Starmer’s chronicles

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

fyi



https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/internat...plication/faqs

The above is from Sheffield University, but all other Unis have to do the same in order to be able to issue CASs - if the Unis don’t do this, they lose the right to issue CASs, so foreign students couldn’t attend.

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

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

Originally Posted by telegramsam

So what about the jobs that are low level skills that British people don't want to do but foreigners are willing to do?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by telegramsam

So what about the jobs that are low level skills that British people don't want to do but foreigners are willing to do?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Yep and lose the right to a fair trial, the right to free from torture, free from prosecution, the right to life, the right to free expression, right to privacy, right to be free from inhumane treatment etc etc

But a small price to pay to get rid of some brown people eh?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Interesting choice of countries given that we would join Russia (and Belarus) as the only European countries outside of the ECHR.

Still, I admire your optimism that no UK government would abuse the new found ‘freedoms’ they’d have if we left the ECHR.

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

Yep and lose the right to a fair trial, the right to free from torture, free from prosecution, the right to life, the right to free expression, right to privacy, right to be free from inhumane treatment etc etc

But a small price to pay to get rid of some brown people eh?

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?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What is even more wrong, is the NI-free influx of Indian workers, many of them talented on decent salaries. The employers will gladly save on their NI bill.

NI-free is the historic standard for such deals.

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

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The link is about the winter fuel payment possible u-turn.

This is a purely political move (if it happens) and, if the government is to balance its fiscal books, the u-turn will need to be offset by a tax grab elsewhere. There's 'owt for nowt in this game.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

NI-free is the historic standard for such deals.

<SNIP>

Trouble is, India makes an industry out of this.


BTW, I have no problem with the bit of your post that I snipped. I don’t see the so-far-announced agreement with the EU as a Brexit reversal.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Those would still be there, but with our own clearly defined boundaries.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

A fair trial for what?

JAYSUS seriously?

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

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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....

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

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....

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

40. The Court concludes that decisions regarding the entry, stay and
deportation of aliens do not concern the determination of an applicant's civil
rights or obligations or of a criminal charge against him, within the meaning
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
41. Consequently, Article 6 § 1 is not applicable in the instant case

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The solicitors are self-serving in that they are imposing their own version of "human rights" and trying to attract other criminals as clients.

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

Originally Posted by nomadking

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?

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Russ

Yep and lose the right to a fair trial, the right to free from torture, free from prosecution, the right to life, the right to free expression, right to privacy, right to be free from inhumane treatment etc etc

But a small price to pay to get rid of some brown people eh?

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So where in the ECHR does it specify that an adult has to remain in the same country as their parents?

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

Originally Posted by nomadking

Certain firms, solicitors, and barristers make immigration and human rights their source of income.

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

Originally Posted by nomadking

What proportion of non-criminals are able to bring a human rights case? They don't have the funding to do it.

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

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Itshim

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

No case of importance came over his desk

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Itshim

So you don't trust our courts to get it right,

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

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



<SNIP>

... but when the judge is from an immigration lawyers' chambers and has also appeared for clients .....?