(08-28-2025, 02:14 PM)Protheroe Wrote:(08-28-2025, 01:36 PM)baggy1 Wrote:(08-28-2025, 01:14 PM)Jacko Wrote: If we are going to leave the ECHR, as now looks inevitable, surely B1 you'd prefer this Labour government to oversee it, than an incoming Reform regime?
If we leave the ECHR then we are lost - the fact that this has been pushed to anywhere near the top of the agenda is criminal whoever oversees it. The narrative that it is inevitable is also one that is being pushed by those that want it. The 'well, it doesn't apply to me' approach is equally stupid if you only take a glance over the pond to see how the courts are being driven politically, the ECHR, an independent body above any one government is the safety net, not the obstacle.
So you believe the courts should have the whip hand over the democratic will of the people? And that anachronistic legislation and international treaties should not be changed? And that lawyers are any more independent than the rest of us?
OK. I can see why you voted for Starmer. You are everything he is.
If we leave the ECHR then we are lost. Melodramatic bobbins. If this government doesn't do something it will replaced by something far worse. And you are sleepwalking into it.
I love the 'melodramatic bobbins' comment straight after 'the courts should have the democratic will of the people'. And what have lawyers got to do with anything, the laws are set by the government of the day and preceded over by judges who interpret those laws based on the text and caselaw. Lawyers simply represent one side or another, they are not the decision makers.
The democratic will of the people decided on a yes / no vote for Brexit and had instant buyers regret. The democratic will of the people is based on them getting all of the information that is pertinent to any decision, if you want to leave the ECHR and decide to leave the new oversight to any of the governments of the last 50 years that have been found guilty of mistreatment of individuals by the police and armed forces, including torture and abuse of homosexuals, covert surveillance of individuals, amongst others. And then you actually realise that less than 600 cases have been heard by the ECHR since of which 150 of them found no issue, it does make you wonder how big an issue it actually is and why would we want to get rid of it.
(08-28-2025, 02:23 PM)Baggiejacko Wrote: It's all about numbers in a lot of areas. More people in the country affects housing waiting times, doctors appointments availability, dentists appointments availability, hospital beds availability and school places among others. Until a solution is implemented the tide of population growth needs to be reversed.
We're talking about 30,000 people nationally BJ, the fact that all of those things aren't available is not down to asylum seekers, it is down to not being funded properly in the first place.