comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
I think the aim is to give judges the ability to act with common sense. To those abusing the human rights act undeservedly, career criminal types.

This isn’t to just push an anti-foreigner ideology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"common sense"

a legal process by common sense FFS

🚨🚨🚨🚨 | BREAKING: The First real world analysis of Omicron from S Africa shows it is 29% MILDER than the initial covid variant

comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
I think the aim is to give judges the ability to act with common sense. To those abusing the human rights act undeservedly, career criminal types.

This isn’t to just push an anti-foreigner ideology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"common sense"

a legal process by common sense FFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TBAB - you got those crayons?

comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 1 minute ago
🚨🚨🚨🚨 | BREAKING: The First real world analysis of Omicron from S Africa shows it is 29% MILDER than the initial covid variant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good

comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
If this is about deporting foreign criminals, aren’t they likely to already be detained, and so all it is doing is freeing up space in prisons 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s about finding an excuse to assault the Human Rights Act.

They’ve already:

- assaulted voting rights and made mayoral elections less democratic with the Elections Bill

- curbed the right to democratic protest, and made it possible to completely ban individuals from protesting, with the PCSC Bill

- created new stop and search powers

- effectively outlawed the existence of traditional traveller, Sinta and Roma communities

- increased sentences for minor public order offences, most notably in relation to trespass, minor criminal damage, breaching the peace, failure to move on, etc. (for obvious reasons)

- proposed a law change allowing the government to strike out findings from judicial reviews with which it doesn’t agree

Let’s see what else they can do to strip away Britons’ rights, further centralise power and dismantle the ability to challenge their growing authority.

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
I think the aim is to give judges the ability to act with common sense. To those abusing the human rights act undeservedly, career criminal types.

This isn’t to just push an anti-foreigner ideology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"common sense"

a legal process by common sense FFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TBAB - you got those crayons?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as common sense, what makes sense to one might not apply to another

So really if the idea is judges discretion it's in danger of being arbitrary

AND...

Claiming these challenges are there to challenge wokery and political correctness is incredibly cynical and myopic

Surely noone will welcome having even more rights removed in a Draconian way just to own the libz... Surely

My work just cancelled our Christmas dinner do

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 33 minutes ago
AND...

Claiming these challenges are there to challenge wokery and political correctness is incredibly cynical and myopic

Surely noone will welcome having even more rights removed in a Draconian way just to own the libz... Surely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a Corbynite government had acted to strip away civil and human rights and undermine the independence and authority of the judiciary in the same way as this government has, people would be screaming blue murder about socialist authoritarianism.

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
I think the aim is to give judges the ability to act with common sense. To those abusing the human rights act undeservedly, career criminal types.

This isn’t to just push an anti-foreigner ideology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"common sense"

a legal process by common sense FFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TBAB - you got those crayons?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as common sense, what makes sense to one might not apply to another

So really if the idea is judges discretion it's in danger of being arbitrary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a story we’re all tired of hearing: a dangerous criminal frustrates deportation on human rights grounds. In one case, the criminal in question — a convicted drug dealer — claimed that his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) meant he shouldn’t be deported.

This was a man who had been convicted of battery against his partner. He paid no maintenance towards his child. But, still, he claimed his right to family life to frustrate a deportation order. This is the kind of case that gives human rights a bad name — and undermines public trust

From The Times

Sat Nav I appreciate you want to believe that's what this change is for but do you really trust Raab, Braverman, Patel and Johnson to get this right?

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 19 minutes ago
Sat Nav I appreciate you want to believe that's what this change is for but do you really trust Raab, Braverman, Patel and Johnson to get this right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m dubious about their competency to say the least but it will be giving the judges the ability to decide and apply some common sense and that I am confident in, yes.

Anyone prepared to wager that they’ll do exactly what they did with the PCSC Bill, and wait for the third reading before jamming in a load of last minute amendments stripping a load more rights away?

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
🚨 | NEW: Dominic Raab will announce plans for a British bill of rights tomorrow that will enable the deportation of more foreign criminals and illegal migrants

Via @thetimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. Free up some space for legal immigrants and more desirables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why anyone would trust Raab to write a Christmas card never mind an unnecessary bill of rights is beyond me.
He's thick as mince.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill (if it passes) removes the right for an offender to challenge deportation. So essentially cases would be blocked from even making it to court. Many people will therefore lose their basic rights to a fair trial.

The Government are also putting forward the argument that UK courts should have the final say, (rather than ECHR). However the vast majority of cases (since the HRA came into force) claims have been dealt by British courts.

There was a Tory MP on BBC's daily politics last week claiming (without rebuke) that now we are out of the EU we no longer have to consider the views of the ECHR, despite the ECHR convention having absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

"The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, urged the government to make sure that any reforms of the HRA were backed by evidence, not driven by political rhetoric."

"Its president, I. Stephanie Boyce, said: "The powers government purports to introduce for the most part already exist. British judges deliver British justice based on British laws."

"UK courts do not, as government suggests, blindly follow case law from the European Court of Human Rights."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/dec/14/raab-to-claim-overhaul-human-rights-law-counter-political-correctness

Breaking: there are currently NO PCR tests available to book in England for people with suspected Covid

Faaack me

comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 10 minutes ago
Breaking: there are currently NO PCR tests available to book in England for people with suspected Covid

Faaack me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole thing is a shambles. I've received a text this morning telling me I can now book a slot at a time to suit me (haha), or turn up and queue for 2 hours if I prefer. I guess that's Boris's promise to offer me a booster by the end of the year satisfied. Politicising the pandemic indeed. Duffus.

comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
🚨🚨🚨🚨 | BREAKING: The First real world analysis of Omicron from S Africa shows it is 29% MILDER than the initial covid variant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weirdly precise figure, but it's kind of what you'd expect. Ironic that the government are using this variant to really jack up the panic mode in the UK.

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
🚨 | NEW: Dominic Raab will announce plans for a British bill of rights tomorrow that will enable the deportation of more foreign criminals and illegal migrants

Via @thetimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. Free up some space for legal immigrants and more desirables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why anyone would trust Raab to write a Christmas card never mind an unnecessary bill of rights is beyond me.
He's thick as mince.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill (if it passes) removes the right for an offender to challenge deportation. So essentially cases would be blocked from even making it to court. Many people will therefore lose their basic rights to a fair trial.

The Government are also putting forward the argument that UK courts should have the final say, (rather than ECHR). However the vast majority of cases (since the HRA came into force) claims have been dealt by British courts.

There was a Tory MP on BBC's daily politics last week claiming (without rebuke) that now we are out of the EU we no longer have to consider the views of the ECHR, despite the ECHR convention having absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

"The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, urged the government to make sure that any reforms of the HRA were backed by evidence, not driven by political rhetoric."

"Its president, I. Stephanie Boyce, said: "The powers government purports to introduce for the most part already exist. British judges deliver British justice based on British laws."

"UK courts do not, as government suggests, blindly follow case law from the European Court of Human Rights."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/dec/14/raab-to-claim-overhaul-human-rights-law-counter-political-correctness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did we do things before 1998? Were our judges immorally and unjustly removing people?

IMF chief @KGeorgieva says UK economy proved to be more resilient than expected after a difficult year with the pandemic and post Brexit adjustments… but inflation pressures will linger and “considerable” risks and uncertainties ahead

🚨 | NEW: A trial of a needle-free Covid vaccine, administered through a jet of air has begun in Southampton

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
🚨 | NEW: Dominic Raab will announce plans for a British bill of rights tomorrow that will enable the deportation of more foreign criminals and illegal migrants

Via @thetimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. Free up some space for legal immigrants and more desirables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why anyone would trust Raab to write a Christmas card never mind an unnecessary bill of rights is beyond me.
He's thick as mince.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill (if it passes) removes the right for an offender to challenge deportation. So essentially cases would be blocked from even making it to court. Many people will therefore lose their basic rights to a fair trial.

The Government are also putting forward the argument that UK courts should have the final say, (rather than ECHR). However the vast majority of cases (since the HRA came into force) claims have been dealt by British courts.

There was a Tory MP on BBC's daily politics last week claiming (without rebuke) that now we are out of the EU we no longer have to consider the views of the ECHR, despite the ECHR convention having absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

"The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, urged the government to make sure that any reforms of the HRA were backed by evidence, not driven by political rhetoric."

"Its president, I. Stephanie Boyce, said: "The powers government purports to introduce for the most part already exist. British judges deliver British justice based on British laws."

"UK courts do not, as government suggests, blindly follow case law from the European Court of Human Rights."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/dec/14/raab-to-claim-overhaul-human-rights-law-counter-political-correctness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did we do things before 1998? Were our judges immorally and unjustly removing people?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The HRA was transposed into UK law by way of the ECHR. Prior to 1998, UK citizens relied on the ECHR but rather than judgements being made by UK courts, determinations were handed down by European courts (albeit with UK representation).

Another wonderful tale from the land of apex capitalism:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna8581

Factory workers threatened with firing if they left before tornado, employees say.

At least eight people died in the Mayfield Consumer Products candle factory.

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
🚨 | NEW: Dominic Raab will announce plans for a British bill of rights tomorrow that will enable the deportation of more foreign criminals and illegal migrants

Via @thetimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. Free up some space for legal immigrants and more desirables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why anyone would trust Raab to write a Christmas card never mind an unnecessary bill of rights is beyond me.
He's thick as mince.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill (if it passes) removes the right for an offender to challenge deportation. So essentially cases would be blocked from even making it to court. Many people will therefore lose their basic rights to a fair trial.

The Government are also putting forward the argument that UK courts should have the final say, (rather than ECHR). However the vast majority of cases (since the HRA came into force) claims have been dealt by British courts.

There was a Tory MP on BBC's daily politics last week claiming (without rebuke) that now we are out of the EU we no longer have to consider the views of the ECHR, despite the ECHR convention having absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

"The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, urged the government to make sure that any reforms of the HRA were backed by evidence, not driven by political rhetoric."

"Its president, I. Stephanie Boyce, said: "The powers government purports to introduce for the most part already exist. British judges deliver British justice based on British laws."

"UK courts do not, as government suggests, blindly follow case law from the European Court of Human Rights."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/dec/14/raab-to-claim-overhaul-human-rights-law-counter-political-correctness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did we do things before 1998? Were our judges immorally and unjustly removing people?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were, old school tie pomposities sending the Guildford 4/Birmingham to prison for life on the flimsiest of evidence with the words that they'd have got the death sentence if it was available, fk the judge's common sense, they have one job, abide by the law of the land.

@KateEMcCann

Earlier, Dominic Raab told @KayBurley
there are 250 omicron cases in hospital right now but the correct figure is 10. He later corrected himself.

The man is a clown, he shouldn't be anywhere near a clockwork trainset never mind the machinery of government.

After being the first government to get voted in to impose economic sanctions on its citizens, they've now managed to reduce our human rights

Fantastic