Comments by "robs2020" (@sbor2020) on "WATCH: Deported Albanian criminal posts BRAZEN video in £300k Ferrari after sneaking back into UK" video.

The UK ratified the ECHR in 1952, which is before 1973. FACT.
2
@bibastarmedia9650 Protecting the rights of all citizens is absolutely in the national interest because it ensures fairness, justice, and equal treatment for everyone, which is vital to maintaining a democratic society. Making the case for leaving the ECHR based on a few cases involving Albanian criminals overlooks the broader protections it provides to all of us. Leaving the ECHR won’t "stop the boats" – the real solution lies in creating an effective, humane, and fair immigration policy that addresses the root causes of illegal migration while upholding human rights. It’s not about abandoning our international obligations but improving our own systems.
2
@bibastarmedia9650 It's important to clarify that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is not merely advisory. The ECtHR plays a fundamental role in upholding and enforcing human rights across Europe, including protecting individuals from potential abuses by governments, public authorities, and private entities. The court ensures that all member states comply with the Convention (ECHR), a treaty designed to safeguard fundamental rights like the right to life, freedom from torture, fair trials, and privacy. Its decisions are binding, not optional. When governments take actions that conflict with these rights, such as deporting or expelling individuals without due process, the ECHR intervenes to ensure these actions meet legal and human rights standards. As for concerns about the ECHR and immigration, it's important to clarify that the ECHR has no influence on the UK's immigration policy, never has and never will . The ECHR primarily focuses on protecting human rights, but it does not dictate how countries manage their borders or immigration processes .
2
I agree, we should protect all our human rights. That is why politicians pushing to leave the ECHR is a huge red flag. Populism and stripping people of their human rights often go hand-in-hand. The ECHR protects basic freedoms – like fair trials, privacy, and freedom from discrimination. Leaving it could seriously undermine our rights and make it easier for the government to act without checks and balances. This isn't about 'taking back control'; it's about giving those in power more control over us.
2
So you want to revoke the Prohibition of Torture (Article 3)? To a person’s Right to Liberty and Security (Article 5)? What else? The death penalty?
2
This government wants to strip you of your rights whilst using your hatred of the EU and the ECHR as a cover. GB News, Farage etc. legitimate this unspeakable tyranny. Don't say you weren't not warned. And anyway, was this even mentioned in the referendum campaign: moving the goalposts is part of a democratic mandate, is it?
1
@stum8374 The ECHR was established after World War II to prevent a repeat of the atrocities and human rights violations from that period. While rights existed before the ECHR, it was created to ensure fundamental protections, such as preventing torture, inhumane treatment, and unlawful detention. The ECHR also defends against discrimination and upholds freedom of expression. Dismissing the significance of the ECHR risks eroding these protections, which are crucial for safeguarding the rights of everyone, especially the most vulnerable. Ignoring its history overlooks key lessons from the past. It's important to clarify that the ECHR has no influence on the UK's immigration policy, never has and never will. The ECHR primarily focuses on protecting human rights, but it does not dictate how countries manage their borders or immigration processes.
1
This is not a rhetorical question. How long have you been saying 'Leave the ECHR'? How many Prime Ministers have been and gone ?
1
@bibastarmedia9650 Thanks.
1
@bibastarmedia9650 You are absolutely right that the ECHR can’t "do a thing" if the UK applies fair, evidence-based justice. However, it’s important to balance sovereignty and ECHR rulings. The ECHR doesn’t override UK laws or impose specific outcomes but can guide the UK to review or modify practices when needed to align with human rights obligations. Fair justice and evidence-based approaches must be applied in practice, as seen in real cases like deportations or prisoner rights. The UK can add its own legal details, maintaining its justice system while respecting international commitments. It’s a balancing act of fairness and compliance.
1
I agree, we should protect all our human rights. That is why people like Farage pushing to leave the ECHR is a huge red flag. Populism and stripping people of their human rights often go hand-in-hand. The ECHR protects basic freedoms – like fair trials, privacy, and freedom from discrimination. Leaving it could seriously undermine our rights and make it easier for the government to act without checks and balances. This isn't about 'taking back control'; it's about giving those in power more control over us.
1
@R6AAO 👏👏👏👏
1
@herc20000 What about these counties: Albania / Andorra / Armenia / Azerbaijan / Bosnia and Herzegovina / Georgia / Iceland / Liechtenstein / Moldova / Monaco / North Macedonia / Norway / San Marino / Serbia / Switzerland / Turkey / Ukraine - do they like like us as well?
1
You comment UK should decide who stays in their country, not foreign judges overlooks the vital role the ECHR Court plays in protecting the rights of all individuals, including UK citizens and immigrants. The ECHR ensures fundamental rights like the right to life, fair trials, and protection from torture, holding states accountable for their treatment of individuals. A notable example is the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. In 2012, the ECHR ruled that the UK failed to adequately investigate the deaths, violating Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This ruling highlighted the state's duty to conduct effective investigations into public tragedies, ensuring accountability. The ECHR safeguards immigrants’ rights by requiring the UK to consider family ties and humanitarian grounds before deportation, highlighting that unilateral control over immigration undermines essential human rights principles that foster justice and dignity for all.
1
By voting to exit the EU, you effectively voted to leave behind the Dublin Regulation, which allowed the UK to return asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered. Once outside the EU, that returns policy no longer applied. The previous UK government was slow to negotiate new bilateral agreements to replace this system, meaning the Brexit you supported – and the government's push to "get Brexit done" – ironically worsened the immigration issue by removing a key mechanism for managing asylum claims across Europe. This has complicated efforts to control immigration, not solved them.
1
@herc20000 It is absurd to use the false equivalence of telling me who I should invite into my home. To all you right-wingers out there, how many times must I remind you: a house is not a country! I admire your faith in government and the legal system, but I, for one, do not share such faith. Just remember the last government that failed to clean up the mess your lot created with Brexit. Brexit significantly impacted how the UK handles migrant crossings, as the country lost access to EU cooperation mechanisms like the Dublin Regulation, which had facilitated the return of asylum seekers who passed through other EU nations. With Brexit, the UK had to renegotiate agreements and manage its border controls independently, making it more difficult to handle and return migrants crossing the Channel. Now, it seems the very people who caused these issues with Brexit are proposing a solution by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), stripping you of your own human rights in the process. Why is Reform UK seen as the party for the people when, in reality, it represents oligarchical power and control?
1
@Wee_Chuck2634 The UK imposes border controls, but it operates as an island nation, which fundamentally shapes its approach to immigration and security. Actually, Germany and the Netherlands can impose temporary border controls within the Schengen Area for security reasons, which doesn't necessarily violate EU or ECHR rules. While they need to comply with ECHR obligations, these countries still have the right to manage their borders in response to specific situations. So, it's more nuanced than simply not abiding by the rules.
1
The Tories and Reform UK want to strip you of your rights whilst using your hatred of the EU and the ECHR as a cover. GB News, Farage etc. legitimate this unspeakable tyranny. Don't say you weren't not warned. And anyway, was this even mentioned in the referendum campaign: moving the goalposts is part of a democratic mandate, is it?
1
I agree, we should protect all our human rights. That is why politicians pushing to leave the ECHR is a huge red flag. Populism and stripping people of their human rights often go hand-in-hand. The ECHR protects basic freedoms – like fair trials, privacy, and freedom from discrimination. Leaving it could seriously undermine our rights and make it easier for the government to act without checks and balances. This isn't about 'taking back control'; it's about giving those in power more control over us.
1
Can you explain the actual benefits of leaving the Council of Europe to join Russia and Belarus outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR? A typical GB News viewer seems to prioritise a referendum result over their own human rights. This situation reflects a level of discourse reminiscent of North Korea!
1
@FlashGormless The ECHR has nothing to do with law making laws of the UK. I admire the trust you have in the UK government. I personally don't share your trust! By leaving the ECHR, the UK would join Russia and Belarus, the only countries in Europe outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR. Russia and Belarus have been criticised for their human rights records. Both countries have engaged in systematic abuses, including repression of dissent, censorship of media, and violations of fundamental freedoms. Withdrawing could lead to deterioration of human rights standards here too. Basically, this move poses significant risks to individual liberties, as the ECHR provides essential safeguards for human rights that protect citizens from potential abuses by the state.
1
So you would support leaving the ECHR? Think about what that means: giving up your freedom of assembly and expression, and your right to a fair trial. Without these protections, who will safeguard against human rights abuses? History shows that without international oversight, governments can infringe on individual rights unchecked. For instance, in countries that have distanced themselves from human rights treaties, we've seen increases in oppression and a decline in civil liberties. We must prioritise protecting our freedoms and ensuring accountability, not risking a return to authoritarianism. It begs the question: what mechanisms would be in place to prevent human rights abuses?
1
The ECHR is not the same as the CJEU: we are no longer in the jurisdiction of the CJEU, as the UK exited the EU.
1
So by leaving the ECHR you want to change a laughing stock into a pariah state, do you?
1
So you mean what think it is OK to torture and enslave people, do you?
1