• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Judges & the ECHR

Spiderman said:
But interpret it in their own way…fact. The recent judgements regarding deportation are cases in point
Click to expand...
On what basis is your opinion a fact? Have the Judges said so?

How any Judge reaches any decision, however controversial, is going to remain secret unless and until they decide to explain it. Which, so far as I am aware, is a rarity.

You may not agree with their interpretation but if they flagrantly ignore the law and start imposing their own views instead they would swiftly be in trouble.
 
when Hitler wanted somebody dead, he would just bump them off. There and then. No messing about. When Josef Stalin wanted you dead, first he would quickly rustle together a kangaroo court. Do a 3 minute show-trial, a bit of paperwork and boom.....up against the firing squad.

Same outcomes, different methodologies. Courts and Judges, eh.
 
PalazioVecchio said:
when Hitler wanted somebody dead, he would just bump them off. There and then. No messing about. When Josef Stalin wanted you dead, first he would quickly rustle together a kangaroo court. Do a 3 minute show-trial, a bit of paperwork and boom.....up against the firing squad.

Same outcomes, different methodologies. Courts and Judges, eh.
Click to expand...
You want to live like that?

It’s not gone that far in the USA, yet! Seeking the details of all the FBI agents involved in looking at Trump’s involvement in the Capital insurrection, firing anyone who criticises him, making tens of thousands redundant etc is a step down that path. Putin manages it. Trump admires and envies Putin. Both are megalomaniacs, along with Musk.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
On what basis is your opinion a fact? Have the Judges said so?

How any Judge reaches any decision, however controversial, is going to remain secret unless and until they decide to explain it. Which, so far as I am aware, is a rarity.

You may not agree with their interpretation but if they flagrantly ignore the law and start imposing their own views instead they would swiftly be in trouble.
Click to expand...
They don’t have to say so, read the judgements. Do you honestly believe that when the HRA was written, those responsible thought, for one minute that, because your child only likes British chicken nuggets a career criminal would not get deported? Because your Latvian husband allegedly doesn’t like Caribbean food, you would not get deported? Because your nephew may miss you, a career criminal with restraining order for domestic violence wouldn’t get deported? This is the judges putting their own interpretation on it
 
Spiderman said:
They don’t have to say so, read the judgements. Do you honestly believe that when the HRA was written, those responsible thought, for one minute that, because your child only likes British chicken nuggets a career criminal would not get deported? Because your Latvian husband allegedly doesn’t like Caribbean food, you would not get deported? Because your nephew may miss you, a career criminal with restraining order for domestic violence wouldn’t get deported? This is the judges putting their own interpretation on it
Click to expand...
Were you present in the courts to hear all the evidence and the Judge’s summing up? I wasn’t so it’s impossible for me to make any kind of appraisal of the reasoning.

Or have you just read the reports in newspapers who might have a political position they want to advance by spinning the story to suit their narrative?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Were you present in the courts to hear all the evidence and the Judge’s summing up? I wasn’t so it’s impossible for me to make any kind of appraisal of the reasoning.

Or have you just read the reports in newspapers who might have a political position they want to advance by spinning the story to suit their narrative?
Click to expand...
Oh come on, don’t be ridiculous. Why do you always assume people get their information from the right wing press? Maybe, just maybe I have contacts in the HO. Of course you never get any information from bias media outlets do you
 
Last edited:
Spiderman said:
Oh come on, don’t be ridiculous. Why do you always assume people get their information from the right wing press? Maybe, just maybe I have contacts in the HO. Of course you never get any information from bias media outlets do you
Click to expand...
So your contacts in the HO were present in the Courts to hear the evidence and the Judges summing up? Not just expressing their opinions and frustrations to an old mate?

I read what’s written here that obviously makes no sense at all and comment on it. I haven’t needed to do anything else. When I use the media it’s always unbiased neutral resources. The BBC being my most trusted but I generally compare a few.
 
Matov said:
At this stage, it now goes beyond any kind of legalities. This is about rubbing our faces in the fact that they just can.

We need an entirely new judiciary. This current farce has no legitimacy. End of story.
Click to expand...
Quite right. The judicary has cleary been infultrated by people with ideologies that do not allow for true rational thinking.
Lawyers are also to blame.

If the legal process is not achieving outcomes that serve the people's interests then change the judges and change the law.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
So your contacts in the HO were present in the Courts to hear the evidence and the Judges summing up? Not just expressing their opinions and frustrations to an old mate?

I read what’s written here that obviously makes no sense at all and comment on it. I haven’t needed to do anything else. When I use the media it’s always unbiased neutral resources. The BBC being my most trusted but I generally compare a few.
Click to expand...
All judgements/ hearing notes on immigration cases are put onto an internal computer system aligned with the relevant casework number, work it out. Not a problem if you rather take your own view on these matters but don’t always assume that others are just expressing a biased opinion rather than stating facts. BBC unbiased who’d have thought it
 
Spiderman said:
So convicted in November and not being sentenced until April. 🤔 Assad no longer in power so he has no reason not to return, let the Syrians treat him for his “ mental health” issues.
Click to expand...

"He has several symptoms of PTSD which would be made worse by a custodial sentence. It would also be made worse without the support of his wife and friends".

His PTSD didn't stop him from driving around in the middle of the night, searching for a young vulnerable woman to sexually assault though did it?

Disgusting creature, I dread to think what else would've happened to that poor young woman if he'd managed to drag her into his car.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
Quite right. The judicary has cleary been infultrated by people with ideologies that do not allow for true rational thinking.
Lawyers are also to blame.

If the legal process is not achieving outcomes that serve the people's interests then change the judges and change the law.
Click to expand...
The Judiciary aren’t political. Their political ideologies, if they even exist, are left at home. They are trained in and administer the law as it’s written or established by previous cases.

If the legal process is not achieving the outcomes that people want then the people’s representatives need to give the Judges new laws.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The Judiciary aren’t political. Their political ideologies, if they even exist, are left at home. They are trained in and administer the law as it’s written or established by previous cases.

If the legal process is not achieving the outcomes that people want then the people’s representatives need to give the Judges new laws.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣
 
Spiderman said:
All judgements/ hearing notes on immigration cases are put onto an internal computer system aligned with the relevant casework number, work it out. Not a problem if you rather take your own view on these matters but don’t always assume that others are just expressing a biased opinion rather than stating facts. BBC unbiased who’d have thought it
Click to expand...
What is there to work out? That Judges can read how other cases were decided and be guided by them? That non Judges can read them too and form opinions on them? Facts being a different matter. In this instance only a verbatim account of the whole judgement being fact.

The BBC cannot be anything other than unbiased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top