To think it's time to leave the ECHR?

[Sausagenbacon]

www.thejc.com/news/uk/gazan-family-refugee-status-asylum-rejection-gwsq2c8b

We should leave it and come up with a new framework that is right for us as a country.

The ECHR like most EU organisations is a fudge based on compromising between multiple states, and if any state has a need to change it they are pretty much screwed.

We can come up with something much better, even if we simply replicate it in the first instance and then change laws as required.

So you’re a drain on the tax payer. There’s no way your husband’s salary paid for the public amenities you used right from day 1.
Sadly, I know a number of people with your background who share your awful views. You got in so it’s alright for you.

Yes, I agree with something like this. I don’t believe it’s working as it needs to.

Those that are resistant to any change or compromise on this are actually making it more likely they’ll end up with the opposite of what they want! Intransigence is generally counterproductive in life and politics. Those on the Left will find out the hard way.

And what if they had been a bit thick? What would your defence be there for spending 18 years not paying a penny towards the public services that you were using?

Being in the EHCR now doesn’t guarantee anything if Reform get in.

Ironic that those on here supposedly support Labour and don’t realise that the Labour government opposed this application!

Yes it does. It’s the law.

Yes it’s not a pp on here who opposes that’s key, it’s the gov.

When Mahmood’s hardline policies go through will they say Labour are right?

There are around 4 million Muslims in the UK Their families of origin, or they, come from all around the world, including the UK. They come in all colours and sizes from white to black. They practise different versions of Islam or none at all. Some wear the cultural clothing of their heritage; some don't. Some are recently arrived, some are 6th or older generation.

There are a few hundred Muslim Brotherhood members (a legal organisation) and its total support in the UK is in the low thousands - around 0.1% of all UK Muslims.

Meanwhile, the BJP - supported by some British Hindus - is a far-right, nationalist entity which is averse to Hindus adopting another religion, pressures individuals to dress in a certain way and has been challenged by international organisations for its "facilitation" of pogroms against non-Hindu minorities, which have causwd 100s of deaths.

Try harder to justify your generalised Islamophobia. Or, perhaps widen your circle of friends to include some of the many Muslums who celebrate at Christmas and Easter, as well as during Eid.

If we leave the ECHR, a future government could bring back the death penalty?

If we leave the ECHR, a future government could bring back the death penalty?

Having an opinion doesn’t mean you aren’t a hypocrite.

I have made no comment on whether anyone’s opinion matters more or less, I haven’t told anyone to shut up, or that they are wrong, or that they aren’t allowed to say what they want. But in your rush to make it seem so, alluding to some kind of free speech “my opinion matters more” argument, you are missing the other part of the “Great British Culture” you love so much, which is that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequence. The consequence to your free speech here is, I get to point out the hypocrisy of your argument. Us Brits love a debate, surely you’ll embrace that one too.

Just because a migrant says there is a migration problem, that does not mean there is a migration problem. Net migration has gone down. Changes have been made which are addressing the issues the last government messed up on. This constant nitpicking on individual cases and exaggerating them to be indicative of a wider problem down the road is a red herring, designed to whip up division. I’d have thought you’d be against that.

I welcome migration, it has been a huge benefit to our culture, our economy, our lives in the U.K. and has been for centuries. I believe we have a responsibility to provide shelter to any citizens of the world who are in peril, (particularly those who are suffering directly because of our actions both now and historically). It worth noting that, at the point you came to the U.K. there were undoubtedly voices both from U.K. citizens and from migrants who believed you should not be allowed to do so. Should we have listened to them and stoped you coming? It is also important you understand, just because you believe you are a “good” immigrant, there are plenty here who do not. Getting rid of the ECHR, allowing a Reform Government to come to power, appointing a deportations minister and having an ICE style force in the U.K. (as they have said they will) is a risk to you. You’ll have seen the pogroms in Belfast recently, people being attacked in their homes purely because of the colour of their skin, regardless of their immigration status. It is hugely naive of you to believe we won’t see more of that in the future and that no amount of sitting there screaming “I agree with you, I don’t want migrants here” will stop you being attacked.

We can all talk about border policy and what needs to change, that’s a good debate to have, very few people want an entirely open border. We should address the actual problem of illegality in the system, which is people overstaying a visa, but at the point where we are saying people who have a genuine need to be here should be denied, and the vehicle for doing that is to risk the human rights of everyone else living in the country, we have lost all sense of reason.

Still waiting for that source citation……

And……this would mean that all the current rules of the ECHR remain in place. So what’s the point of coming out of it?

I’m responding to a prolific poster on this thread who is making the argument, pointing out their hypocrisy . Nobody is “rounding” on anyone.

The ECHR is not an EU institution. Why conflate the two?

The vast majority of 1st generation migrants are visa holders, with a legal status. Illegal migrants stay in the shadows under the radar (clue's in the name), don't interact with aurthority and don't consult lawyers. Of the asylum applications each year (76,000 in the year to Mach 2026, down 12% from the previous year), around 70-75% will be accepted, whereupon the applicant has a status and can work. The failed applicants are removed.

Simple, really. And not a lot of work for these hordes of legal aid lawyers you sayvare only interested in making money.

Incidentally, around 700,000 people a year die in the UK. The number of children entering school each year will fall by 10% by 2031, because of the low birth rate. It's a struggle to think of how the UK will both grow its economy and pay for the predicted 15 million pensioners in 2040 on these figures, isn't it.

Here you go: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2026/UI2025003219.html

The more I exist on this earth the more I am inclined to believe that 5% of the people I share that earth with are decent people and the other 95% are utter cunts

Ok but what do you want to happen? Can you answer @MaturingCheeseballon numbers taken

Bupa doesn't oversee pre-natal and post-natal care or child vaccination programmes. The NHS does.

You had your children in an NHS hosspital, didn't you. And sent them to a state primary at least. All while paying no tax yourself.

Yes and there is already a problem with unemployment in the UK.

You have a job NOW. But unless you went from SAHM for 18 years to running a City trading firm, you're not (and never) will be a net contributor. Many people aren't, just don't pretend otherwise.

The Gazan family chose to seek asylum and family reunification and were granted it. And when they begin work, which many of them will, they too will be contributors.

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.

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