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 Ā 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 Ā issues between itself and Commonwealth Ā countries from the courtās 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 Ā 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 variationsā¦
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
yep and not even scratching the surface of the PPE scandals
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 āpandemicā 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 āemergency useā 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 āpardonedā him. Can you be āpardonedā 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
Hopefully one of the benefits of Trump with be exposing this and indeed the mad and evil “climate alarmist” exaggerations that Miliband has fallen for or just pretends he has perhaps?
January 17, 2025
Good morning.
Human Rights as a concept was born out of the horrors of the Holocaust and the desire to prevent that ever again or, at least, prosecute those that infringed them. The thing is, these HR Laws are only ever adopted by countries which usually are democracy’s and not authoritarian.
I initially thought that such a concept would protect the individual from the excesses of the State such as described above but, sine the SCAMDEMIC and the denial of a ‘Right to Family Life’ denied by our government and our self imposes house arrest, I have become very cynical. We often read of those who infringe on the Human Rights of others only to demand that their Human Rights be respected when they feel threatened by the punishment of their crime(s) – ie deportation. I believe that if you deny someones Human Rights you forgo your own and that in itself should serve as a deterrent.
Finally. Human Rights are hard baked into the Windsor Agreement so no matter what anyone says about leaving the ECHR etc. we cannot. Parliament has agreed to this.
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
Thanks goodness it seems Trump has stopped this Starmer/Lammy lunacy. But the Tory hands are certainly not clean James Cleverly it seems was for it.
Kemi’s speech was appallingly tedious and said nothing of value. She has a difficult task given the serial betrayals of 14 years of Con-socialism. But she will get no where with this boring tedium. Nothing on the net zero lunacy nor anything serious on immigration levels or tax levels or the size of the state.
January 17, 2025
Having human rights is a good thing up to tbe point where those rights impinge very negatively upon other’s rights and freedoms. With human rights go hand in hand, human responsibilities.
International advisory bodies and so called courts are rarely democratically based, usually deriving from collective political thinking and vested interests.
Our PM should quickly learn that the law is not a political tool to manipulate society to his ends, as many in the USA have discovered or are about to. The law should only be the demonstrated democratic will of the people, and not a political tool fashioned by inadequate politicians. Todays very worst example under our existing law is the theft of the human rights of thousands, yes thousands, of under age, vulnerable girls and a few boys, to feed the depravity of gangs of men ā¦ā¦ā¦.. in at least 50 of our cities. Fact not speculation. Current national politicians and institutions fail to deal with it lest doing so reduces their political control in those cities. This is human rights being burnt on the altar of political advantage. It is right here in the city where you all live. Judge the PM and his followers by their actions, not anything that falls from their lips. Our current Home Secretary is undergoing a crash course in human rights that will define her as a political success or utter failure under the scrutiny of democracy. When PMs and politicians have to be dragged kicking and screaming to make such basic moral decisions, you know the country and its leadership are in a dire critical state. Censorship of this statement is also a moral failure.
January 17, 2025
It isn’t just that Starmer is a lawyer. He gets things wong for many reasons but primarily for the reasons he became a human rights lawyer. It is is loife’s ambition to assert human rihgts above all otghers and particulrly against majorities. The piece of Corporations Law preventing oppression of a minority is the sort of law – fair in this context – that has particular appeal to him. Of greatest appeal is the supremacy of international law, particularly on human rights, over national parliaments – which also drives his Remainerism. He loves that concept for it is the essence of socialism. Remember he is a former Trotskyite. Hence his forever banging on about the Far Right, his collectivisation of farming, internationalisation, ie subordination of the nation state and dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, loathing of private property, loathing of kulaks (small business people, especially farmers and rental property owners) This is what drives him.
That in the case of UK international law by treaty is not supreme over Parliament is a great annoyance to Starmer and his communist Chancellor, who is in awe of Red Ellen, a founder of the Communist Party of Britain and whose portrait she put on the wall of No 11. They would like to have international treaties to be supreme as in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. They like EU law being superior to that of member states.
Starmer hates Britain’s colonial past. He sees paying for handing over the Chagos to Madagascar as simply a matter of reparations for Britain’s past. He has no qualms about it at all. He would gladly divest UK of the Falklands, Gibraltar, Ascension Is, the British Virgin Islands, Caymans – all British Overseas Territories – if he could.
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
They believe Communism/Socialism only failed because it wasn’t implemented everywhere at the same time. So they support Global Communism/Socialism …. which is effectively what we’ve got via the UN/WEF/IMF/EU.
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
We need to leave the UN ….full stop
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
But most of our politicians are WEF puppets Old Albion, Starmer has said straight out he is more at home in Davos.
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
āOut of the 1449 new homes we must build here each year, how many will be built with solar panels on their roofs?ā
January 17, 2025
The blaze broke out late Thursday at one of the worldās largest battery storage facilities
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-road-closures/
There was a time, before all things net-zero, when energy was safe & cheap
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
The ECHR has been acting politically and steadily expanding its remit since 1998, when it awarded itself the right to become a Revising Court, and began interfering more and more in the affairs of signatory nations.
When Blair created the HRA in the UK he turbo-charged the same process here. We effectively have governance by Human Rights lawyers. Prime Minister Two-Tier-Keir is just the culmination of that process …. we don’t have a politician as Prime Minister, we have a Human Rights Lawyer/former DPP – effectively a Civil Servant.
He has the political nous of a gnat, but that doesn’t matter to the Establishment. As Mandelson told us, “the democratic age is over.”
The Not-a-Conservative-Party could have scrapped the HRA. It could have revised it with Raab’s proposed British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. But it didn’t. Either it didn’t have the guts or it didn’t want to. In either case, it demonstrated that it is as much use to the British people as a chocolate fireguard.
We will have one last chance to demonstrate to Mandelson that he was wrong about the end of democracy at the next General Election. We’d better hope that the only Party prepared to offer it, and reverse Blair’s Constitutional Wrecking Ball, wins.
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 wonder how many tories will go to davos
January 17, 2025
šš» No words to agree!
January 17, 2025
I agree with you Sir John but it seems many Conservative MPs do not.
January 17, 2025
They profess to be Conservatives, but may be found out to have hoodwinked various people to get elected to stand for Parliament.
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
Not in N.I.
January 17, 2025
Sir John
The subtle problem with āHuman Rightsā, is that the rights suggested had to be removed by the legislators so they could then be āawardedā
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 isnāt 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 āInternation lawā 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 ā 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
I disagree – they are steering to a planned course.
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, thatās the Law.
People entering the Country without papers (which is what is said that the legal people at āCare4Calaisā recommend) suggests you could be a foreign spy. Why is the UK Taxpayer funding āCare4Calaisā?
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 canāt be an asylum seeker entering the UK from what is said to be a āsafeā 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
@Alan Paul Joyce – yes. Elect me! and I will serve Klaus Schwab(WEF, Davos) as he has more authority than the UK Parliament, the Country and the People of the UK. Just thinking that as we get with another devote and disciple Kemi is one thing, but admit it to the media making it common knowledge that you hold the UK electorate in contempt is on another level
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
Yes. Her speech could be summed up as “We made mistakes … but I’m not prepared to commit to even trying to rectify them.”
January 17, 2025
It seems to me , she is also a threat to pensioners with her opinion on the tripple lock.
January 17, 2025
@glen cullen – she like her team are not Conservatives. As a devotee to foreign masters there is no belief in democracy and an elected legislator.
We need a parliament that works for the Country and its people.
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
@Mickey Taking – no one asks the question in these situations, ‘does granting one person a right, then effect all other people to their detriment’ – right to say and everyone around must pay for me to have that privileged
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 Starmerās modus operandi! He still thinks heās a globe trotting human rights lawyer putting the worldās ills right! As for his ā100 yearā agreement with Ukraine asserting āhe is speaking for all of the UK!ā Well I for for one do not agree with such an agreement. Yet another indication of Starmerās obsession with international virtue signalling!
January 17, 2025
Your last paragraph encapsulates Starmerās modus operandi! He still thinks heās a globe trotting human rights lawyer putting the worldās ills right! As for his ā100 yearā agreement with Ukraine asserting āhe is speaking for all of the UK!ā Well I for for one do not agree with such an agreement.
January 17, 2025
Of course democracy is the ultimate human right that has never been bettered. Funny that the left canāt grasp that little point. You canāt give a free man ārightsā because he has all the rights – heās free. You can ask him to assume some responsibility in the national interest, and if you have a homogeneous nation – those responsibilities, which sometimes curtail rights, are freely assumed. That is what we had. It was not good enough for the left so they undermined our settled and secure dispensation by suborning Parliament to an alien aggressive authority without the power or authority to do so. Aliens with alien ideals and alien methods swarmed in.
Every illegal immigrant is a criminal and they and their families must be deported – regardless of how long they have been here. Criminal law has no ālimitation pointā – it is never timed out. Certainly we should never ābreak up familiesā. British people who choose to marry somebody of a different nationality have every right to live in their homeland. This seems to be a point never made.
Starmer is, Iām afraid, very dangerous man. He obeys to the letter any order given by any alien authority no matter how damaging to Britain and her people. He asserts that Britain will play its full role in the end of war negotiations in Ukraine. Britain HAS NO ROLE. We should have had no role in the fighting – instead we have been demilitarised, not by Russia, but by our own people who gave everything away in the idiot expectation that they would be supplied with a full compliment of modern replacements.
Sorry – Boris spent ALL the money.
So we have no military capacity to go on the Offensive (thank God) – British politicians need to learn to not pick fights.
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.
Itās a bit like the Highland Clearances all those years ago.
January 17, 2025
What about the forced removal of natives to make way for HS2? Isn’t that just as bad?
January 17, 2025
The root cause of many of crass decisions by successive governments has been left wing and liberal Civil Service staff who have exploited the weakness off ineffective ministers to push their own agenda.
An element within what should be a mere servant of government, believes that the United Kingdom should not be free to make its own decisions based on the simple democratic principle of following what the majority of voters want their government to do.
The most obvious example is the huge and unsustainable increase in net inward migration which even the Labour party no longer pretends is not damaging to public services and the country’s finances. The vast majority of voters want to see drastically cut back to a sustainable level yet it has been allowed to increase completely unchecked.
The supporters of unlimited migration, and much else, and their left wing liberal friends in the media, look down their collective noses and dismiss this all as “Populism,” when in reality it should be called democracy in action.
As far as the Chagos islands are concerned, it is obvious that the F & C office is manned by liberal lefties who are steadfast supporters of every left wing cause and the United Nations, an organisation dominated by left wing countries determined to take the Western democracies for every pound, dollar and Euro they can. The Chagos Islands is a perfect example.
It is telling that Badenoch said that giving away the islands had repeatedly been pushed by Civil Servants but David Cameron put a stop to it. Undeterred, and seeing Starmer and Lammy as an easy target, they brought the policy back out of the cupboard, dusted it off, and, sure enough, Starmer fell for it. Hopefully, Donald Trump will put a stop on it.
When we get a proper small C conservative government led by Nigel Farage after the next election, I feel quite sure that the Civil Service will be put firmly back in its box and told that the government will set policy and be very clear what is and is not acceptable behaviour by civil servants. I would have hoped that this would have been done over the last 14 years, but clearly not, as we have had hugely damaging and expensive left wing liberal policies forced upon us with little public support.
Just one example locally : Our local council, now Lib Dim controlled, after decades of Conservative control, is rushing ahead wasting millions of our money on building more and more hugely expensive and disruptive cycle lanes that nobody uses. This policy originated in Whitehall and the previous Conservative Council started it.
On a wider point, we have Net Zero which is unaffordable and is going to be just as disruptive to our lives as it is possible to be.
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
I second that proposal Prangwizard! lets all vote on it!
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.
January 17, 2025
Reply to reply
You aren’t retired. Hooray!
Are you going to get back to economic matters? So much hysteria in the media, and really looking to you to bring clarity.
January 17, 2025
great, would be good to see someone tackle immigration too
January 17, 2025
on the net zero one… I see that the Royal Bank of Canada has released an analysis of UK prospects describing the absurdity and nihilism of Britain’s policies of deliberately destroying the North Sea oil and gas economy.
well worth a read.
January 17, 2025
I despair and always have over the apparent need for GB, and for centuries, an actual home for immigrants, actually needs an unelected and unknown foreign body to dictate what is good for us here, in our own country.
Prior to Blair entering Number 10 there was little intervention regarding British HR. However, Blair and co. introduced the HR Act and legally bound it to the ECHR in 1998. From that date, we’ve been inundated with costly HR claims from all, most of whom are immigrants, and some even jailed serious offenders who said they’ve had their “Human Rights” denied.
To my knowledge, none of them have had to pay anything for their lawyers. They received our Legal Aid for FREE! The British taxpayers fund all. Thus the winners are the claimants and the British HR Lawyers, who appear little more than the ambulance chasers oft mentioned in news stories. The losers are the taxpayers and the police who must despair that habitual foreign criminals are allowed to remain in Britain after their jail time.
I have always been very suspicious of PM Blair’s true intentions, for his wife became a QC in Human Rights in 1995, two years before her husband entered Number 10. And now the pair of them are multi-millionaires. Perhaps you can do the maths and come up with a different result?
January 17, 2025
Human rights lawyers just didn’t exist when Sir John Redwood and I were young. We did without that mainly government funded ‘industry ‘ then and we should do without it now. Where such lawyers might be needed they don’t exist except for maybe a few inmates in jails as Putin is showing us today!
January 17, 2025
Furthermore ‘international law’ has anti-democratically become a racket for keeping leftists in power even when they lose elections by stopping right-wing elected governments from pursuing sensible policies leftists don’t like.
January 17, 2025
In order for true democracy to continue and progress in the UK it is necessary for the PM/Parliament to realise that they have been given their powers only temporarily in order to govern and make decisions. It is therefore not in their gift to change the UK in a way which affect many generations without a referendum as we had over our EU membership.
Hence the PM has no right to give away our sovereignty to international courts or organisations such as the EU or the ECHR, or give away UK territory as he is doing with the Chagos Islands, or sign a ridiculously long 100 year āpartnershipā with Ukraine or allow mass illegal or legal immigration or pursue Net Zero without first obtaining the wish of a majority of the country through a referendum.
January 17, 2025
The PM knows of course that following international law will damage the UK.
January 17, 2025
“The PM believes there is some superior law called international law which embodies some superior morality.”
There’s no such thing as “international law” because there is no international demos.
January 17, 2025
Badenoch has apparently announced that she would consider means testing the state pension triple lock because pensions are rising faster than benefits.
1. The purpose of the triple lock was to make pensions rise faster than inflation as we had one of the lowest state pensions of developed European countries. If they now say that the ratchet is unsustainable it would be reasonable to substitute a double lock aimed at keeping pace with inflation.
2. I understand the state pension is already means tested because it is recognised as being below subsistence level and those with no additional income can claim top-up benefits.
3. When Badenoch talks about ‘millionaires’ benefiting from the triple lock (it is traditional to invoke Alan Sugar at this point) she means those with the prudence to save for a private pension to supplement the state pension. A means test which just affects millionaires would cost more than it saves.
4. Means testing the triple lock rather than the state pension itself must be one of the clumsiest mechanisms it is possible to devise.
Reply She has denied she wants to end the triple lock
January 17, 2025
International law is so important as it protects the smaller countries especially from the ‘might is right’ attitude of larger ones. We really shouldn’t sign up to agreements to manage world order if we don’t fully agree but likewise we also have to respect and follow agreements made in good faith in the past – remember there are many other countries too who are party to these agreements and if participants were to quit or walk off any time it suits it would only bring disorder. Also there are many other international agreements to which we are adherent as well like the Law of The Sea agreements and those for prevention of pollution governed by the IMO and UN. We can’t just shove things aside and leave the field in a huff everytime something doesn’t appear to be working in our favour. However saying that and first thing’s first for UK Human Righrs is to get rid of ‘first past the post’ we need electoral reform – so many things to deal with at home first before making a mountain out of a molehill – Chagos
January 17, 2025
When we discuss human rights ,we should begin on how we are treated as humans in our every day lives.
Abuse of power starts at a very low level and often is the lower IQ,s who perpetuate it , although this is not a blanket assertion.The alpha male and some females bully ,abuse,constantly belittle ,thinking it is their god given freedom of speech which entitles them to treat others this way.Corruption starts where money and personal power/egos are more important aspects of life than humanity.We all know this you say,it is a simple understanding of societal relations ,but even on here personal attacks continue.This is not clever and tells us more about the individuals intelligence than any certificated learning.
January 17, 2025
104 criminals arrived in the UK yesterday; from the safe country of France ā¦whereās Kemi
January 17, 2025
That’s 646 illegal immigrants this week !!!
January 17, 2025
Well there you have it – the word is coined “Breturn” we heard it from president Tusk himself and it’s good news in contrast to what he said six years ago “there will be no cakes for anyone only salt and vinegar” So my British cousins it may take a little time to adjust but you’re very welcome back – it makes best sense all round. Murphy Dublin