Quote from: Unlucky4Sum on Today at 12:01:06 AMYou're substituting ECtHR (the court) for ECnHR (convention) that I asked about and which your OP talks about.

Please can we focus on the Canvention and I ask again who here that object to our adherence to it say which articles they object to.

Noting of course that the ECnHR is neither the same as nor invokes the Refugee Conventions

We're talking about 'foreign courts' and whether they have good or bad effects on countries.

A fact that can't be avoided is that the judges at the ECtHR enforce the ECnHR so whether the justices are impartial or not is completely relevant, for me, in my thread.

You are free to appeal to the moderators, cromwell and Nick, to have my posts altered or even removed, or me sanctioned/told off if you believe they are off topic/otherwise rule breaking and/or breaking the ethos/ and/or spirit of the forum. That is your right.

So no objection to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECnHR) that Boris and co object to then.

That same pro-ECHR blog singles out Yonko once again here, including a case involving the United Kingdom and George Soros's Open Society Foundations.

Link

QuoteIt is obvious that such a lawyer has a strong experience with the human rights system. But a problem arises when one observes that, once elected judge, he adjudicated in cases introduced in 2014 and 2015 by the Helsinki Committee of Bulgaria (see D.L. c. Bulgarie, n° 7472/14, 19 May 2016. Aneva and Others v. Bulgaria, n° 66997/13, 77760/14 et 50240/15, 6 April 2017). There is no doubt that such situation raises an issue of impartiality and that the judge should have withdrawn. In another case, still pending, he sat while the Open Society Justice Initiative intervened as a third party in the case (see the proceedings before the Grand Chamber of Big Brother Watch and Others v. United-Kingdom, n° 58170/13).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're substituting ECtHR (the court) for ECnHR (convention) that I asked about and which your OP talks about.

Please can we focus on the Canvention and I ask again who here that object to our adherence to it say which articles they object to.

Noting of course that the ECnHR is neither the same as nor invokes the Refugee Conventions

That was a small % of the Windrush people but that were treated appallingly by our authorities and government departments and who in too many cases are yet to have matters put right. 

There's a fair argument that some senior officials and maybe even some politicians should have faced criminal charges.

They were never asylum seekers.

No objection to the ECHR?

Are the judges not the main arbiters of what goes and what doesn't?

Here is a good criticism of that question I just linked; a question which was asked by Robert Roos - a Eurosceptic Dutch MEP - link, it points out that the ECLJ (a conservative org started by Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow - for full transparency) has some real bias itself (the ECLJ is in the footnote of Robert Roos' question, it's his source for his claims).

This is their study (the ECLJ's) which was in the footnote:

Link

The (pro-ECHR) guy critiquing the ECLJ points to this justice in particular:

Yonko Grozev

There's clear conflicts of interest there, even Wiki moderators have picked up on it and shone a torchlight on it.

Obviously, the ECHR has its flaws as with any institution, whether that merits withdrawing from it I have yet to decide, but it obviously has conflicts of interest with its judges. Even its defenders acknowledge issues with the court. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So no objection to the ECnHR then?

It seems the objection of the likes of Boris, Jenrick and the wider Tory membership is they want to be able to break the rule of law when it's politically convenient to do so. 

Reading text is all well and good, but it's only as good as the judges who uphold it and a quick scan found me this:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-001484_EN.html#:~:text=Recent%20research%5B1%5D%20by%20the,with%20nongovernmental%20organisations%20(NGOs).

QuoteRecent research[1] by the European Centre for Law and Justice has shown that at least 22 of the 100 judges who served at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) between 2009 and 2019 had strong links with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). They were former officers or staff of seven NGOs which are very active in cases before the Court. The NGOs Open Society Foundation, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., are parties to cases before the Court. In more than 80 cases, judges failed to recuse themselves in cases brought by their previous employers or in which those employers were representing parties.

This a very serious situation, because it calls into question the independence of the rule of law and the impartiality of judges. Moreover, it contravenes the rules that the ECHR itself imposes on States in this regard.

1.   We can conclude that judges at the ECHR have conflicts of interest. What view does the Council take of this?
2.   The EU intends to accede to the ECHR. In this context, what will the Council do to guarantee the independence of judges and safeguard the rule of law?

Now I personally don't necessarily want to withdraw from the ECHR, it's not something I've ever looked into much before, but I am starting to see reasons others could use to justify their opposition to it.

If judges aren't even recusing themselves from cases where they have obvious COIs, that undermines the impartiality of the judiciary very bigly

I wonder if any of those opposed to us being signed up to the ECnHR could actually say which articles they object to being part of UK law.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG

The Windrush people actually ended up as effective asylum seekers and in some cases actual refugees after having cases reviewed and at times were even deported, simply for the crime of not having the right documents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal#:~:text=The%20Windrush%20hotline%20had%20recorded,appointments%20with%20the%20Home%20Office.

But I accept, my post made it look like I said they were refugees and they came here as refugees, when they didn't, the others didn't either they came here and were accepted straight into the country (except maybe the Vietnamese). The people fleeing the Mau-Mau uprising were treated exactly like the Windrush people and were not technically treated as refugees, they were given automatic citizenship