Starmer’s chronicles

[Russ]

Well finally someone has discovered Google.

The subject has been about the ECHR and how they work. Believe it or not they don’t just apply to immigration.

[papa smurf]

Judge temporarily bans UK from completing deal to hand over Chagos Islands


Ministers had been expected to complete a deal that would have seen the UK hand over sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius in the coming hours.

But in an emergency injunction granted early on Thursday, brought against the Foreign Office, Mr Justice Goose allowed "interim relief" to Bertrice Pompe, who had previously taken steps to bring legal action over the deal.

Ms Pompe is a Chagossian woman who sees the deal as a betrayal of their rights.

https://news.sky.com/story/judge-tem...lands-13372472

looks like starmers been goosed

But, but, but…

AcTiV1sT JuDgES!!!!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But, but, but…

AcTiV1sT JuDgES!!!!

In what context?

[papa smurf]

Ms Pompe, who filed the application for interim relief, believes the British government is acting with disregard for the human rights of the Chagossian people.

She has argued completion of the deal would amount to a breach of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act.


Shame on Starmer wasn't he a human rights boff

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

In what context?

In a humorous, satirical context, perhaps whimsically reflecting on those whose first impulse, when a Judge rules in a manner which does not coincide with their viewpoint (as has happened not only in this forum, but often in the Telegraph/Mail/Express/GBNews), is to make an ad hominem attack on the Judiciary…

[1andrew1]

Now that the party who favoured high immigration rates is out of power, net immigration has halved!

Net migration to the UK estimated to have halved

Net migration to the UK is estimated to have halved from 860,000 in the year ending December 2023 to 431,000 in the year ending December 2024, the Office for National Statistics has said.

Net migration is the difference between the number of people settling in the UK long-term and the number of people leaving.

This is the biggest calendar-year drop since the early stages of the pandemic.

The ONS has said the decline has been driven by falling number of people coming to work and study in the UK.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-...isons-12593360

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

In a humorous, satirical context, perhaps whimsically reflecting on those whose first impulse, when a Judge rules in a manner which does not coincide with their viewpoint (as has happened not only in this forum, but often in the Telegraph/Mail/Express/GBNews), is to make an ad hominem attack on the Judiciary…

It wasn't humorous nor satirical. It was misinformation by you, linking an injunction pleaded by a Chogassian to the widely made criticism of lefty lawyers who become left judges and allow illegal immigrants to remain in the UK because their son doesn't like Iraqi chicken nuggets.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It wasn't humorous nor satirical. It was misinformation by you, linking an injunction pleaded by a Chogassian to the widely made criticism of lefty lawyers who become left judges and allow illegal immigrants to remain in the UK because their son doesn't like Iraqi chicken nuggets.

It’s as if Drax were in the room with us…



The injunction was granted by Mr Justice Goose after a case was brought by two Chagossian women, represented by Michael Polak, who said the legal action was aimed at challenging the legitimacy of a handover agreement without formal consultation with the Chagossians.

Michael Polak, according to his Chambers profile

Michael Polak represents clients in the most high profile and important cases before international courts, United Nations bodies, in human rights related arbitrations, in proceedings around the world, and before the courts of England and Wales.

Pretty sure that if this had been another case involving immigrants, the usual suspects would have been frothing at the mouth at another "lefty human rights lawyer" being able to get a Judge to agree to an injunction, whilst insinuating there was some sort of link between the lawyer and the Judge…

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s as if Drax were in the room with us…



The injunction was granted by Mr Justice Goose after a case was brought by two Chagossian women, represented by Michael Polak, who said the legal action was aimed at challenging the legitimacy of a handover agreement without formal consultation with the Chagossians.

Michael Polak, according to his Chambers profile



Pretty sure that if this had been another case involving immigrants, the usual suspects would have been frothing at the mouth at another "lefty human rights lawyer" being able to get a Judge to agree to an injunction, whilst insinuating there was some sort of link between the lawyer and the Judge…

But it isn't

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

Well finally someone has discovered Google.

The subject has been about the ECHR and how they work. Believe it or not they don’t just apply to immigration.

Known about tribunals and how they operate for quite some time(more than a decade). Along with the published decisions of the Upper Tribunals.
How many of the immigration cases are not ECHR related?
Even within the Administrative Appeals Chamber, any ECHR issues tend to be immigration related.

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Now that the party who favoured high immigration rates is out of power, net immigration has halved!

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-...isons-12593360

So, why is this happening?
The decrease last year has been driven by fewer people coming to work and study in the UK, while emigration has risen by around 11%.

...
The fall follow the introduction in early 2024 of restrictions on people eligible to travel to the UK on work or study visas, introduced by the Conservative government under Rishi Sunak.
Mary Gregory, the director of population statistics at the ONS, said the figures show falling immigration is "driven by falling numbers of people coming to work and study, particularly student dependents".
She added: "There has also been an increase in emigration over the 12 months to December 2024, especially people leaving who originally came on study visas once pandemic travel restrictions to the UK were eased."

You were saying?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You were saying?

They were in power for 14 years and did this just before the election.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Known about tribunals and how they operate for quite some time(more than a decade). Along with the published decisions of the Upper Tribunals.
How many of the immigration cases are not ECHR related?
Even within the Administrative Appeals Chamber, any ECHR issues tend to be immigration related.

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 ----------

You were saying?

How many are?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-human-rights

Current rules require the Home Office to make a deportation order against any foreign criminal serving a prison sentence of 12 months or more. Only “exceptionally” can automatic deportations be avoided if they would breach the ECHR, which in practice typically means the right to family life contained in article 8.

The number of people able to invoke this protection is relatively small. Most appeals fail and, of those that succeed, only about one in three are successful on human rights grounds. In the 13 years between 2008 and 2021, the last period for which records are available, that was a total of 2,400 such cases out of 21,500 appeals.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Russ

Yep pretty much looks that way.

I read this as you don't trust the uk courts to deal with these problems. Me l just don't trust them .

[Sephiroth]

As I understand Starmer's explanation for the Chagos deal, had we ignored the advisory ruling that Chagos belongs to Mauritius, then it would be further litigated until the UN formally declares Chagos as Mauritian. If that happens, then any assertion to the contrary by the UK would result in charges under international law. Starmer also said that we could be banned from using the military radio frequencies that would then belong to Mauritius.

I suppose I can accept that evaluation (as in beyond my ken to challenge it from the legal side).

But it just goes to show how stacked the UN is and maybe something new needs to emerge - though I can't think what. It also comes to mind that countries such as USA, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are not members of the ICC and thus beyond its reach. Could the UK not have withdrawn from the ICC? Or isn't it as simple as that?