Starmer’s chronicles

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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 Could the UK not have withdrawn from the ICC?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?

I don't think we want to aspire to be down on the same list as those countries when it comes to human rights!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 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 Could the UK not have withdrawn from the ICC?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?

would it not just get vetoed by the uk at that point

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think we want to aspire to be down on the same list as those countries when it comes to human rights!

well Starmers just pissed on the chagossians human rights

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

well Starmers just pissed on the chagossians human rights

That sentence was not down on my Papa Smurf bingo for 2025!

[Sephiroth]

@Papa
It was a vote of the UN General Assembly. Nobody has a veto there.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@Papa
It was a vote of the UN General Assembly. Nobody has a veto there.

ok thanks for that

It wasnt much of a delay, deal completed today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clyvv04wk8zt

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Itshim

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

The courts work within the guidelines set out in Law, which mainly come from the Government.

Any government given the mandate to write its own 'human rights' is NOT to be trusted, and I don't care which party that is.

[Sephiroth]

The Chagos deal has been published: https://assets.publishing.service.go...ego_Garcia.pdf

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Russ

The courts work within the guidelines set out in Law, which mainly come from the Government.

Any government given the mandate to write its own 'human rights' is NOT to be trusted, and I don't care which party that is.

And decide what the government meant , or at least what he/she / thingy want them to mean , even if makes no sense to anyone else.

[Russ]

If you want to believe that then all the power to you.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How many are?

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

Not just article 8. Wonder how they counted what was successful? In the case below, it was the Home Office that appealed and lost, so no deportation.
Eg They can win if they can claim their step-mother is going to hit them if they go back.
Recent Real Case

His younger sister was sent away to live with a grandmother, but he and his brother were required to remain in the family compound with his father’s first wife, whom he refers to as his stepmother. She, and those around her, physically abused the boys, forcing them to work long hours and punishing them if they refused to do so.

They're both adults now and could live elsewhere in the country, but still common sense doesn't prevail in the decision making.


The publicly available list doesn't have categories attached to them, so no easy way to filter them.
Even where the First Tier Tribunal has refused an appeal, they can appeal to the Upper Tribunal, who may find an "error of law" and the case has to be heard again. And so it repeats itself, and they remain here all that time.

[Sephiroth]

What's with the silence on Starmer's latest screw-up?

To recap: Farage has made a few electoral promises that Starmer reckons are as unfunded as Truss's enacted policies.

With 4 years to go before the next GE, there is time for Farage to put policies forward that have been studied and researched that square the funding circle.

But Starmer, with his 400+ MPs is shit-scared of Reform and its 5 MPs; so Starmer goes for the man at a press conference and he gets shredded by the media when they question him.

Wonderful stuff since nothing else that Labour is doing has any worth.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What's with the silence on Starmer's latest screw-up?

To recap: Farage has made a few electoral promises that Starmer reckons are as unfunded as Truss's enacted policies.

With 4 years to go before the next GE, there is time for Farage to put policies forward that have been studied and researched that square the funding circle.

But Starmer, with his 400+ MPs is shit-scared of Reform and its 5 MPs; so Starmer goes for the man at a press conference and he gets shredded by the media when they question him.

Wonderful stuff since nothing else that Labour is doing has any worth.

You can promise anything without saying how you're going to pay for it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

You can promise anything without saying how you're going to pay for it.

Didn't Starmer do just that? "Fully costed", he said.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mr K

You can promise anything without saying how you're going to pay for it.

To be fair, Farage has said how he's going to pay for it but the figures make no sense. His worse case scenario is finding himself in power like the Liberal Democrats did when they had to row back on eliminating tuition fees. He would have to row back on the £20k tax rate.