Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Thanks for pointing that out, Hugh. That’s reassuring.

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------

Seethe last sentence of my first paragraph. By the way, the reason our people don’t want those jobs is because they are happier simply claiming benefits, which is a ridiculously easy option for them to take.

---------- Post added at 16:14 ---------- Previous post was at 16:13 ----------

See the last sentence of my first paragraph. By the way, the reason our people don’t want those jobs is because they are happier simply claiming benefits, which is a ridiculously easy option for them to take.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

A fair trial for what? If they come over on these boats with no right to be here, then, guess what? They shouldn’t be here!

Why do you need a trial to determine that? They should be automatically deported on the same day as they arrive.

As for those human rights you quoted, they are available in every EU country they pass through to get here. We already accept refugees, but we can’t take them all, which is what you are suggesting.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------

Oh, so we should do it because other countries do? That isn’t much of an argument. All we need is a Bill of Rights, worded in a way to accommodate our needs and to avoid abuses, to replace the existing legislation. It’s not difficult.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Those would still be there, but with our own clearly defined boundaries.
Currently you can't deport an adult convicted murderer, who has served their sentence, just because his parents live in this country. Is that how the original ECHR was envisaged?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

NI-free is the historic standard for such deals.

---------- Post added at 10:47 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

The government needs to diverge from the austerity of BoJo and Sunak and instead focus on growing the pot...not cutting expenditure to fit in the existing pot.

Doing this through cutting red tape in trade with our trading blocs is vital. I'm delighted to hear that we have finally secured a veterinary deal that will kick red tape into touch for farming and fisheries exports to our biggest market, the EU.

As a result, our agrifood exports to the EU look set to grow by more than a fifth, per economists at Aston University. Thereby growing the pot.

That's the good news. The bad news is that with increased expenditure needed on defence, we won't necessarily feel better off.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

And you really trust a UK government to not make these new "boundaries" self-serving?

Yeah good luck with that.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------

JAYSUS seriously?

Currently, YOU have the right to a fair trial under the ECHR along with the other benefits I mentioned.

And you too are naive enough to believe a government wouldn't make them at least partially self-serving.

Wow these people walk amongst us....

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

At the moment it's the lawyers for the criminals that make any boundaries "self-serving".
Under the ECHR, there is no Article 6.1 "right to a fair hearing" in deportation and extradition matters.
Link

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

As someone who has worked for a law firm for over a decade I can tell you that solicitors have to uphold the due passages of Law.

You won’t be aware of this but one of the highest tenets of the Solicitors Regulation Service is to put the client’s best interests first, not that of the solicitor. Lawyers can be (and have been) struck off for putting their own interests first, even prosecuted.

Why people are thinking I’m talking about immigrants when it comes to the right to a fair trial is anyone’s guess. The ECHR ensures that YOU are entitled to a fair hearing, just like everyone else.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The solicitors are self-serving in that they are imposing their own version of "human rights" and trying to attract other criminals as clients.
Real case. Are you saying that a "right to family life" entails an adult convicted murderer being allowed to stay in this country, because his parents live here? Is that how it was originally envisaged?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

There is only ONE “version” of human rights. I think you’re mistaking ‘opinion’ with ‘rights enshrined in Law’.

I’m a Paralegal, not a solicitor so I don’t get to make that call. If there’s a scenario that you mention out there and said murderer can demonstrate his human rights have been breached then a solicitor can represent him in court.

Solicitors (and indeed Paralegals at my level as well as pretty much anyone working for a Law firm) are ‘officers of the Court’ and duty bound to defend the Law. We work for The Crown.

The very same people who would rigorously defend YOU if you were unfairly accused of a crime or had your human rights breached.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

So where in the ECHR does it specify that an adult has to remain in the same country as their parents?
Certain firms, solicitors, and barristers make immigration and human rights their source of income.
What proportion of non-criminals are able to bring a human rights case? They don't have the funding to do it.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

So you don't trust our courts to get it right, mind you as Starmer was one of the top officers of it you might well be right. I am sure that a Romanian or Hungarian judge would be fairer

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

That’s for the judge to decide, not the solicitor.


Yep just like people in banking, engineering, security, retail, farming etc etc specialise in certain areas.


I’m not even sure stats are kept. Human rights issues are often included in employment tribunals for example.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

No case of importance came over his desk

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Ah so we’re back to “making up things Russ didn’t say”. Good to know.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles