This seems more accurate than the Matt Goodwin “kill the ECHR” diatribe. I live in the EU and can confirm that other countries that are bound by the ECHR do not do the daft things that the British judiciary, police and civil service do wrt immigration. It’s a problem generated from within Britain’s elite systems.
With each passing day I begin to resent Reform more and more. It's that mixture of ignorance, soundbites, cheap shots and treating anyone on the Right who expresses doubts or constructive criticism as apostates to be berated that pisses me off the most.
Take yesterday's idiotic tweet by Zia Yusuf: That the Tories are so bad not only did they create a minister for net zero (true) but that they have a shadow minister for net zero...followed by a trio of tears of laughter emojis. If there is a ministry then the opposition need a shadow minister, even if they want that ministry gone. A shadow minister gets access to information about that department, is there to scrutinise government policy and rebut what it doesn't like. Yusuf just doesn't get it, like he didn't understand how PMQs or the House of Lords work. He revels in ignorance, becoming a new Richard Burgon, and what's depressing is that Reform loyalists lap his utterances up.
Talk about destroying the existing structure sounds more impressive but there's rarely talk about what replaces it. Reform talk about a British Bill of Rights (an idea they stole off Dominic Raab) but I doubt any of them have heard about the 1689 Bill of Rights. Where's the intellectual heft of Reform? Oh, that's right, they purged them.
I was thinking along lines similar to Pete's: We don't need radical overhauling or destruction. We need to fix things. A repair not a revolution. It's within grasp but only if the people in charge are willing to do it.
If you read the various documents regarding Human Rights, you may notice a general problem:
They should be regarded as hierarchical. But the Universal Declaration recognises no such hierarchy.
The European Convention does recognise a limited hierarchy. Although this seems to have been ignored by the judges. They have de facto upheld the anti-blasphemy against Islam law of the Austrian courts.
And of course, Islam gets in on the production of Human Rights, in practice heavily distorted by the need to be compatible with Sharia.
Have a read of the book "Islam Versus Human Rights". The trwo really are incompatble.
I think a lot could be achieved in government by ditching some of the most 'beancountery' nonsense. Like league tables for performance. I'm certainly not the first critic of these for the police forces, as many have already noticed and bemoaned the fact that if police are to slide up the tables, they need to produce more results, more arrests, more crime 'clear-ups'.
Problem with that is it makes it easy to hector motorists to bump up offences. Or to prosecute mean tweets. Easy gains for their table rankings. If they just ditched the tables and divvied up the police funding in some kind of reasonable way, they could insist police go after 'proper' crimes (eg violent crime, theft and burglary, fraud, etc) which I imagine can sometimes be complex and time-consuming - so not great if you need the points to jump above the neighbouring force!
The bean-counters seem to be everywhere. So unpicking their influence can be applied across multiple policy areas.
Of course, still haul the various commanders and other bosses in for a roasting in the various committees, etc.
Is there something in the British psyche that commands us to adhere rigidly to formal commitments even when it's patently against our interests? Coupled with a view that to diverge from said commitments we must go through the rigmarole of divorce and/or renegotiation?
It's interesting that while the EU (unlike the ECHR) does appear to have some means of enforcing its rules, even certain EU member states have chosen to just accept the consequences of violating EU law, simply taking on the chin sanctions and other measures.
Could anyone imagine a British government doing something similar?
I asked Google AI what the consequences might be of the UK disapplying the principle of non-refoulement in its domestic law. It appeared to be of the view that the very act of ignoring the ECHR as a signatory state could eventually collapse the GFA & destabilise NI politics: 'potentially destabilizing the peace process and straining relations with Ireland and the EU.'
It also mentions: 'The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) contains a clause that allows the EU to terminate parts of the agreement related to law enforcement and judicial cooperation if the UK fails to adhere to the ECHR. This would have serious consequences for a wide range of issues, including extradition and security cooperation.'
And: 'A "Devolution Crisis": By disapplying the principle of non-refoulement and ignoring ECHR rulings, the UK government would be undermining the very legal foundation of the devolution settlements. This would create a situation where the UK Parliament is acting against a principle that is legally binding on the devolved legislatures. This would be a profound constitutional conflict.'
It has never ceased to amaze me the way that the UK slavishly follows every dot of EU law and regulations, while other members simply ignore what they don’t like. 🤷♂️
Peter still believes in the Tory Party, barely a year after they were annihilated by the electorate.
Lying consistently to the electorate, planning total control of the internet in line with MSM/OFCOM, whilst organising and year by year increasing mass migration in their 14 years in government.
He’s either an utter idiot or in denial - either way he needs his head violently shaken (metaphorically).
Under maritime law (SOLAS, SAR, UNCLOS), rescued people must be brought to a safe place, not necessarily the nearest coast. Even if all the other treaties were nullified - how are we going to evade this responsibilty?
This seems more accurate than the Matt Goodwin “kill the ECHR” diatribe. I live in the EU and can confirm that other countries that are bound by the ECHR do not do the daft things that the British judiciary, police and civil service do wrt immigration. It’s a problem generated from within Britain’s elite systems.
Goodwin has devalued himself since throwing himself 100% into Reform. I don't take his analysis nor his boasting of polling numbers seriously anymore.
With each passing day I begin to resent Reform more and more. It's that mixture of ignorance, soundbites, cheap shots and treating anyone on the Right who expresses doubts or constructive criticism as apostates to be berated that pisses me off the most.
Take yesterday's idiotic tweet by Zia Yusuf: That the Tories are so bad not only did they create a minister for net zero (true) but that they have a shadow minister for net zero...followed by a trio of tears of laughter emojis. If there is a ministry then the opposition need a shadow minister, even if they want that ministry gone. A shadow minister gets access to information about that department, is there to scrutinise government policy and rebut what it doesn't like. Yusuf just doesn't get it, like he didn't understand how PMQs or the House of Lords work. He revels in ignorance, becoming a new Richard Burgon, and what's depressing is that Reform loyalists lap his utterances up.
Talk about destroying the existing structure sounds more impressive but there's rarely talk about what replaces it. Reform talk about a British Bill of Rights (an idea they stole off Dominic Raab) but I doubt any of them have heard about the 1689 Bill of Rights. Where's the intellectual heft of Reform? Oh, that's right, they purged them.
I was thinking along lines similar to Pete's: We don't need radical overhauling or destruction. We need to fix things. A repair not a revolution. It's within grasp but only if the people in charge are willing to do it.
If you read the various documents regarding Human Rights, you may notice a general problem:
They should be regarded as hierarchical. But the Universal Declaration recognises no such hierarchy.
The European Convention does recognise a limited hierarchy. Although this seems to have been ignored by the judges. They have de facto upheld the anti-blasphemy against Islam law of the Austrian courts.
And of course, Islam gets in on the production of Human Rights, in practice heavily distorted by the need to be compatible with Sharia.
Have a read of the book "Islam Versus Human Rights". The trwo really are incompatble.
Details are given in this article:
"The Hierarchy of Human Rights
What is the root problem with the ECHR?"
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/the-hierarchy-of-human-rights
I think a lot could be achieved in government by ditching some of the most 'beancountery' nonsense. Like league tables for performance. I'm certainly not the first critic of these for the police forces, as many have already noticed and bemoaned the fact that if police are to slide up the tables, they need to produce more results, more arrests, more crime 'clear-ups'.
Problem with that is it makes it easy to hector motorists to bump up offences. Or to prosecute mean tweets. Easy gains for their table rankings. If they just ditched the tables and divvied up the police funding in some kind of reasonable way, they could insist police go after 'proper' crimes (eg violent crime, theft and burglary, fraud, etc) which I imagine can sometimes be complex and time-consuming - so not great if you need the points to jump above the neighbouring force!
The bean-counters seem to be everywhere. So unpicking their influence can be applied across multiple policy areas.
Of course, still haul the various commanders and other bosses in for a roasting in the various committees, etc.
Is there something in the British psyche that commands us to adhere rigidly to formal commitments even when it's patently against our interests? Coupled with a view that to diverge from said commitments we must go through the rigmarole of divorce and/or renegotiation?
It's interesting that while the EU (unlike the ECHR) does appear to have some means of enforcing its rules, even certain EU member states have chosen to just accept the consequences of violating EU law, simply taking on the chin sanctions and other measures.
Could anyone imagine a British government doing something similar?
I asked Google AI what the consequences might be of the UK disapplying the principle of non-refoulement in its domestic law. It appeared to be of the view that the very act of ignoring the ECHR as a signatory state could eventually collapse the GFA & destabilise NI politics: 'potentially destabilizing the peace process and straining relations with Ireland and the EU.'
It also mentions: 'The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) contains a clause that allows the EU to terminate parts of the agreement related to law enforcement and judicial cooperation if the UK fails to adhere to the ECHR. This would have serious consequences for a wide range of issues, including extradition and security cooperation.'
And: 'A "Devolution Crisis": By disapplying the principle of non-refoulement and ignoring ECHR rulings, the UK government would be undermining the very legal foundation of the devolution settlements. This would create a situation where the UK Parliament is acting against a principle that is legally binding on the devolved legislatures. This would be a profound constitutional conflict.'
Wondered what your thoughts were.
It has never ceased to amaze me the way that the UK slavishly follows every dot of EU law and regulations, while other members simply ignore what they don’t like. 🤷♂️
This is why I voted for Brexit
Wow
Peter still believes in the Tory Party, barely a year after they were annihilated by the electorate.
Lying consistently to the electorate, planning total control of the internet in line with MSM/OFCOM, whilst organising and year by year increasing mass migration in their 14 years in government.
He’s either an utter idiot or in denial - either way he needs his head violently shaken (metaphorically).
Reform don't want to work with the Conservatives.
Under maritime law (SOLAS, SAR, UNCLOS), rescued people must be brought to a safe place, not necessarily the nearest coast. Even if all the other treaties were nullified - how are we going to evade this responsibilty?
She has been charged