Page 19 | To think it's time to leave the ECHR?

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 12:43

DuncinToffee · 17/07/2026 12:38

That is not what I asked.

I know you would never back Labour, I asked if those immigration policies align more with your views.

You already know that I disagree with those policies as do many other Labour voters/lefites.

Show quote history

And you’d still vote Labour? So it’s not really an issue for them.

You are wrong on the never, I have voted for them in the past. But that huge shift to hardline whilst going on about Labour values doesn’t work. It’s dishonest and gaslighting.

Labour values have not been to deny asylum, to pretend that is who they are is incorrect, and for Burnham to say I don’t want to chase Reform again, of course it is. Burnham voted Mahmood’s policies through.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 12:47

inkognitha · 17/07/2026 12:33

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.

Show quote history

The U.K. has a deep, rich history based on multi culturalism. Funnily enough, it only ever is seen as a problem when those cultures belong to black and brown people. Unless it is their food, music, clothing and the like. We’re all for that.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 12:50

inkognitha · 17/07/2026 12:26

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.

Show quote history

20 years? Try a few centuries. Do you know our history at all?

The difference is, in the last decade or so, the rise of right wing populism across the world has infected our politics in the U.K. Blaming immigrants for all our ills is not a new thing, but it has become far more mainstream and less challenged than it ever was.

To be clear, when they blame immigrants for all our ills, they do also mean you.

DuncinToffee · 17/07/2026 12:53

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 12:43

And you’d still vote Labour? So it’s not really an issue for them.

You are wrong on the never, I have voted for them in the past. But that huge shift to hardline whilst going on about Labour values doesn’t work. It’s dishonest and gaslighting.

Labour values have not been to deny asylum, to pretend that is who they are is incorrect, and for Burnham to say I don’t want to chase Reform again, of course it is. Burnham voted Mahmood’s policies through.

Show quote history

I am glad I am wong on the never.

Will I still vote Labour, if the voting system changes to PR yes, otherwise it will be a wasted vote where I live.

But if it comes to it, I will vote for whoever keeps Reform out. I just hope it won't come to that.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 12:58

WiggyPig · 17/07/2026 11:51

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.

I will add to this:

None of them live in Egypt, they all live in Gaza. (One adult in the family who does live in Egypt is not part of this appeal.)
Most of them do speak English.
9 of them are children.
With the exception of the grandparents, all the adults are capable of and will be seeking work.

suburburban · 17/07/2026 13:01

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 12:50

20 years? Try a few centuries. Do you know our history at all?

The difference is, in the last decade or so, the rise of right wing populism across the world has infected our politics in the U.K. Blaming immigrants for all our ills is not a new thing, but it has become far more mainstream and less challenged than it ever was.

To be clear, when they blame immigrants for all our ills, they do also mean you.

Show quote history

It used to be so much better before 2000 and I think the amount of immigration in the last 25 years’ is excessive and unnecessary.

its not working

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 13:01

DuncinToffee · 17/07/2026 12:53

I am glad I am wong on the never.

Will I still vote Labour, if the voting system changes to PR yes, otherwise it will be a wasted vote where I live.

But if it comes to it, I will vote for whoever keeps Reform out. I just hope it won't come to that.

Show quote history

Plus you’ll still promote Labour even with Mahmood’s policies, even with a small no when asked directly it’s not an issue for the party. It doesn’t get raised and most posts are still pro Labour.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:03

MaturingCheeseball · 17/07/2026 10:48

AGAIN how many people should be permitted to come here? Every Gazan? Because why this family and not another? What about Afghans? Somalians?

Apparently 30 million people are seeking to move to the UK. And that’s a conservative estimate.

It’s no use talking about maternity and employment rights if the country is obliged to accept millions of arrivals requiring housing and welfare. The country will be bankrupted.

Where’s your source for that 30 million figure? It seems awfully similar to when we were told 150 million people from Eastern Europe were going to “flood” here in 2004. Never happened which isn’t surprising as it was entirely made up then too.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:05

suburburban · 17/07/2026 13:01

It used to be so much better before 2000 and I think the amount of immigration in the last 25 years’ is excessive and unnecessary.

its not working

Show quote history

What, exactly, was better in 1999 that’s is terrible now and is a direct consequence of immigration?

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 13:06

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:03

Where’s your source for that 30 million figure? It seems awfully similar to when we were told 150 million people from Eastern Europe were going to “flood” here in 2004. Never happened which isn’t surprising as it was entirely made up then too.

Show quote history

How many should we take?

DuncinToffee · 17/07/2026 13:09

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 13:01

Plus you’ll still promote Labour even with Mahmood’s policies, even with a small no when asked directly it’s not an issue for the party. It doesn’t get raised and most posts are still pro Labour.

Show quote history

Labour is still better than the alternatives.

I would agree to a left wing coalition as well, I am not wedded to Labour as I have explained to you many times.

And on the ECHR, I firmly believe we should stay in it.

WiggyPig · 17/07/2026 13:12

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 12:58

I will add to this:

None of them live in Egypt, they all live in Gaza. (One adult in the family who does live in Egypt is not part of this appeal.)
Most of them do speak English.
9 of them are children.
With the exception of the grandparents, all the adults are capable of and will be seeking work.

Show quote history

Even if none of them spoke a word of English, they were all functionally illiterate, and all of them were aged 17+ it wouldn't matter as long as the first tier tribunal judge had factored it all in properly to her decision. (I appreciate she may have made a different decision in those circs).

On the face of it, this is a generous FTT decision, but not unduly so. The judge could have gone the other way, but having heard the evidence, gave proper reasons within the law for deciding in their favour.

Leaving the ECHR wouldn't make a jot of difference here. We would still need a route of family visa applications, with a proportionality assessment built in, if this were within the Immigration Rules. We would still have edge cases which raise the public eyebrow for being unusually generous (this one) or unusually harsh (see Amelia Gentleman in the Guardian on multiple occasions).

"Hard cases make bad law" comes to mind. If we allow the existence of edge cases to drive us out of an otherwise very positive international treaty then we will have done ourselves an enormous disservice both at home and on the international stage.

Limecar · 17/07/2026 13:14

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 12:47

The U.K. has a deep, rich history based on multi culturalism. Funnily enough, it only ever is seen as a problem when those cultures belong to black and brown people. Unless it is their food, music, clothing and the like. We’re all for that.

Show quote history

So much of this is post-hoc explanation.

The examples you get of this "deep rich history of multiculturalism" are tiny movements of people that the vast majority of the indigenous population never saw or experienced.

The word multiculturalism is very new, it's become a political explanation for mass immigration after the event. As if this was a goal or objective agreed to by the indigenous instead of an immigrant propelled expansion which has been multiplying with no control for decades now. We get this wisdom handed to us as "multiculture", as if the meaning of country or nation was never a country or nation, just a land mass on which the entire planet is entitled to perform their culture.

There's no multiculture in the system they come for of course, absolute equality in access to money is the rule. No multiculture is permitted in that. The country is simply an economic zone for the world to multiculture in.

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 13:15

WiggyPig · 17/07/2026 13:12

Even if none of them spoke a word of English, they were all functionally illiterate, and all of them were aged 17+ it wouldn't matter as long as the first tier tribunal judge had factored it all in properly to her decision. (I appreciate she may have made a different decision in those circs).

On the face of it, this is a generous FTT decision, but not unduly so. The judge could have gone the other way, but having heard the evidence, gave proper reasons within the law for deciding in their favour.

Leaving the ECHR wouldn't make a jot of difference here. We would still need a route of family visa applications, with a proportionality assessment built in, if this were within the Immigration Rules. We would still have edge cases which raise the public eyebrow for being unusually generous (this one) or unusually harsh (see Amelia Gentleman in the Guardian on multiple occasions).

"Hard cases make bad law" comes to mind. If we allow the existence of edge cases to drive us out of an otherwise very positive international treaty then we will have done ourselves an enormous disservice both at home and on the international stage.

Show quote history

Isn’t Mahmood changing the criteria for family reunification? I don’t really know how given impossibly high bar could be set and no one could join. How does that work with HR?

LuckyHazelFox · 17/07/2026 13:16

Limecar · 17/07/2026 13:14

So much of this is post-hoc explanation.

The examples you get of this "deep rich history of multiculturalism" are tiny movements of people that the vast majority of the indigenous population never saw or experienced.

The word multiculturalism is very new, it's become a political explanation for mass immigration after the event. As if this was a goal or objective agreed to by the indigenous instead of an immigrant propelled expansion which has been multiplying with no control for decades now. We get this wisdom handed to us as "multiculture", as if the meaning of country or nation was never a country or nation, just a land mass on which the entire planet is entitled to perform their culture.

There's no multiculture in the system they come for of course, absolute equality in access to money is the rule. No multiculture is permitted in that. The country is simply an economic zone for the world to multiculture in.

Show quote history

Fantastic post.

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 13:16

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 12:26

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.

Show quote history

So less than the additional rate. Work hard some day and maybe you'll reach it.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:20

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 13:16

So less than the additional rate. Work hard some day and maybe you'll reach it.

Show quote history

There is no additional rate tax in Scotland.

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 13:20

inkognitha · 17/07/2026 12:33

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.

Show quote history

Many ethnic enclaves in London unfortunately. Also you get people who unfortunately can't speak English.

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 13:21

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 13:16

So less than the additional rate. Work hard some day and maybe you'll reach it.

Show quote history

And here we have yet another wife, claiming her husbands tax bill as her own…

PP might “only” be a higher rate tax payer, but I’d bet their contribution is higher than yours personally.

We shall give your husband the round of applause he is due. Please thank him for coming to our country to rescue us from destitution. Very grateful.

But as said previously, unless you’ve done similar, you are a net taker. Which I have no issue with, if you weren’t a low contributing migrant hypocritically complaining about migration.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:21

Limecar · 17/07/2026 13:14

So much of this is post-hoc explanation.

The examples you get of this "deep rich history of multiculturalism" are tiny movements of people that the vast majority of the indigenous population never saw or experienced.

The word multiculturalism is very new, it's become a political explanation for mass immigration after the event. As if this was a goal or objective agreed to by the indigenous instead of an immigrant propelled expansion which has been multiplying with no control for decades now. We get this wisdom handed to us as "multiculture", as if the meaning of country or nation was never a country or nation, just a land mass on which the entire planet is entitled to perform their culture.

There's no multiculture in the system they come for of course, absolute equality in access to money is the rule. No multiculture is permitted in that. The country is simply an economic zone for the world to multiculture in.

Show quote history

The word may be new, the premise is not.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:22

WiggyPig · 17/07/2026 13:12

Even if none of them spoke a word of English, they were all functionally illiterate, and all of them were aged 17+ it wouldn't matter as long as the first tier tribunal judge had factored it all in properly to her decision. (I appreciate she may have made a different decision in those circs).

On the face of it, this is a generous FTT decision, but not unduly so. The judge could have gone the other way, but having heard the evidence, gave proper reasons within the law for deciding in their favour.

Leaving the ECHR wouldn't make a jot of difference here. We would still need a route of family visa applications, with a proportionality assessment built in, if this were within the Immigration Rules. We would still have edge cases which raise the public eyebrow for being unusually generous (this one) or unusually harsh (see Amelia Gentleman in the Guardian on multiple occasions).

"Hard cases make bad law" comes to mind. If we allow the existence of edge cases to drive us out of an otherwise very positive international treaty then we will have done ourselves an enormous disservice both at home and on the international stage.

Show quote history

I absolutely agree. I was debunking comments made about the case by PP.

suburburban · 17/07/2026 13:24

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:05

What, exactly, was better in 1999 that’s is terrible now and is a direct consequence of immigration?

Show quote history

House prices were more realistic in relation to wages and young people could get on the housing ladder far more easily

roads were quieter

women could retire at 60

where I live there was far more of a mix of cultures not feeling like a minority in your own country in the area you grew up in

planning was more stringent, no HMO properties appearing everywhere or breach of planning with excessive building

less vape shops, nail bars

more green spaces

less litter and fly tipping

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:24

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 13:06

How many should we take?

Show quote history

Each should be decided on a case by case basis. There is no “magic number” you seek. Unless your number is zero, which would be a wild take.

BoredZelda · 17/07/2026 13:26

suburburban · 17/07/2026 13:24

House prices were more realistic in relation to wages and young people could get on the housing ladder far more easily

roads were quieter

women could retire at 60

where I live there was far more of a mix of cultures not feeling like a minority in your own country in the area you grew up in

planning was more stringent, no HMO properties appearing everywhere or breach of planning with excessive building

less vape shops, nail bars

more green spaces

less litter and fly tipping

Show quote history

None of which is because of migration since 1999.

Unless you are suggesting only immigrants vape and get their nails done?

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 13:26

Limecar · 17/07/2026 13:14

So much of this is post-hoc explanation.

The examples you get of this "deep rich history of multiculturalism" are tiny movements of people that the vast majority of the indigenous population never saw or experienced.

The word multiculturalism is very new, it's become a political explanation for mass immigration after the event. As if this was a goal or objective agreed to by the indigenous instead of an immigrant propelled expansion which has been multiplying with no control for decades now. We get this wisdom handed to us as "multiculture", as if the meaning of country or nation was never a country or nation, just a land mass on which the entire planet is entitled to perform their culture.

There's no multiculture in the system they come for of course, absolute equality in access to money is the rule. No multiculture is permitted in that. The country is simply an economic zone for the world to multiculture in.

Show quote history

They don’t have equal access to money.

Many immigrants have no access to public funds.

Countries are just land masses we’ve claimed as our own and thrown some houses and culture on. The rest is ideological, in that every country could have quite easily been a different one had wars etc gone differently.

Isn’t all this just code for “I don’t like sharing!”?