Central Bank’s governing council are holding an emergency meeting this morning, to discuss the sell-off in Euro bond markets over the past few days.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
Who did out of interest.
Human Rights Act 1998 was the start of ECHR jurisdiction.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
No Parliament can bind its successors.
We should Brexit out of the failed institutions that we joined in the past. Maybe stay in the failed United Nations as we have a veto we'd never get back if we quit that one and its a meaningless damp squib anyway.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
Who did out of interest.
Human Rights Act 1998 was the start of ECHR jurisdiction.
Lol - With all the hoo har about the GFA, it postdates it
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
Who did out of interest.
Human Rights Act 1998 was the start of ECHR jurisdiction.
I thought that the start of it being applied by domestic courts? Did the European Court only have jurisdiction from then?
Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.
I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.
It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...
Wrong, wrong, right, right.
Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
You've suggested that both the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office should be abolished and that 'we' should start again. I have noted that it's very easy for someone who resides abroad to pontificate on things, the chaos from which will not affect them.
If you apply that logic there are several posters including @Gardenwalker, @StuartDickson who post from abroad whose opinions we should disregard
You should address the point and not the location of any posters
I believe you were pointing out that Patel's Rwanda policy was no different to Denmark's. I am therefore genuinely interested to know why the ECHR didn't intervene in the Danish policy.
Either Patel didn't know that what she was doing contravened the ECHR in which case she is incompetent or she knew it did and wanted to have it banned so she could rant about the "European" courts and play to the Mail and Express gallery
World Cup Group B: England (ranked 5th) were humped last night by Hungary (ranked 40th) at home - after also being beaten by them away last week USA (ranked 15th) were beaten last night by mighty El Salvador (ranked 74th) Wales (ranked 18th) have narrowly lost two games in last minute against NL (ranked 10th) and drawn against Belgium (ranked 2nd) Iran (ranked 20th) were beaten a few days ago by Algeria (ranked 44th) in their only WC world cup game.
I predict Wales will win Group B - cant decide whether second place will be USA or Iran. But I confidently predict who is taking an early flight home.
World Cup Group B: England (ranked 5th) were humped last night by Hungary (ranked 40th) at home - after also being beaten by them away last week USA (ranked 15th) were beaten last night by mighty El Salvador (ranked 74th) Wales (ranked 18th) have narrowly lost two games in last minute against NL (ranked 10th) and drawn against Belgium (ranked 2nd) Iran (ranked 20th) were beaten a few days ago by Algeria (ranked 44th) in their only WC world cup game.
I predict Wales will win Group B - cant decide whether second place will be USA or Iran. But I confidently predict who is taking an early flight home.
Point of order. USA drew in El Salvador. They weren't happy with the ref or conditions either. They are the value in that group.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
No Parliament can bind its successors.
We should Brexit out of the failed institutions that we joined in the past. Maybe stay in the failed United Nations as we have a veto we'd never get back if we quit that one and its a meaningless damp squib anyway.
No successor can unbind itself except by repeal. You seem to object to the Crown in Parliament being the supreme arbiter of the law, for the time being, of this nation
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
No Parliament can bind its successors.
We should Brexit out of the failed institutions that we joined in the past. Maybe stay in the failed United Nations as we have a veto we'd never get back if we quit that one and its a meaningless damp squib anyway.
No successor can unbind itself except by repeal. You seem to object to the Crown in Parliament being the supreme arbiter of the law, for the time being, of this nation
Federal Reserve are meeting today, the expectation is for a 75bp rise in US interest rates, but there are thoughts that they might go for the full percentage point.
European Central Bank’s governing council are holding an emergency meeting this morning, to discuss the sell-off in Euro bond markets over the past few days.
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
Oh cut the crap.
Somehow every other country on the planet apart from Iran and the Vatican manages to have centre-right parties without having established Churches within the legislature.
Indeed, Scotland doesn't have an established Church, yet there are a few rare Scottish Tories.
Fun fact: this is the 101st anniversary of the disestablishment of the Kirk, even though it was still a time when the Unionist ascendancy was strongly anti-RC and anti-Irish. And 330+ years since the bishops were jettisoned. So it is possible to be an estasblished church without a bishop in sight. Or indeed to have a disestablished kirk where HMtQ is a member of exactly the same standing as any other.
Hmmm… that 101-year old legislation merely confirmed the de facto situation. It did not in itself disestablish the Kirk. More difficult is to define exactly when the Scottish church was disestablished. When the bishops were ejected from the Estates?
There was a very attractively shot commercial by a director called Howard Guard in the 90's which showed a series of images of young children who then turned out to be famous adults. All were refugees. One that I remember was Einstein and there there was a scene on a Penny Farthing bicycle. I can't remember who the ad was for other than that it was for a refugee service.
I don't suppose anyone can remember the ad or who it was for?
World Refugee Council perhaps
Found it! It was a Cinema Commercial for UNHCR with the soundtrack 'Where Have all the flowers Gone' sung by Marlene Dietrich. Unfortunately I can't locate the film itself but when I do I'll post it on here. Very moving.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
I assume you want the human rights protected of you and yours. You were (rightly) affronted by the proposal to make RNLI volunteers criminals for doing their jobs.
So if we downgrade human rights and it isn't your human rights you want downgrading, can you be more specific about which people are less deserving than you of these basic protections written by the UK into international law and ratified as UK law?
Random Johnnys from around the world who turn up illicitly on our shores having illegally entered the country should not be entitled to the full panoply of human rights enjoyed by existing citizens.
This stuff isn't hard.
Human rights are universal. THAT isn't hard.
It's utopian nonsense like that which has got us into such a pickle.
The British government owe their primary duty of care to British citizens, not the whole world. But the risk hurdle is so low for deportations, given the broad way rights are currently written and the poor governance in place in many countries around the world, that effectively Britain has to take that on.
That isn't sustainable, regardless of your personal views on the matter.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
There was a very attractively shot commercial by a director called Howard Guard in the 90's which showed a series of images of young children who then turned out to be famous adults. All were refugees. One that I remember was Einstein and there there was a scene on a Penny Farthing bicycle. I can't remember who the ad was for other than that it was for a refugee service.
I don't suppose anyone can remember the ad or who it was for?
World Refugee Council perhaps
Found it! It was a Cinema Commercial for UNHCR with the soundtrack 'Where Have all the flowers Gone' sung by Marlene Dietrich. Unfortunately I can't locate the film itself but when I do I'll post it on here. Very moving.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
One overlooked factor when discussing Boris Johnson and the ECHR is that his maternal grandfather, James Fawcett, was president of the European Commission for Human Rights. Might seem a small thing, but I suspect it is more important than you might think https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1536989917477228545
How naïve is it to imagine BoZo would not fuck his own grandfather to appease backbenchers right now...
Once Rwanda policy has done its basic job of getting Johnson through to summer recess by distracting from parties and lies, the government could end up with a policy that is popular with its red wall voters but they can't implement because they are so crap.
I suspect Farage is warming up his engines of wrath.
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
Who did out of interest.
Human Rights Act 1998 was the start of ECHR jurisdiction.
Once Rwanda policy has done its basic job of getting Johnson through to summer recess by distracting from parties and lies, the government could end up with a policy that is popular with its red wall voters but they can't implement because they are so crap.
I suspect Farage is warming up his engines of wrath.
Yep. The one thing they have forgotten is that if they rev the hate up enough and then fail to appease the mob, others will step in to do so. The Nigel has been on it with regards to boats all the way through, so it wouldn't be difficult for him to come back and campaign on the issue.
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
If @HYUFD is struggling to tolerate this government what does it say for their electoral prospects?
Well, he certainly can´t count. There are 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, and a total membership of 768. so 3%, not 10%. The Lords is the second largest Parliamentary Chamber in the World, after the Chinese National Peoples Congress. It still has 92 hereditaries for goodness sake... Major League reform cannot be put off forever.
I'd defend the Lords on the basis that it does quite a good job, the same basis for a basic defence of the monarchy.
And I think the model of a larger house that gives space for a wider range of specialist experience to contribute on different topics is excellent.
It's difficult to come up with a cogent criticism of the basic arrangement, since upper chambers around the world have a myriad of arrangements - Germany's is appointed by Lande - effectively they are delegates of County Councils, whilst France's is elected by politicians from politicians, for example. Neither seems to be a better setup than the HoL.
Which is perhaps why 'critics' keep rabbiting on small things such as Bishops and the size of the house, the latter being an effective scare story for uninformed people who haven't realised how cost-effective it is compared to the Commons.
Reform can be done, but it really does not need more than quite minor reform. I'd go for more systematic regional representation, for example - until then Bishops are a partial balance for that,being by definition regional.
The only basis I can see for defending hereditaries is independence from Government, which claim is not sustained when they are nearly all on the Tory side.
Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.
I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.
It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...
Wrong, wrong, right, right.
Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
You've suggested that both the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office should be abolished and that 'we' should start again. I have noted that it's very easy for someone who resides abroad to pontificate on things, the chaos from which will not affect them.
If you apply that logic there are several posters including @Gardenwalker, @StuartDickson who post from abroad whose opinions we should disregard
You should address the point and not the location of any posters
I believe you were pointing out that Patel's Rwanda policy was no different to Denmark's. I am therefore genuinely interested to know why the ECHR didn't intervene in the Danish policy...
Pointing out wrongly. Denmark have so far implemented no such policy - though they have attempted to prevent the admission of refugees in various other ways.
World Cup Group B: England (ranked 5th) were humped last night by Hungary (ranked 40th) at home - after also being beaten by them away last week USA (ranked 15th) were beaten last night by mighty El Salvador (ranked 74th) Wales (ranked 18th) have narrowly lost two games in last minute against NL (ranked 10th) and drawn against Belgium (ranked 2nd) Iran (ranked 20th) were beaten a few days ago by Algeria (ranked 44th) in their only WC world cup game.
I predict Wales will win Group B - cant decide whether second place will be USA or Iran. But I confidently predict who is taking an early flight home.
World Cup Group B: England (ranked 5th) were humped last night by Hungary (ranked 40th) at home - after also being beaten by them away last week USA (ranked 15th) were beaten last night by mighty El Salvador (ranked 74th) Wales (ranked 18th) have narrowly lost two games in last minute against NL (ranked 10th) and drawn against Belgium (ranked 2nd) Iran (ranked 20th) were beaten a few days ago by Algeria (ranked 44th) in their only WC world cup game.
I predict Wales will win Group B - cant decide whether second place will be USA or Iran. But I confidently predict who is taking an early flight home.
Point of order. USA drew in El Salvador. They weren't happy with the ref or conditions either. They are the value in that group.
Yes - I stand corrected. I agree they are value but for second spot
Once Rwanda policy has done its basic job of getting Johnson through to summer recess by distracting from parties and lies, the government could end up with a policy that is popular with its red wall voters but they can't implement because they are so crap.
I suspect Farage is warming up his engines of wrath.
I’m sure hanging, lynching and racial purity are popular with chunks of the Tory vote. Doesn’t mean a Conservative government should implement, or attempt to implement.
Once Rwanda policy has done its basic job of getting Johnson through to summer recess by distracting from parties and lies, the government could end up with a policy that is popular with its red wall voters but they can't implement because they are so crap.
I suspect Farage is warming up his engines of wrath.
I’m sure hanging, lynching and racial purity are popular with chunks of the Tory vote. Doesn’t mean a Conservative government should implement, or attempt to implement.
Bloody hand wringing human rights. Why can't we just kick the darkies again like in the good old days?
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
Who did out of interest.
Human Rights Act 1998 was the start of ECHR jurisdiction.
I thought that the start of it being applied by domestic courts? Did the European Court only have jurisdiction from then?
The court has had jurisdiction in the UK for many decades - but access to the court was limited prior to 1998 (see the wikipedia link I posted upthread).
There was a very attractively shot commercial by a director called Howard Guard in the 90's which showed a series of images of young children who then turned out to be famous adults. All were refugees. One that I remember was Einstein and there there was a scene on a Penny Farthing bicycle. I can't remember who the ad was for other than that it was for a refugee service.
I don't suppose anyone can remember the ad or who it was for?
World Refugee Council perhaps
Found it! It was a Cinema Commercial for UNHCR with the soundtrack 'Where Have all the flowers Gone' sung by Marlene Dietrich. Unfortunately I can't locate the film itself but when I do I'll post it on here. Very moving.
Comments
Note Starmer too now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the Republican Corbyn
BoE need to be targeting 2% rates by the end of the summer, painful as that will be.
Oh, and obviously the Chancellor needs to suspend fuel duty, which is the single biggest cause of inflation at the moment.
1. If like the UK the authorities don’t actually count the most common form of crime, which is fraud (including tax evasion and money laundering), then I expect both countries’ actual crime rates may be somewhat higher
2. Violent and personal property crime seem to be worst in cities with high levels of both wealth and poverty. My experience of countries like Armenia and a number of others in the Eastern bloc is that the cities are rich and the countryside poor. Perhaps cities being middle class enclaves helps.
Little or no drugs trade probably helps too. Vs Latin America for example, which has by far the worst crime rates.
There is also nothing wrong with some hereditary peers alongside our glorious hereditary monarchy
https://twitter.com/squeakinglyjen/status/1536725423039598593?s=21&t=4okdTO1KOPtiQsmEtfpLtA
There should also be a phase-in period (because the majority of these problematic cases will occur during initial registration) with extra resources to sorting it out.
Another is religiosity. Armenia and Georgia are terrifically religious - and Christian. I made a mingrelian friend in Tbilisi - 30 year old guy, looked Italian and acted French. You’d presume he is Western European if you met him. He took me to a famous cathedral in the countryside and when we walked in he got down on his knees and kissed a shrine. He really meant it
You just don’t see that in Western Europe any more. Must play a part
This is just one reason, multiple factors create a high trust low crime society
Not so much falling into the trap as jumping in to it.
Abbey of Thelema ne vaut pas le detour
Three Arrows Capital bought 10.9M locked LUNA for $559.6m - it's now worth $670.45.
I can’t believe it’s still just a ruin. The owners were going to sell for £1.5m in 2010. Yet they’ve just let it tumble into ruins and they’ve let vandals erase Crowley’s hideous but remarkable murals
It’s a famous site.
I wonder if it is SO notoriously evil buyers get the heebie Jeebies
People who live in the UK should be subject to UK laws and UK courts, just as Kiwis are subject to Kiwi laws and Kiwi courts, Canadians are subject to Canadian laws and Canadian courts etc
Why, BTW does the UN tolerate within its own membership behaviour from the state which causes citizens to flee, while criticising countries like us for not doing enough about taking them in?
It’s a very wierd situation around the world at the moment, some way outside most of the economics textbooks.
We’d spent a decade just about getting back on track from the last recession, with another recession likely just around the corner, when the pandemic hit. The response to that, in an era of unprecedented globalisation and just-in-time logistics, have resulted in the economy fundamentally breaking down.
It’s the same everywhere, with all the policymakers suddenly appearing surprised that printing hundreds of billions of (insert your favourite currency here) causes inflation, because printing tens of billions of them was just about okay a decade ago.
Then came Putin, war in Ukraine and an oil supply shock - and now we are where we are.
The one saving grace for the UK is that we ended freedom of movement of labour with the EU, which has kept a lid on unemployment and seen pay rises for those at the bottom of the pile, who would be most affected by inflation. The recession, and associated unemployement, is probably six months down the line, Q4/22 and Q1/23.
Energy prices over the winter, in particular, are going to be a massive shock to the economy. Buy diesel generators now, everyone will want one by Christmas.
Like Oscar Wilde. Lord Thing with the Unspeakable Secret would be married to his butler these days and giving it large on twitter about their shared interest in BDSM. Kinda spoils the effect.
Too many people put stale, failed bureaucracies ahead of sensible liberalism. The whole 'international order' of bureaucratic institutions is stale, corrupt and not fit for purpose.
BTW listening to David Lammy on R4 today it is pretty obvious by the way he evaded every single question completely that Labour don't think they have a winning line on this one. It is quite easy for any policy to hack off both the populist right and Hampstead thinkers/Geoffrey Robertson at the same time. This is characteristic for ethnicity related questions that won't go away and don't have solutions.
I wonder why that might be????
World Cup Group B:
England (ranked 5th) were humped last night by Hungary (ranked 40th) at home - after also being beaten by them away last week
USA (ranked 15th) were beaten last night by mighty El Salvador (ranked 74th)
Wales (ranked 18th) have narrowly lost two games in last minute against NL (ranked 10th) and drawn against Belgium (ranked 2nd)
Iran (ranked 20th) were beaten a few days ago by Algeria (ranked 44th) in their only WC world cup game.
I predict Wales will win Group B - cant decide whether second place will be USA or Iran. But I confidently predict who is taking an early flight home.
If the law says its illegal, then change the law, just as other nations have done, so their courts accept it is legal.
He probably murdered his friend by giving him poisonous cat’s blood to drink. In that house
It is quite a list. It goes on. He was seriously depraved (his parents were mad Plymouth Brethren)
It’s a bit beyond the Mumsnet Comfort Zone
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/y-r-names-celebrities-refugee-ad/26835
We should Brexit out of the failed institutions that we joined in the past. Maybe stay in the failed United Nations as we have a veto we'd never get back if we quit that one and its a meaningless damp squib anyway.
Either Patel didn't know that what she was doing contravened the ECHR in which case she is incompetent or she knew it did and wanted to have it banned so she could rant about the "European" courts and play to the Mail and Express gallery
USA drew in El Salvador. They weren't happy with the ref or conditions either.
They are the value in that group.
If the law is an ass, change the law.
Kissinger rather spoiling the party..
https://youtu.be/S5n0DLYbYqc
The British government owe their primary duty of care to British citizens, not the whole world. But the risk hurdle is so low for deportations, given the broad way rights are currently written and the poor governance in place in many countries around the world, that effectively Britain has to take that on.
That isn't sustainable, regardless of your personal views on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/15/electricity-trading-suspended-as-energy-supply-crisis-deepens-across-australias-east-coast
Peter Schiff
@PeterSchiff
·
5h
How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1536908543089119232
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1536992710103638018
NOM 1.74
Con Maj 4
Lab Maj 5
Great voice.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1536989917477228545
How naïve is it to imagine BoZo would not fuck his own grandfather to appease backbenchers right now...
I suspect Farage is warming up his engines of wrath.
The jurisdiction of the court goes back long before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights#History_and_structure
"It is one of the most extraordinary pieces of legislation I have ever seen"
The legal position is "hopeless," he argues
https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/northern-ireland-protocol-bill-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-i-have-ever-seen https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1536995673954045952/photo/1
And I think the model of a larger house that gives space for a wider range of specialist experience to contribute on different topics is excellent.
It's difficult to come up with a cogent criticism of the basic arrangement, since upper chambers around the world have a myriad of arrangements - Germany's is appointed by Lande - effectively they are delegates of County Councils, whilst France's is elected by politicians from politicians, for example. Neither seems to be a better setup than the HoL.
Which is perhaps why 'critics' keep rabbiting on small things such as Bishops and the size of the house, the latter being an effective scare story for uninformed people who haven't realised how cost-effective it is compared to the Commons.
Reform can be done, but it really does not need more than quite minor reform. I'd go for more systematic regional representation, for example - until then Bishops are a partial balance for that,being by definition regional.
The only basis I can see for defending hereditaries is independence from Government, which claim is not sustained when they are nearly all on the Tory side.