I am all in favour of human rights. I am also much in favour of democracy. That is why I favour a sovereign Parliament that legislates  for our human rights. We need to be able to change laws when they cease to please or backfire.
The PM believes there is some superior law called international law which embodies some superior morality. It is leading him to make bad judgements based on poor interpretations of this international law. It has led him to assert the ICJ can make us give the Chagos islands away. He seems unaware that the Uk exempted  issues between itself and Commonwealth  countries from the courtâs jurisdiction. He also fell for the sloppy arguments as to why Chagos should be given to Mauritius, 1200 miles away and never an owner of Chagos.
Wrongly interpreting a non binding advisory opinion as good law he has negotiated to give the islands away, destabilising a crucial US naval base in the Indian Ocean in a needless way. He is being forced into offering large sums to lease  it back.
In his stated wish to smash the criminal gangs brining in too many illegals there is no stated wish to deport illegals arriving here with criminal records, and no moves to legislate in the UK to assert our right to do so. He seems to accept the creeping jurisdiction of the ECHR extending a right to family defence to people who have entered illegally and committed serious offences.
He is PM, not an international lawyer. The UK needs to use our Parliament to pass laws that meet the needs of UK people. When the ECHR told a past government to give votes to prisoners, Parliament said No. We do did not have to leave the ECHR family as a democratic body made a perfectly reasonable decision. We need to do more of that.
I
January 17, 2025
Indeed.
Perhaps we should give democracy a try. One vote every 4+ years, under first past the post, for the least bad of usually two people who have any chance of winning, based usually on blatant lies and a manifesto of lies (that the person usually has no intention of even trying to deliver) can hardly be described as democracy.
That is even before so many MPs fall for the bribes and vested interest that capture, deluded or buy most of them.
Excellent speech by Rupert Lowe on the dire MHRA (not regulator but industry funded enabler) of the vast net harm Covid Vaccines unsafe, ineffective and never even needed (even had they been safe and effective) for most people.
January 17, 2025
The sick joke Covid Inquiry continues under the dire Baroness Hallett, pure choreographed propaganda it seems. Not even trying to address the real issues of the blatant & vast hugely damaging crimes that were committed. The captured regulators, the vast vaccines harms, the huge vaccine batch variationsâŠ
January 17, 2025
The damaging lockdowns, the pointless mask enforcements, the NHS shutdowns, the vast waste of public money used just to make matters worse, the vaccine damage cover up, the suppression of free speech. Thank goodness for honest and sensible people like Dr Clare Craig.
January 17, 2025
@LL. Can’t argue against any of the points that you made.
January 17, 2025
Ivermectin was banned by Johnson months before the âpandemicâ after being on the shelves for 40 years. It was the perfect antidote to the man-made enhanced Covid flu. But with an antidote they could not licence âemergency useâ for the MRNA DNA altering jabs. There needed to be no alternative treatment available.
I want to know how Johnson had the foresight to ban this Nobel Prise winning medication – Ivermectin.
Interestingly Fauci has never been indicted – yet Biden has âpardonedâ him. Can you be âpardonedâ before having been indicted of committing a crime and what is the crime that Biden knows Fauci can be indicted for?
This is reminiscent of The Indulgences that the Church of Rome sold in advance!
January 17, 2025
every sentence of the Chagos deal was negotiated and agreed by the last Conservative government.
Reply Do not lie. There was no signed Agreement under the Conservatives. Cameron halted the negotiations, agreeing with those MPs including myself that it was a bad idea. If you are so keen on Labours deal you should defend it and credit them.
January 17, 2025
We need to rediscover the meaning of democracy. We need to redeploy effective democracy. Local rules to meet local needs.
“Of the people, for the people, from the people”. The Gettysburg Address from Lincoln in 1863 made it clear those who had died did so protecting the democratic system.
The very idea some supranational entity, not elected by the people, be in the UN or the ICJ or whoever, can decide to overrule local democracy because some interest group in some far flung corner of its membership are not happy, is crazy.
Local democracy must be functional or it is nothing. The sovereign authority of nation is exhibited and progressed by its people’s government, not by some over exercised international body.
When these international committees try to impose their rules, rules that too often damage the democratic rights of a nation, we must do as Nancy Reagan advised 40 years ago, Just Say No.
January 17, 2025
We do need to leave the ECHR because its existence in British law enables activist judges to introduce their interpretations. Their discretion on deportations of non-British nationals should be strictly circumscribed by Parliament.
January 17, 2025
I don’t understand why people, usually left-wing, automatically assume that a foreign organisation is superior to the UK. They want the UK to be subservient to the EU, they believe that the European Court of Human Rights is better than our legal system etc.
I am not claiming the UK’s organisations are perfect but have seen no evidence that their foreign equivalents are any closer to perfection and plenty to show that they are not e.g. claiming that a foreign rapist’s right to a family life in the UK trumps the UK’s decision to deport them.
January 17, 2025
Clearly your observations are correct Sir J,. We’d appreciate your inferences and conclusions with respect to Starmer’s motivations, suitability for running our democracy, his intended re-structuring of our society?
January 17, 2025
On the issue of foreign criminals invoking the “right to family life” ECHR clause to avoid deportation the issue is not really (or not only) the ECHR. The relevant clauses on the “right to family life” list various exemptions and other considerations which can override this right, for example public safety. It is the UK judges who interpret the law who put the “family life” right above the safety of the public, it is they who choose not to deport, not the ECHR. I think in many cases the Home Office even fail to argue their case for deportation in court so the judge has an entirely free hand to draw their own conclusions from this and make his/her own decision. Solutions such as leaving ECHR and making deportation mandatory in all cases and withdrawing all legal aid from foreign offenders are of course totally unacceptable options for both Labour and Conservative parties.
January 17, 2025
Human rights need to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of wider society impacted by large numbers of individuals cumulatively abusing their human rights.
At the moment they dont.
native brits need to be given equal standing under equality laws, at the moment white working class brits are routinely discriminated against, this is baked into the system.
January 17, 2025
The damage is done. The back is broken. There’s no going back. Britain is dying. In a generation of two it will be gone forever. There is a way to redress the balance but the Tories haven’t the courage to implement the policies to reverse course.
January 17, 2025
The UK needs to leave the UN convention on refugees until it is rewritten for modern times.
The UK needs to adopt a Britain first attitude, our laws made by us (and we need fewer and fewer of those too please).
January 17, 2025
Human rights legislation has been eating away at freedom and democracy within the UK for years. It has ensured our country is filled with criminals and religous zealots.
Introduced by Blair, no government since has attempted to end the merry-go-round. You can point at Starmer, but the Conservatives had fourteen years to do something about it and didn’t.
The blame lies with 650 MP’s who continuously fail to address the issue.
January 17, 2025
Off topic, 22 Private Members’ Bills are lined up today:
https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/91559/Html?subType=Standard
but only the first is certain to be debated, and that is:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0013/240013.pdf
“New homes (Solar Generation) Bill”
which particularly interests me:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2024/12/27/questions-to-mr-miliband-2/#comment-1491168
âOut of the 1449 new homes we must build here each year, how many will be built with solar panels on their roofs?â
January 17, 2025
Yes. It’s interesting that human rights lawyer Starmer was supported by his human rights lawyer chum for leadership and that same chum represented the Mauritius government over Chagos, which they reckon should be given away with reparations.
And human another human rights lawyer chum with no parliamentary experience has been appointed Attorney General and is urging civil servants to follow the international laws. He used to represent Gerry Adams and the law preventing him claiming compensation is being repealed.
It’s almost as if the country was being run by human rights lawyers for human rights lawyers. To say nothing about human rights lawyer Sadique Khan who has been given a knighthood for his wonderful record on transport, housing and crime in London.
January 17, 2025
On topic, I do not believe that we should denounce the Convention in its entirety but we should declare that we will no longer consider ourselves to be bound by the judgements of the court in Strasbourg. If it is then said that as we no longer accept that part of the Convention we are deemed to have left it then that will not be our decision.
January 17, 2025
“The PM believes there is some superior law called international law which embodies some superior morality.”
Indeed, thereby proving himself to be a globalist, specifically someone who believes that the UK should be run in the interest of other countries as well as the UK. We only need remind ourselves too of his instinctive confirmation that he prefers Davos to Westminster.
Globalists are tolerable in places such as university Senior Common Rooms, or ivory tower think tanks. They are far from tolerable in high political or public office, because their lofty principles about ideal government create a conflict of interest with the electorate who unwittingly put them there, directly or indirectly.
January 17, 2025
300+ words to say what could be said in five: ‘Starmer is a UN stooge’.
January 17, 2025
I agree with you Sir John but it seems many Conservative MPs do not.
January 17, 2025
There is no international law, and there is no international police enforcing it. There is international legal opinion.
There is however British Law, enforced by the sovereign Crown.
January 17, 2025
Sir John
The subtle problem with âHuman Rightsâ, is that the rights suggested had to be removed by the legislators so they could then be âawardedâ
That is a very EU Napoleonic control system of dictatorship where in the first place nothing is legal unless the powers that be decree it to be.
In English Law and the way democracies work the legislators only remove rights when there is a just cause even then those laws can be amended and repealed. Or in other words everything is legal unless the legislators deem it not to be.
To some the difference is too subtle and isnât grasped. A free people or enslavement
You are really defining the difference between true democracies and dictatorships
January 17, 2025
All laws not created by Democratically elected representatives have no place in any society. So-called âInternation lawâ is not real Law it is a set of agreement and treaties that the players involved suggest they will abide by. The is no international democracy, no international law just suggested promises.
International Law as suggested by some falls at the first hurdle as there is no democratic oversite, no means to amend or repeal.
January 17, 2025
Sir John
It would appear our PM believes that Law is created by Lawyers, Judges, etc, and they are our rulers and the Law.
He is wrong it is our Legislators that create, amend and repeal Laws, the legal cabal just get to interpret those laws. Bad Laws are not the domain of Judges but our Legislators, they some times get made in knee-jerk situations just for votes so need the same system to pull thing back to reality.
The ICJ as with a few other so-called World authorities are self-appointed, seemingly self-opinionated interpreters of things that are in themselves illegitimate. At best all they can be arbitrators, but then at best that is the only point of the UN â a place to air disagreements to arrive at a consensus not the ICJ
January 17, 2025
It would seem to me that the ‘illegals’ already have a criminal record. So the matter is settled.
The disgrace about Starmer, nominally a lawyer, not knowing the law is beyond credibility.
Like having a chancellor who does not understand economics.
We have a rudderless government.
January 17, 2025
Sir John
In simple terms if you break UK law by entering the country illegally you are a criminal. Non-UK Criminal are deported, thatâs the Law.
People entering the Country without papers (which is what is said that the legal people at âCare4Calaisâ recommend) suggests you could be a foreign spy. Why is the UK Taxpayer funding âCare4Calaisâ?
If a UK Citizen gets in trouble in a foreign land it is the UK Taxpayer first that bails them out through embassies paying for legal support. Why is it not the Counties these criminal invaders come from paying for legal representation in the UK?
You canât be an asylum seeker entering the UK from what is said to be a âsafeâ country.
Every person that invades, forces their way in claiming asylum robs a genuine person seeking to escape real oppression of a position. So they are thieves as well.
January 17, 2025
Dear Mr. Redwood,
He gave the game away some time ago when he replied Davos instead of Westminster.
January 17, 2025
Don’t forget that Starmer also gave a peerage to his friend and human rights lawyer Richard Harmer KC and appointed him as Attorney General. Those wanting to know more might be interested to read this article from the Daily Telegraph written by Gordon Rayner :https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/15/richard-hermer-attorney-general-keir-starmer-labour/
January 17, 2025
Even in her first speech of 2025, Kemi still can’t say she’d leave the ECHRs nor repeal Net-Zero
January 17, 2025
It makes sense to share rights that sensible neighbours also regard as fitting their own quality standards. People differ. Sharing might help all, but each is better choosing what is most-suited for oneself in most instances.
The Swiss should not have to buy Chinese watches just because a majority might. We British can make our own lawnmowers or custard powder if we prefer.
What we own is ours to do with as we please. Giving what we own away and paying some foreign entity billions as part of that process is an action only idiots would consider.
Accepting the right parts of Human Rights and refusing the wrong is a normal position. Frequently, one buys what readily exists, and dumps the unwanted parts, just like buying a cabinet with awkward handles. It is better to source and fit the needed bits separately than attempt to persuade the producer to create some monstrous hybrid.
January 17, 2025
We should most definately leave the ECHR which is misused to allow ‘rights’ to persons it was not intended to protect.
January 17, 2025
This is a national security emergency but no-one is saying it except Nigel Farage.
There is nothing to stop something truly awful happening on a scale we have not witnessed before. It seems as though major bodies have been infiltrated in order to make it happen.
January 17, 2025
Your last paragraph encapsulates Starmerâs modus operandi! He still thinks heâs a globe trotting human rights lawyer putting the worldâs ills right! As for his â100 yearâ agreement with Ukraine asserting âhe is speaking for all of the UK!â Well I for for one do not agree with such an agreement. Yet another indication of Starmerâs obsession with international virtue signalling!
January 17, 2025
Your last paragraph encapsulates Starmerâs modus operandi! He still thinks heâs a globe trotting human rights lawyer putting the worldâs ills right! As for his â100 yearâ agreement with Ukraine asserting âhe is speaking for all of the UK!â Well I for for one do not agree with such an agreement.
January 17, 2025
Regarding the Chagos Islands and human rights, we hear little about the forced removal of the natives. Several thousand are in Crawley at the moment. Their views on the issue are rarely mentioned.
Itâs a bit like the Highland Clearances all those years ago.
January 17, 2025
Starmer cares nothing about our sovereign identity and law. He operates in an entirely separate international way, ignoring everyone here except those in the facility and law he lives in. He is not fit to be Prime Minister here and anyone in a public position must call for his immediate removal, as a betrayer of the nation of our national and independent interests. Excuses must not be made.
January 17, 2025
The essential problem is that our PM does not believe in the UK or the talent and ability of its people. No Remainer does, and that is the main goal of this Labour government: to get us back into the EU, or failing that, an EU rule-taker.
He has no vision, and where there is no vision, the people perish!
Look at the PM and Home Secretary’s response to the rape gangs scandal, pathetic, the PM and Chancellor’s wilful blindness on the economy, the PM and Foreign Secretary’s crass stupidity about the Chagos Islands, and the entire Labour Government and all MPs refusing to educate themselves about Net Zero.
Then, on Immigration, both Labour and Conservative governments deliberately ignoring the will of the people.
January 17, 2025
For any democratic state, there cannot be any such thing as “international law”.
There IS such a thing as an international treaty but as soon as the People decide that the treaty is no longer wanted, it must be dropped or renegotiated.
I get sick and tired of hearing about “international law” on the BBC and other media, as if this is something we must abide by. It is not.
January 17, 2025
John,
Since you are retired? I would be interested in a post reflected on the actual structure of UK politics, the think tanks, how ideas and fashions in public policy emerge, some case studies on examples of how ideas rippled from one place to another. You probably wouldnt have time for case studies like the residential town blocks of the 60’s which was a massive fashion in the public sector, some of the anti car stuff and the way it has spread, etc.
I don’t understand why in UK think tanks & politics why some subjects are taboo, eg in US debate on H1-B visas flooding the country with (overseas ed) nationals is mainstream in politics, in the UK the equivalent ICT visas & their use to bring in vast numbers of (foreign ed) nationals is not discussed. Why is UK politics, think tanks, etc able to avoid such obvious big issues that are massive in other countries, like the US?
How do fashions cross the Atlantic. Why are some policies implemented by the ruling classes without every being debated in politics or at elections.
Other stuff like the introduction of electric scooters and bikes have just been allowed to happen with no real public debate. Electric scooters were/are officially banned unless hired, but we can all see enforcement has simply not happened, and the sheer volume on the streets has made enforcement push back unlikely.
Why have full face masks been allowed for cyclists, scooter riders, and their electric powered equivalents, been allowed? So that now we have many knifemen riding about with full face masks, and the police are just not prepared to stop them until the knife is finally revealed (by when it is simply too late).
Stuff like this is important, I dont think our democracy is really functioning, to do what is obvious to the sensile middle ground of decent people.
Your blog is admirable, but I dont see stuff like this changing anything?
Reply I am not retired. I do cover these issues and will do more articles on how and group think damages us greatly from the net zero through the anti motoring to the OBR/Bank disasters.