OMG Human Rights Lawyers Again

Of course. You seem to judge people from your own standards of inventing nonsense and hoping people believe it.
don't bet on it.

"In the mid 1990s only 4% of asylum seekers were recognised as refugees and, of those who appealed, only a further 4% went on to win their appeals. Now, 76% of asylum seekers are recognised as refugees and a further 50% go on to win their appeals. "
a link provides substance to any claims and since the forum is overrun with bots it's helpful to provide context.
 
It looks like the Tories have misunderstood the ruling in the same way that motorbiking did.

The judge decides to pause the deportation using the Human Trafficking Convention.

So, the Tories say we have to leave the ECHR :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

1758102107852.png
 

AI Overview

Yes, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) expands protections for victims of trafficking beyond what is explicitly stated in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by providing more detailed and specific obligations for States to prevent trafficking, protect and support victims, and prosecute offenders, as well as reinforcing the existing positive obligations under Article 4 of the ECHR through its broad application and non-discrimination provisions.
 
Alice in Wonderland by Charles Dickens

It's an often used quote to ridicule the arbitrariness of a decision or policy.

Quite fitting for the debacle discussed.

Another quote that struck me, in the issue of refugees treatment, is that from Margaret Lockwood's The Handmaid's Tale

Another alter ego comedian. Just what we need :LOL::LOL::LOL:

Leave it to SPLINE.
 
and of course... its in the case law.

You are doing your usual trick of pointing vaguely at things you don't understand. Explain for us how the "case law" prevents somebody being deported to France in this situation.

The only reason the judge stopped the deportation was because of the specific obligations under the Human Trafficking Convention. That has been reported in black and white in the newspapers. Nothing to do with your "case law" or the ECHR.
 
Another alter ego comedian. Just what we need :LOL::LOL::LOL:

Leave it to SPLINE.
Better still, why not just use 1 name .

Some people (usual suspects at a guess) call out "himmy" and his other names, but do exactly the same themselves.
 
You are doing your usual trick of pointing vaguely at things you don't understand. Explain for us how the "case law" prevents somebody being deported to France in this situation.

The only reason the judge stopped the deportation was because of the specific obligations under the Human Trafficking Convention. That has been reported in black and white in the newspapers. Nothing to do with your "case law" or the ECHR.
You could read p17 onwards and educate yourself.
 

Funnily enough when I tried the same Google I got a different answer:

AI Overview

No, the Council of Europe's Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) is not part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but the ECHR, particularly Article 4 (prohibiting slavery and forced labour), provides a strong human rights framework for addressing trafficking, which the ECAT builds upon. Trafficking falls under the ECHR's prohibition of slavery, and the ECAT provides specific additional provisions for action against trafficking itself.
 
You could read p17 onwards and educate yourself.

More vague waffle. I have never seen you once in any legal discussion actually explain why you are linking to a case or an Act of Parliament. You just point at things and hope you can manage to grift your way through.
 
Back
Top