To think it's time to leave the ECHR?

The “integration problem” (such that it exists) is a problem of our own making, rather than that of any immigrant.

Not wrong. The UK should have never gone the way of multiculturalism regarding integration.

No

I think they align more with your views, am I correct?

On questions do you think Mahmood’s hardline policies are true Labour?

I was giving you my answer. The ME conflict gets heated, hence why it's pointless trying to talk about the negative experiences that other countries have faced.

Which we already have anyway

Explore the alternative view, listen to people, try to see it from a different perspective ... Why don't you start with yourself?

Just a thought...

As for the UK population, they are not rejecting the idea firsthand out of ignorance, they have been living with it for 20y, this is how they formed their opinion, it's not coming out of thin air or biases, it's not a theoretical discussion, it's their direct experience.

Your pov has been the mantra for most of these years, you have had your fair chance to expose your views, win people over, let facts speak for themselves, etc. And yet, people don't like it as much as you would like them to. It is not a question of needing more time or doing more to convince, it is a question of you not accepting you have lost this debate. That's the denial.

I’m a higher rate tax payer. I guarantee my family takes more from the system than I pay in. In the scheme of things, higher rate tax (and I pay even more because I live in Scotland) makes little difference to my income.

I was asking about your answer, the one you can't say

The “integration problem” (such that it exists) is a problem of our own making, rather than that of any immigrant. When houses are being fire bombed and people are being attached for the colour of their skin, when right wing newspaper headlines scream about immigrants being crime ridden deplorables and mosques are being targeted, how much do you think that encourages people to integrate? You appear to claim you have integrated, what is it about all those other migrants that you believe they don’t want the same?

I believe Egypt and Jordan have extensive experience of taking in Palestinians. It's well documented if you'd care to research into it.

Thank you. I shall check the source and give that a read.

”Errrm, Benjamin? Ben? Appreciate you’re a bit busy but can you just pop onto Mumsnet and help someone answer a question?”

Ask them what? Why can't LuckyHazelFox say the answer?

No other choice?

They could try thinking, researching the facts, listening to people who are trying to give them those facts.

Just a thought.

Well done. You got the point.

A little more thought and you might be able to see that judging someone because someone in their community is a criminal is nonsensical.

Ask Israel.

A money making scheme for human rights lawyers??

Legally aided asylum appeals are remarkably poorly paid. Civil legal aid rates didn't increase from 1996 until the end of last year, in fact there was a 10% cut in 2012. In December 2025 they bunged us an extra thirty quid for new matters opened after that date (and by the time those reach the tribunal it will be 2027 at least). I wonder how you'd feel if your pay had not increased since 1996 and you'd accepted a 10% pay cut in 2012, and whether you'd consider yourself part of a "money making scheme."

Privately paid immigration work is much better paid, not least because much of it comes from companies and universities. However, none of their work will rely on ECHR elements because there is no human right to study or work in the UK.

Give it a try.

GasPanic · Today 10:56

The ECHR like most EU organisations

It's nothing at all to do with the EU.

Leaving ECHR also potentially breaks the already shite Brexit agreement we have and reverts to a hard Brexit...'to terminate or suspend the operation of this Agreement … in whole or in part'.

No one is stopping you saying whatever it is you want to say

Well we know the answer to that - we just can't say it.

@BoredZelda
Just because a migrant says there is a migration problem, that does not mean there is a migration problem.

There is a migration problem. There is an integration problem.

You are deluded and in denial, and this means you re actually doing a massive disservice to all migrants living in the UK.
Because your delusion and stubbornness give no other choice to concerned people, UK-born or foreigners, than veering towards Reform, Restore, racism and riots.

How do you know what he earns? I don't think the additional rate of tax is miniscule at all.

Here's my analysis of the judgment for what it's worth:

It's an unreported decision of the Upper Tribunal so it is not "landmark" in any way.

The Upper Tribunal's job is to review the decisions of the First-tier Tribunal, but it can only overturn the FTT's decision if the FTT judge made an error of law. It is NOT a forum where the whole thing gets reargued (unless they decide the FTT did make an error of law in which case they will remit it to the FTT to be heard by a different judge or retain it for rehearing in the Upper Tribunal).

It reads to me as though it was an unusually generous First-tier determination. The FTT made findings that the British citizen and her children DID have "family life" with the extended family (not all of them - a few others were dismissed). It is relatively unusual for a tribunal to be persuaded that family life exists other than between spouses and minor children. It has to entail "more than usual emotional ties" that would normally exist for example between adult siblings or adult children.

Having made that finding, the FTT then had to go on to decide whether the decision to refuse was proportionate. It looked at the impact on the British citizens, which seems to have been considerable, and did properly weigh in the balance the impact on public funds and so on.

The SSHD appealed on four grounds. The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT hadn't erred in law on any of those four grounds.

Basically - when an appeal is allowed / dismissed on Article 8, if the judge has written a solid decision showing that they took into account all of the relevant caselaw, weighed in the balance all of the relevant factors, then there won't be an error in law.

IME it is far more common for there to be a harsh decision on Article 8 which the UT will also not interfere with if it is properly reasoned. This one sounds as though it was truly exceptional on the facts, but the judge has properly reasoned the findings and so the UT won't overturn it. The UT can't just overturn because it's not the decision they themselves might have made.