Forum Topic

Here's the actual facts about 'nugget gate' - for anyone believing the nonsense that Steven is peddlingThe Tribunal’s Decision: Understanding the "Unduly Harsh" StandardThe tribunal’s ruling was based on the "unduly harsh" standard, a legal test used to determine whether deporting a family member would cause unacceptable hardship to their child. In this case, the tribunal found that separating the child from his father or uprooting him from his life in the UK would inflict significant emotional and psychological harm. The child, who has likely spent his entire life in the UK, has established roots, friendships, and a sense of belonging that would be disrupted by deportation. The tribunal also considered the father’s successful appeal, which highlighted his own right to remain in the UK, further strengthening the case against separating the family.The Best Interests of the Child: A Legal and Moral ImperativeThe "best interests of the child" principle, enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, was central to the tribunal’s decision. This principle requires that the well-being and development of the child be the primary consideration in any decision affecting them. The tribunal recognized that deporting the child would not only separate him from his father but also from his community, education, and familiar environment. Such a disruption could have long-term consequences for the child’s emotional well-being, academic performance, and social integration. By prioritizing the child’s interests, the tribunal sent a clear message that the rights of children must not be overlooked in immigration proceedings.https://clanfieldpost.co.uk/dad-allowed-to-stay-in-uk-partly-because-son-doesnt-like-foreign-chicken-nuggets/

Michael Brigo ● 1d

Mr Ixer'Steven. Aren't you missing the point.  As the UK has no written constitution to protect our human rights - unlike the US or other European countries - we rely on the ECHR to provide protection of our human rights in the UK if the executive, that is the government and Parliament, oversteps the boundaries.'You seem to have little trust in the British Parliament (and hence the British people that elects it) such that you feel we need protection from a foreign institution that is the ECHR.Which system of government if not a parliamentary democracy would you prefer ?Perhaps the ECHR which is constituted from the following.Sorry for the formatting but the point is well made. 'Judges of the Court as of 22 September 2025[1] are, in order of precedence:Name Country Position[2] Term began Term ends[3]Mattias Guyomar France President June 2020 22 June 2029Arnfinn Bårdsen Norway Vice-President 1 January 2019 1 January 2028Ivana Jelić Montenegro Vice-President 12 July 2018 12 July 2027Lado Chanturia Georgia Section President 8 January 2018 8 January 2027Ioannis Ktistakis Greece Section President 8 March 2021 8 March 2030Kateřina Šimáčková Czechia Section President 13 December 2021 13 December 2030Faris Vehabović Bosnia and Herzegovina Judge 3 December 2012 2 December 2021Georgios Serghides [nl] Cyprus Judge 18 April 2016 18 April 2025Lətif Hüseynov Azerbaijan Judge 4 January 2017 4 January 2026Jovan Ilievski North Macedonia Judge 1 February 2017 1 February 2026Jolien Schukking [nl] Netherlands Judge 3 April 2017 3 April 2026Péter Paczolay Hungary Judge 24 April 2017 24 April 2026María Elósegui Spain Judge 15 March 2018 15 March 2027Gilberto Felici San Marino Judge 26 September 2018 26 September 2027Darian Pavli Albania Judge 7 January 2019 7 January 2028Erik Wennerström Sweden Judge 1 April 2019 1 April 2028Raffaele Sabato Italy Judge 5 May 2019 5 May 2028Saadet Yüksel Turkey Judge 1 July 2019 1 July 2028Lorraine Schembri Orland Malta Judge 20 September 2019 20 September 2028Anja Seibert-Fohr Germany Judge 1 January 2020 1 January 2029Peeter Roosma Estonia Judge 4 January 2020 4 January 2029Ana Maria Guerra Martins Portugal Judge 1 April 2020 1 April 2029Andreas Zünd   Switzerland Judge 29 March 2021 29 March 2030Frédéric Krenc Belgium Judge 13 September 2021 13 September 2030Diana Sârcu Moldova Judge 6 December 2021 6 December 2030Davor Derenčinović Croatia Judge 2 January 2022 2 January 2031Mykola Gnatovskyy Ukraine Judge 27 June 2022 27 June 2031Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir Iceland Judge 15 March 2023 15 March 2032Anne Louise Bormann Denmark Judge 1 April 2023 1 April 2032Sebastian Rădulețu Romania Judge 3 June 2023 3 June 2032Diana Kovatcheva Bulgaria Judge 13 April 2024 13 April 2033Gediminas Sagatys Lithuania Judge 16 April 2024 16 April 2033Stéphane Pisani Luxembourg Judge 2 May 2024 2 May 2033Úna Ní Raifeartaigh Ireland Judge 2 July 2024 2 July 2033Alain Chablais Liechtenstein Judge 1 September 2024 1 September 2033Artūrs Kučs Latvia Judge 3 September 2024 3 September 2033Mateja Đurović Serbia Judge 16 September 2024 16 September 2033András Jakab Austria Judge 1 November 2024 1 November 2033Anna Adamska-Gallant Poland Judge 16 December 2024 16 December 2033Juha Lavapuro Finland Judge 1 January 2025 1 January 2034Canòlic Mingorance Cairat Andorra Judge 31 March 2025 31 March 2034Vahe Grigoryan Armenia Judge 28 April 2025 28 April 2034Vasilka Sancin Slovenia Judge 30 May 2025 30 May 2034Sébastien Biancheri Monaco Judge 7 July 2025 7 July 2034Hugh Mercer United Kingdom Judge 22 September 2025 22 SeptNote also details of sexual abuse allegations against suspended ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan, who brought arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, and is currently under investigation by a UN body following allegations by two womenTHE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — As the International Criminal Court’s top prosecutor sought war crimes charges this year against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over actions in Gaza, he was engulfed in a very different personal crisis playing out behind the scenes.Karim Khan faced accusations that he tried for more than a year to coerce a female aide into a sexual relationship and groped her against her will. He’s categorically denied the allegations, saying there was “no truth to suggestions of misconduct.” Court officials have said they may have been made as part of an Israeli intelligence smear campaign.

John Hawkes ● 1d

I am not sure what point you are trying to make, Jonathan. The Swiss referendum to accelerate progress to net zero is an example of democracy in action. The decision by the ECHR to impose net zero on Switzerland was an example of judicial overreach: unelected judges were attempting to interfere in a political issue which should have been left to the Swiss people and their elected representatives to determine.As to the motives of the British judges who have blocked deportation orders, it is difficult to say. I suspect that some judges are more concerned with the human rights of foreign criminals and illegal migrants than with the rights of British people to feel safe and to decide who shall come to live in this country. Other judges may have no particular axe to grind but rather slavishly follow the extreme interpretation of the Convention taken by the ECHR. But it comes to the same thing. Whatever their motives, they are preventing the executive from deporting individuals who either have no right to be here or who have lost that right because of their behaviour. Even Keir Starmer has recognised that this is a problem. Unfortunately his proposed solution, namely to disapply certain provisions of the Convention, may not succeed and would in any case take too long to achieve. Meanwhile thousand of migrants continue to arrive on our shores. I believe in the independence of the judiciary but by the same token judges should not seek to interfere in political issues.

Steven Rose ● 1d

"Activist judges".  Who are they exactly and what judgements are the ones that seem to have caused the use of such an epithet? We never seem to hear just what is being complained about.  And surely we do not want to take up Jenrick's idea that politicians should appoint judges?  That would definitely undermine the much valued independence of the judiciary - and we have seen in the US how politicised courts make their decisions.Surely this "activist judges" line is just an extension of that disgraceful Daily Mail headline "Enemies of the People" with mugshots of the three senior judges who had made a decision the Brexiteers did not like.  Paul Dacre's un-finest hour, in my view.  What outraged many members of the judiciary was the complete silence of the Lord Chancellor at the time, Liz Truss, who should have rushed to the defence of this attack on the judiciary.Brenda Hale set out her reasoning very clearly in the interview about the prorogation ruling - which was unanimous by the way, all 12 judges deciding the government's actions were illegal and null and void.  It went to the Supreme Court because the courts in England and Scotland had come to different conclusions about the constitutional correctness of the government's decision.The chicken nugget case is still under review.  It had of course been seized on by the right wing press as a cause celebre.  Reporting in the Mail, Sun, Express, Talk TV, GB News etc etc was extensive, not so much elsewhere.  The government itself expressed anger and frustration at the decision but this is just one judge interpreting the law as he sees it.  The remedy, if the government wants to go there, is to change the law.  But just listen to Brenda Hale's views on the unintended consequences of the UK exiting the ECHR - on Northern Ireland, on the refugee convention etc etc.  Only Russia has actually left the ECHR so following suit would not be a good look, internationally.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2d

Rather than me putting words into the mouth of an incredibly articulate and knowledgeable person, I’ll repeat verbatim what Baroness Hale said regarding the European Courts of Human Rights:“It's one of the few subjects which are definitely being turned into a party political thing, that I am nevertheless prepared to say that I think it would be a disaster if the United Kingdom pulled out of the European Convention on Human Rights. And it is all driven by concern about migration. Two aspects to migration, one of which is alleged difficulty in deporting foreign national criminals, and the other is people arriving here irregularly, without the permission that they need or staying here without the permission, which are two rather separate questions.”“Looking at the figures, I mean, there's been a report recently from the Bonavaro Human Rights Institute in Oxford that said that successful challenges to deportation of foreign national criminals are incredibly rare.”“There's some figures from my great hero and friend, David Gorkin, who says there have been 29 cases involving deportations from the UK heard by the Strasbourg Court since 1980 and the UK has won 16 of them; none of the 13 defeats has been in the past five years. I mean, it's astonishing how little.” That puts it into perspective don’t you think. Also, do you notice she doesn’t say ‘illegal immigrants’ she says; ‘ people arriving here irregularly, without the permission that they need or staying here without the permission, which are two rather separate questions.” Anyway, it’s excellent stuff, no wonder the Daily Mail hate her, she’s an expert, and a woman!

Gerry Boyce ● 2d

I watched the YouTube interview, Jonathan, but I found the cosy complacency of Brenda Hale, Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart extremely irritating. All three seemed so sure of their own wisdom and moral rectitude,  for the most part unwilling even to consider the arguments against their point of view. I would make two observations in particular.Firstly, Brenda Hale never addressed the question of activist judges. She made the point that a cornerstone of British democracy lies in the fact that judges are independent of government. Politicians are not supposed to interfere with the judiciary. This is perfectly true. But by the same token judges are not supposed to engage in politics. Unfortunately this is exactly what has been happening in recent years with the rise of activist judges. There have been examples of this both in British and European courts. As regards Britain, I would say that the decision by the Supreme Court, presided over by Brenda Hale, to declare the prorogation of Parliament unlawful was politically inspired in order to frustrate Brexit. I am no lawyer but it is clear that the issue was not clear cut given that the Lord Chief Justice at the time was of the view that the prorogation, though distasteful, was lawful. The truth is that both sides were playing dirty. The Remainers against all precedent had seized control of parliamentary business and the Leavers were trying to wrest it back. In the end the issue was decided politically when Johnson won the election. In the ECHR the judges make no secret of their activism, extending the provisions of the original Convention in ways that the signatories never intended. So for example they upheld a complaint by three Swiss women that Switzerland’s tardiness in achieving net zero contravened the right to family life enshrined in the Convention.Secondly Brenda Hale’s view, eagerly seconded by Messrs. Campbell and Stewart, that there was no need for the UK to secede from the Convention in order to deal with immigration cases was rather superficial. She agreed with Rory Stewart’s point that the UK had lost very few cases at the ECHR. That is irrelevant given the number of times British judges have  blocked deportation cases in anticipation of what the ECHR might say. There is the recent example of an immigration judge who halted the deportation of an Albanian criminal because his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets. She also suggested that Parliament could change the law regarding deportation, arguing that even if this law was struck down by European judges, the UK could always appeal. Maybe so, but how long would this take? And would the appeal be successful? The British people and indeed the British Prime Minister want to be able to deport foreign criminals and illegal migrants now.

Steven Rose ● 2d