Does Suella have a point?

[Mottie]

Suella Braverman: No flights before election under PM's Rwanda plan

"Tinkering with a failed plan" will not achieve the government's aims, the former home secretary says.

www.bbc.co.uk

There’s plenty of other countries that ignore the ECHR. What’s the worse that can happen to a country that ignores it?

https://www.politico.eu/article/hum...dov-azerbaijan-struggles-to-lay-down-the-law/

 

[Odds]

She has an axe to grind.
I think her point is already in Rish!'s back.

 

[gant]

She has an axe to grind.
I think her point is already in Rish!'s back.

When your a backstabber, it must seem so unfair when you think you've cornered the market and got the coveted position of pm, to then get one in the back.

 

[Roy Bloom]

The ECHR is limited in its ability to apply penalties.
Being a signatory to it is a voluntary policy. it's not obligatory.
Members can ignore the judgements, and even refuse to implement any recommendations.
But the final penalty is to be expelled from the ECHR.
A very sad indictment on the country concerned.

 

[motorbiking]

Its not that simple.

It's not the lack of power for the ECHR and the bad PR that is the issue. The convention is enshrined in UK domestic law and until this is changed and the judiciary "guided" via new laws, they are free to rightly rule various policies even if enshrined in law as being conflicted or unlawful. This is the case on the Rwanda policy.

It's relatively easy for the government to "fix" the district courts, ruling upheld by the supreme court. All that happens is the law is challenged in the ECHR. Between domestic ruling and ECHR appeal, the government is free to implement "temporary" measures.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Its not that simple.

It's not the lack of power for the ECHR and the bad PR that is the issue. The convention is enshrined in UK domestic law and until this is changed and the judiciary "guided" via new laws, they are free to rightly rule various policies even if enshrined in law as being conflicted or unlawful. This is the case on the Rwanda policy.

It's relatively easy for the government to "fix" the district courts, ruling upheld by the supreme court. All that happens is the law is challenged in the ECHR. Between domestic ruling and ECHR appeal, the government is free to implement "temporary" measures.

The persitent reference to the ECHR is irrelevant. The government's Rwanda appeal failed on UK law.
Any challenge with reference to the ECHR, if the UK domestic law is modified, is yet to come.

On another issue, which has not yet arisen, if the UK is not a signatory to the ECHR, any criminal/ terrorist wanted in UK, and subject to a warrant for return to UK for trial, could be blocked by a country that is still a signatory to the ECHR, on the basis that the UK is not safe for criminals, etc.

 

[Justin Passing]

What she advocates ignoring is common law. If you ignore that, he worst that can happen is that you have a totalitarian state.. Putin, Xi.

 

[Vinty]

So called international law counts for nothing these days.
EHCR or the ICC are ignored by the big players.
When the ICC tried to hold America accountable for some alleged crime or other, Trump threatened to have the Judges sanctioned.
He said that the ICC was corrupt and that America would never recognise its jurisdiction.

 

[motorbiking]

The persitent reference to the ECHR is irrelevant. The government's Rwanda appeal failed on UK law.
Any challenge with reference to the ECHR, if the UK domestic law is modified, is yet to come.

On another issue, which has not yet arisen, if the UK is not a signatory to the ECHR, any criminal/ terrorist wanted in UK, and subject to a warrant for return to UK for trial, could be blocked by a country that is still a signatory to the ECHR, on the basis that the UK is not safe for criminals, etc.

I mostly don't disagree, but if you read the judgement you will see it was a major consideration in the finding.

 

[blup]

It's relatively easy for the government to "fix" the district courts, ruling upheld by the supreme court. All that happens is the law is challenged in the ECHR. Between domestic ruling and ECHR appeal, the government is free to implement "temporary" measures.

Good luck with that this is England not Poland. Do you think the courts might not tell the government where to go?

Blup

 

[Justin Passing]

This isn't an international court. It's the Supreme court of the UK.
All over a fuss about "up to 500" immigrants when we're holding 47500 .

If he wants to break a few laws then "faced with failures of the French", push the boats back to French beaches and take the empty boats away.

 

[Deleted member 307320]

UK finally sends plane-mutiny rapist back to Somalia after five years

EXCLUSIVE: It has taken five years to send Yaqub Ahmed (pictured) back to Somalia - with Ministers forced to offer concessions to break his relentless cycle of dubious human rights appeals.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And here's another fantastic triumph of the UK system thanks to human rights laws...

I should draw everyone's attention to the fact that under our "laws" the rapist got tens of thousands in legal aid and freebies, the victim got absolutely nothing.

When our laws allow this sort of thing then personally I think we're all well within our rights to tell the law makers and enforcers where to go

 

[Notch7]

I should draw everyone's attention to the fact that under our "laws" the rapist got tens of thousands in legal aid and freebies, the victim got absolutely nothing

If you remove legal aid, then what you have is a legal system where only rich people can get protection from the law.

You seem to conveniently forget that legal aid is there to help everybody, innocent and guilty.

maybe you think this country shouldn’t have a system of innocent until proven guilty

 

[gant]

If you remove legal aid, then what you have is a legal system where only rich people can get protection from the law.

You seem to conveniently forget that legal aid is there to help everybody, innocent and guilty.

maybe you think this country shouldn’t have a system of innocent until proven guilty

Dependent on their circumstances.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It's better to let 1 criminal go free, than to lock up, or deport multiple innocent people.

Always a great idea to remove protections when you are not the person that needs them.

Lots of examples of criminals not locked up, doesn't seem to concern some people so much