You’re trying to introduce facts for people who vote solely re immigration. That won’t work unfortunately. Many of those voters are hardwired to think ‘immigrants bad, England flags good’.
Whilst I get the sentiment behind this. It’s the framework that stops the appeals straight away. It’s not that the government of whatever colour isn’t taking cases to the court. It’s the fact that under current rules it wouldn’t stand up so they don’t bother.
This over simplifies it, most cases don’t reach the ECHR, they are heard by UK judges who then interpret the ECHR legislation against the case they are overseeing.
Labour have said they need stronger guidance for UK judges with stricter framework/guidelines in regards to asylum cases for the judges to follow, which I agree with. That should be the first option before even looking at leaving the ECHR.
This is proper GCSE level nonsense.
ECHR migration laws are implemented at UK court level, not just at the court in Strasbourg, the point is that thousands of cases invoke ECHR law while only a small amount escalate upwards.
Caution : neutral, sensible response ahead: The (edit)29 cases have set case law. This decides how the English courts decide and make case law.
That then has an effect on every English court case that comes after.
The point is not to take every case to the highest English/Welsh (or Scottish) courts and then ECHR. We would just have 90% employment rate of the population as lawyers.
The point is and always has been to take a few cases and let those outcomes become case law that trickles down to decide every case inside the lower courts that comes after – as well as help solicitors know if a case has any chance of success if launched.
If one person took a case to ECHR that stated they want to be able to dance naked on a sunday in Trafalgar square and the government opposed that. If the person won their case and the government lost, then anyone could dance naked in Trafalgar square every Sunday. if the government tried to stop them, then any lower court in the UK could rule their human rights were violated by the government, without needing to go back to ECHR simply by referring to the outcome of the 1 case that was heard and decided at the ECHR.
Withdrawing from the ECHR would allow further test cases in the courts that will allow new case law to be set. And some if those (edit) 29 cases that set case law are about migration. It will also nullify the other non immigration case law, should the goverment wish to challenge thst too – in my made up example – dancing naked in Trafalgar square could again be challenged by the government. So here we are.
We wouldn’t have to worry about these goons if Starmer would do his effing job
They know it’s hard to fix the economy, so they are playing deflection politics. One of the biggest reasons for the bad economy is Brexit. We all know who caused it.
In Badenoughs case I think it’s slightly worse. I don’t think she knows what leaving the echr is. Exactly the same as leaving the EU, these people are so ignorant of the facts they actually don’t know what the reality of the situation is. They genuinely thought it would be an easy process because they are brought up on wishes and dreams to solve all their problems.
Nigel on the other hand, he knows what he’s doing because he’s a Kremlin asset.
Disingenuous statement, the problem is our British courts using the ECHR guidelines as most cases never make it to the actual ECHR.
People have always been dumb and ignorant over the ECHR.
They’ve never understood Brussels has done far more for all our common rights than most if not all recent British governments.
It’s uncomfortable for these people to even consider and they’d rather slap the table and scream SOVEREIGNTY
Is that true?
That said what is the answer to uncontrolled borders? There are a lot of migrants that bring positivity to the country but also alot that are dangerous. Yes there are also dangerous brits but they need to be dealt with by our courts. Undocumented migrants living in squaild over crowed hmos is out of control.
Can someone explain what the echr for the less cultured on this sub? (I.e me)
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, that they’re ultimately trying to denude citizens of rights, but the presentation of data is misleading.
Being a part of the ECHR means that your legal system is bound by those principles, the reason so few cases have been heard in Strasbourg and most of those found in the governments favour is that most don’t get that far. It would be like citing the number of stop and search cases reaching the supreme court as being indicative of anything.
Even governments aren’t stupid enough to bring suits that they can’t possibly win. Cases that the government can’t win either aren’t made or simply don’t leave the UK court system.
I’m short, just because Reform are a bunch of grubby chancers, don’t believe everything you read on a meme, especially if it’s reinforcing what you already believe.
There are many reasons why and none of them are good. I think most people agree illegal and legal immigration needs to be reduced but not at the expense of our human rights. I will never trust a party or politician that wants to reduce our rights.
Totally agree with your posting but I think we need to pitch things at a more simplistic level that folk will understand or relate to. The likes of the Daily Mail have denigrated the ECHR for years, so some people believe it only exists to protect asylum seekers.
Farage is on record saying he wants a US style insurance-based healthcare system and this is the sort of thing we should drill down on. If people are made to understand that a simple visit to their GP without adequate insurance could cost them a packet, they might start waking up. Even monthly insurance premiums could amount to hundreds.
The biggest trick Farage continues to pull off is convincing the working classes and low paid that he’s fighting for them. As for BadEnoch, well she’s just an embarrassment and successfully destroying the Tories from the inside out.
The under educated will still not see the logic in this because they lack the necessary skills to understand.
They are determined to change us into the US where people have less employment rights, no maternity leave, no sick leave ect.
That’s the bigger agenda
It’s not for migration they want to get rid of human rights. This just the inflamed issue they are selling to get populace votes.
The real agenda is so their rich business men buddies can fuck employees over. Think how many human rights protections there currently are. What happens if they are gone?
I’ve met a few very educated, very rich business dudes who want to vote for Farage. It’s not for migration.
But of course that’s hardly mentioned.
Whilst I am no Reform voter, I think this post misses the point. The ECHR has only heard 29 immigration cases because applicants have only been violated so much.
It’s quite possible we would see a lot more cases under Reform if they didn’t withdraw, so I don’t think this will be persuasive to Reform voters.
The people who mindlessly follow these people don’t even realise that the ECHR guidelines does more for British citizens than it does for illegal immigrants.
Realistically the uk is to blame for being on the lenient side of the guidelines for ECHR. There is nothing stopping us sending people back to France or home country and requesting they apply for asylum there. We have an asylum process that is accepted by ECHR and there is nothing breaking the rules for us to demand the rules are followed.
They those pesky human rights get it he way of their corporate overlords ambitions. They are what’s standing in the way between us and corporations looking to extract every last drop of autonomy from our bodies
This is unfortunately what ignoring the problem & deriding anyone who says there is a problem as a ‘gammon/racist’, causes. Extremism & people who manipulate the people the rest of society has shunned to push through terrible things. There is an giant problem with the way immigration is handled in the UK & it needs to be addressed
Farage has a 10 minute rule motion in parliament on Wednesday (yeah it is insane, he actually showed up for once) to leave the ECHR. Would be funni for that to instantly be voted down lol
The post is misleading. The issue is not only when the case goes there. The UK courts themselves are bound to the ECHR laws, so they apply these laws themselves. That is why you see very few cases going to Strasbourg.
We see in the papers frequently a judge did this because of the ECHR. This immigrant says is gay and will be killed so he gets to stay due to ECHR. Isn’t it the application of the laws here in our courts that’s the issue. Not us taking things to the ECHR Courts in Strasbourg
They want to force 60 hour work weeks on us
Tell me you don’t understand the judicial system without telling me you don’t understand the judicial system.
It’s absolutely astounding that people would be short-sighted enough to vote their own rights away, because wealthy politicians tell them to. Right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, right to a fair trial, no punishment without the law etc…
I just don’t get it because I know right-leaning people who are so distrustful of the government and yet believe it’s sensible to vote away those rights and trust that they’ll all be replaced with a domestic legislation framework. But what if they aren’t?
The ECHR isn’t just about immigration, it hampers us is many ways, we had our own protection prior to that, stop spreading misinformation and scaremongering. You’d have people believe the EU invented human rights and that we’ll be hunted down in the streets.
Well the reason they don’t take more action is that they know the ECHR will likely block it. Let’s not pretend that they don’t have excessive power.
This was 9 years ago, its like it was made yesterday.
Rights get in the way of policy…
I agree with the message, not a meme.
People don’t want human rights. I should start a political party that just badly says out loud what they imply: That freedom and democracy have become tiresome, and that I will help people live in the fascist dystopia they obviously crave.
I will also remove the sprinkles from doughnuts, ban cheesecake, and make anyone caught smoking eat the contents of their own ashtray. And while you’re debating that, I’ll disappear with the contents of the Treasury.
36 comments
[https://stopreformuk.vote/](https://stopreformuk.vote/)
You’re trying to introduce facts for people who vote solely re immigration. That won’t work unfortunately. Many of those voters are hardwired to think ‘immigrants bad, England flags good’.
Whilst I get the sentiment behind this. It’s the framework that stops the appeals straight away. It’s not that the government of whatever colour isn’t taking cases to the court. It’s the fact that under current rules it wouldn’t stand up so they don’t bother.
This over simplifies it, most cases don’t reach the ECHR, they are heard by UK judges who then interpret the ECHR legislation against the case they are overseeing.
Labour have said they need stronger guidance for UK judges with stricter framework/guidelines in regards to asylum cases for the judges to follow, which I agree with. That should be the first option before even looking at leaving the ECHR.
This is proper GCSE level nonsense.
ECHR migration laws are implemented at UK court level, not just at the court in Strasbourg, the point is that thousands of cases invoke ECHR law while only a small amount escalate upwards.
Caution : neutral, sensible response ahead: The (edit)29 cases have set case law. This decides how the English courts decide and make case law.
That then has an effect on every English court case that comes after.
The point is not to take every case to the highest English/Welsh (or Scottish) courts and then ECHR. We would just have 90% employment rate of the population as lawyers.
The point is and always has been to take a few cases and let those outcomes become case law that trickles down to decide every case inside the lower courts that comes after – as well as help solicitors know if a case has any chance of success if launched.
If one person took a case to ECHR that stated they want to be able to dance naked on a sunday in Trafalgar square and the government opposed that. If the person won their case and the government lost, then anyone could dance naked in Trafalgar square every Sunday. if the government tried to stop them, then any lower court in the UK could rule their human rights were violated by the government, without needing to go back to ECHR simply by referring to the outcome of the 1 case that was heard and decided at the ECHR.
Withdrawing from the ECHR would allow further test cases in the courts that will allow new case law to be set. And some if those (edit) 29 cases that set case law are about migration. It will also nullify the other non immigration case law, should the goverment wish to challenge thst too – in my made up example – dancing naked in Trafalgar square could again be challenged by the government. So here we are.
We wouldn’t have to worry about these goons if Starmer would do his effing job
They know it’s hard to fix the economy, so they are playing deflection politics. One of the biggest reasons for the bad economy is Brexit. We all know who caused it.
In Badenoughs case I think it’s slightly worse. I don’t think she knows what leaving the echr is. Exactly the same as leaving the EU, these people are so ignorant of the facts they actually don’t know what the reality of the situation is. They genuinely thought it would be an easy process because they are brought up on wishes and dreams to solve all their problems.
Nigel on the other hand, he knows what he’s doing because he’s a Kremlin asset.
Disingenuous statement, the problem is our British courts using the ECHR guidelines as most cases never make it to the actual ECHR.
People have always been dumb and ignorant over the ECHR.
They’ve never understood Brussels has done far more for all our common rights than most if not all recent British governments.
It’s uncomfortable for these people to even consider and they’d rather slap the table and scream SOVEREIGNTY
Is that true?
That said what is the answer to uncontrolled borders? There are a lot of migrants that bring positivity to the country but also alot that are dangerous. Yes there are also dangerous brits but they need to be dealt with by our courts. Undocumented migrants living in squaild over crowed hmos is out of control.
Can someone explain what the echr for the less cultured on this sub? (I.e me)
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, that they’re ultimately trying to denude citizens of rights, but the presentation of data is misleading.
Being a part of the ECHR means that your legal system is bound by those principles, the reason so few cases have been heard in Strasbourg and most of those found in the governments favour is that most don’t get that far. It would be like citing the number of stop and search cases reaching the supreme court as being indicative of anything.
Even governments aren’t stupid enough to bring suits that they can’t possibly win. Cases that the government can’t win either aren’t made or simply don’t leave the UK court system.
I’m short, just because Reform are a bunch of grubby chancers, don’t believe everything you read on a meme, especially if it’s reinforcing what you already believe.
There are many reasons why and none of them are good. I think most people agree illegal and legal immigration needs to be reduced but not at the expense of our human rights. I will never trust a party or politician that wants to reduce our rights.
Totally agree with your posting but I think we need to pitch things at a more simplistic level that folk will understand or relate to. The likes of the Daily Mail have denigrated the ECHR for years, so some people believe it only exists to protect asylum seekers.
Farage is on record saying he wants a US style insurance-based healthcare system and this is the sort of thing we should drill down on. If people are made to understand that a simple visit to their GP without adequate insurance could cost them a packet, they might start waking up. Even monthly insurance premiums could amount to hundreds.
The biggest trick Farage continues to pull off is convincing the working classes and low paid that he’s fighting for them. As for BadEnoch, well she’s just an embarrassment and successfully destroying the Tories from the inside out.
The under educated will still not see the logic in this because they lack the necessary skills to understand.
They are determined to change us into the US where people have less employment rights, no maternity leave, no sick leave ect.
That’s the bigger agenda
It’s not for migration they want to get rid of human rights. This just the inflamed issue they are selling to get populace votes.
The real agenda is so their rich business men buddies can fuck employees over. Think how many human rights protections there currently are. What happens if they are gone?
I’ve met a few very educated, very rich business dudes who want to vote for Farage. It’s not for migration.
But of course that’s hardly mentioned.
Whilst I am no Reform voter, I think this post misses the point. The ECHR has only heard 29 immigration cases because applicants have only been violated so much.
It’s quite possible we would see a lot more cases under Reform if they didn’t withdraw, so I don’t think this will be persuasive to Reform voters.
The people who mindlessly follow these people don’t even realise that the ECHR guidelines does more for British citizens than it does for illegal immigrants.
Realistically the uk is to blame for being on the lenient side of the guidelines for ECHR. There is nothing stopping us sending people back to France or home country and requesting they apply for asylum there. We have an asylum process that is accepted by ECHR and there is nothing breaking the rules for us to demand the rules are followed.
They those pesky human rights get it he way of their corporate overlords ambitions. They are what’s standing in the way between us and corporations looking to extract every last drop of autonomy from our bodies
This is unfortunately what ignoring the problem & deriding anyone who says there is a problem as a ‘gammon/racist’, causes. Extremism & people who manipulate the people the rest of society has shunned to push through terrible things. There is an giant problem with the way immigration is handled in the UK & it needs to be addressed
Farage has a 10 minute rule motion in parliament on Wednesday (yeah it is insane, he actually showed up for once) to leave the ECHR. Would be funni for that to instantly be voted down lol
The post is misleading. The issue is not only when the case goes there. The UK courts themselves are bound to the ECHR laws, so they apply these laws themselves. That is why you see very few cases going to Strasbourg.
We see in the papers frequently a judge did this because of the ECHR. This immigrant says is gay and will be killed so he gets to stay due to ECHR. Isn’t it the application of the laws here in our courts that’s the issue. Not us taking things to the ECHR Courts in Strasbourg
They want to force 60 hour work weeks on us
Tell me you don’t understand the judicial system without telling me you don’t understand the judicial system.
It’s absolutely astounding that people would be short-sighted enough to vote their own rights away, because wealthy politicians tell them to. Right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, right to a fair trial, no punishment without the law etc…
I just don’t get it because I know right-leaning people who are so distrustful of the government and yet believe it’s sensible to vote away those rights and trust that they’ll all be replaced with a domestic legislation framework. But what if they aren’t?
The ECHR isn’t just about immigration, it hampers us is many ways, we had our own protection prior to that, stop spreading misinformation and scaremongering. You’d have people believe the EU invented human rights and that we’ll be hunted down in the streets.
Well the reason they don’t take more action is that they know the ECHR will likely block it. Let’s not pretend that they don’t have excessive power.
What have the ECHR ever done for us?
[https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA?si=Qtj62SXgIxDYqXnE](https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA?si=Qtj62SXgIxDYqXnE)
This was 9 years ago, its like it was made yesterday.
Rights get in the way of policy…
I agree with the message, not a meme.
People don’t want human rights. I should start a political party that just badly says out loud what they imply: That freedom and democracy have become tiresome, and that I will help people live in the fascist dystopia they obviously crave.
I will also remove the sprinkles from doughnuts, ban cheesecake, and make anyone caught smoking eat the contents of their own ashtray. And while you’re debating that, I’ll disappear with the contents of the Treasury.
Comments are closed.