Tag: Reform

Steady erosion of rights continues


Changes to the European Convention latest moves

May 2026

The endless discussion about who shall be the leader of the Labour Party has meant the latest moves to whittle away rights has received little attention. The guiding influence is immigration, a factor which is a kind of idée fixe in our politics and seems to have the capacity to win or lose elections for individuals or parties. It is claimed that the UK’s membership of the ECHR is preventing us dealing with the problem and in particular the wish to deport people back to their country or origin.

It is not unique to the UK hence the declaration last week giving European governments more power to deport immigrants. The 46 members have decided that ‘states had an undeniable sovereign right to control their borders‘. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, said ‘countries can [now] take action on illegal immigration‘. A questionable statement on many levels. The UK government wants to set up ‘hubs’ in foreign countries to process claims. It has been described as giving governments more ‘wiggle room’ to return migrants, even if there is a risk of mistreatment on their return. It is perhaps a measure of the moral collapse of our political parties that this agreement has generated almost no discussion and scarce mention in the media beyond the facts of the declaration.

Large sections of our community have no love for Europe and the Brexit beliefs still remain strong among many who also have believed at the time of the Referendum that the legal controls would be gone as well. The key proponent of Brexit and leader or the then UKIP party, Nigel Farage said last year ‘the Reform [his new party] will remove the UK from the European Convention and disapply International treaties‘. Reform did well in the recent local elections winning many seats and control of 34 councils. The loss on the other hand of so many Labour held seats has put the future of the prime minister under threat which is where we came in. .

The issues

There are many issues worth setting out:

– The concerns about immigration and the role of people not born in the UK is very one-sided. A number of politicians making most noise about immigrants are themselves – almost bizarrely – sons or daughters of … immigrants. Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Shabana Mahmood, Danny Kruger and many more have parents not born in the UK.

– There is little recognition, in the desire to deport those already here, of the essential role immigrants and foreign nationals play in our society and economy. The health service for example could not operate at its current level nor could care and nursing homes for the elderly. London underground and bus services would be down to skeleton levels of activity. Much of our food would disappear off the shelves.

– No recognition of the fact that the rise in those coming by boat has been caused by government’s closing almost all means to claim asylum legally.

There are also issues of morality and rights which seem to get ignored or set aside.

– As Amnesty International has put it, it risks creating a ‘hierarchy of people‘. Those who enjoy rights under article 3 not to be subject to torture and those who do not. We are seemingly happy to trade and sell arms to countries which practice torture but we don’t want those fleeing it to come here.

– It shows a politics which is driven by populism and biased coverage. In all the press coverage about immigrants which fill the pages of the mostly right-wing media, there is next to no coverage of the large numbers emigrating. It creates the illusion of the country becoming full-up like pouring more and more water into a jug. GB News is at last to be investigated by Ofcom for not countering in an interview with Donald Trump claims that London had no-go areas for police and parts of the UK were governed by Sharia Law. The interviewer did not challenge the president on this nonsense and retransmitted the interview the following day.

– It attacks the most vulnerable and those least able to defend themselves.

– It panders to the belief that immigration and immigrants are somehow the cause of our economic malaise. Never mind weak investment, low productivity, lack of export growth, high interest rates, poor training and other policy failures, just ship out the immigrants and somehow Britain will be great again.

– It is just another step in the drip, drip, drip of steadily removing rights. The limits on the right to protest and increasing and often ill defined police powers. The various acts we have noted before e.g. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, with more legislation in the pipe line, are increasingly been seen as attacks on free speech. There is an attempt to reduce the number of jury trials. Juries have irritated politicians by freeing some people despite directions to convict by some of our reactionary judges.

We need to be much more aware of this populist drive to diminish or weaken our rights. The claims that the Human Rights Act is a ‘criminal’s’ or ‘terrorist’s charter’ is based on the false notion that such people are using the act to escape justice. Autocratic regimes almost always base their rise to power by finding a minority to foist onto the blame for the ills of society and their own failure to govern effectively. It is not done dramatically but bit by bit. It is not even true to say ‘by stealth’ as it is done in plain sight.

Local MPs John Glen and Danny Kruger are revealed by They Work for You, generally (Glen) and consistently (Kruger) to vote against proposed equality and human rights legislation. We cannot therefore rely upon either of these two gentlemen to support threats to our rights by these actions.

Sources: HRW, Civicus, Guardian, Irish Times, GB News, Standard.

Recent posts:

Thought of becoming a subscriber?

0

Global Trends in Refugees and Asylum Seekers 2024


Refugees and asylum seekers still generate a lot of political heat

May 2026

The International Organisation for Migration has produced its latest World Migration Report, covering 2024/5.  It assesses the number of internally displaced people worldwide at 83 million, mostly due to environmental disaster, but about 20 million due to conflict.  In 2025 there were 94 million migrants in Europe (i.e. people living in a different country from their starting residence).  Of course, these figures include people who move for reasons of work or family, as well as refugees and asylum seekers.  

At the end of 2024, there were 36.9 million refugees globally, with 31 million under the UNHCR mandate, and 5.9 million refugees registered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).  A further 5.9 million other people in need of international protection – largely from Venezuela – were reported at the end of 2024.  The number of refugees under the UNHCR mandate has decreased slightly since 2023, when it stood at 31.6 million.

Increase in asylum claims

There were also approximately 8.4 million people seeking asylum status.  This is a 22 per cent increase from the end of 2023.  Despite partial reporting from the United States (only until mid-2024), the country still had – by far – the largest number of pending asylum claims (3.2 million) by end of 2024.  Other countries with large asylum applications included Egypt (631,100), Peru (540,000), Germany (348,900) and Canada (292,100).

In 2024 alone, 3.1 million new individual asylum applications were registered globally, with half of these received in only four countries: the United States (729,100), Egypt (433,900), Germany (229,800) and Canada (174,000). Nationals of the Sudan, Venezuela, Syria, Colombia and Afghanistan comprised most new individual asylum applications in 2024.  Obviously the situation will be somewhat different post-2024, particularly with regard to the USA.

At the end of 2024, children (that is, people under 18 years of age) made up around 41 per cent of refugees, people in a refugee-like situation and other people in need of international protection.

The (American) Migration Policy Institute have researched the question of anti-immigrant borders.  They reckon that in 1989 there were 12 border walls, and there are now 74.  The EU has increased its fenced length between 2014 and 2022 from 315km to 2,048 km.  One of the results of this sort of growth has been the number of drownings at the US/Mexico border, up by 3,200% between 2020 and 2023.  It was observed that tougher border policy has resulted in more seasonal migrants deciding to stay. Picture shows the wall between the US and Mexico.

UK situation

In the UK, the amount of legislation on immigration has now seen 6000 changes to the rules since 2010.  The latest areas of conflict concern the 1 in 1 out arrangements with France, the prevention of family reunion, and the replacement of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers by use of military establishments.  On the latter, the Institute for Public Policy Research has reported on the relations between claimants and the local community, and concludes that the main problem is the lack of transparency from government bodies, the absence of consultation and the lack of any obvious benefit from the newcomers’ arrival to the community.  The IPPR support a community-based long-term social housing project that would be of benefit to all groups.

The Refugee Council has a briefing on how to respond to the government consultation on asylum support and family returns, which runs out on 28th May.

Other unhappy organisations include the Law Society (the new independent appeals body is not satisfactory) and 150 children’s’ social and legal organisations, who believe the latest changes in immigration rules amount to an attack on children’s rights.

The government is withdrawing travel support for Afghans seeking to come to the UK, of which there are believed to be about 9,000.  They will now have to make their own way vie third countries.  The Home Secretary (pictured) has made a new agreement with France worth £662 million to provide more enforcement on the Channel coast beaches and better intelligence.  The Home office say that 480 people smugglers were arrested in 2025.  The Telegraph have quoted Ms Mahmood with saying that the crackdown on irregular migrants will give her room to allow more legitimate routes, but there is no detail on this as yet.

Reform’s claims

Other proposals in the air include Reform UK’s intention to deport migrants who have settled status if they arrived by non-legal means.  This would amount to some 400,000 (and they claim would save £14.3 billion through 2029-34 (when they would presumably be in power).  The (Reform) Lancashire County Council are withdrawing from the government’s resettlement scheme for accepted asylum seekers.

Nevertheless, the numbers of arrivals are down this year (by a third in the first quarter); the number of small boat arrivals in April 2025 was 11,000 against 7,000 this April.  The net inflow (of all types of immigration) over the last three years has gone from 900,000 in 2023 to 400,000 in 2024 to 200,000 in 2025; obviously much of this is due to restrictions of work and student visas, but it remains striking.  Next stats available 21st May

The Council of Europe are meeting on Friday in Moldova to discuss the issue of return hubs for refused asylum seekers.  Various European countries have made bilateral arrangements and up to 12 countries have been named as possible recipients.  The COE is the governing body for the European Convention of Human Rights, and possible changes to the ECHR will also be discussed.

The people behind Refugee Week (15th -21st June) are urging us to carry out a million acts of hope between 13th and 20th May.  Details at A Million Acts of Hope – Together With Refugees

0

Shocking remarks by Danny Kruger MP


The Reform MP is asked about Israel and Gaza

November 2025

Danny Kruger is the MP for East Wiltshire (part of a county in England) and was voted in as a Conservative candidate in 2024. He switched just over a year later to become a Reform MP. He has a range of largely bizarre views and was interviewed by a Guardian journalist the results of which were published on 22nd of this month.

Our concern is not with his overall political views but on the specific remarks he made in answer to questions about Israel and Gaza which have implications for human rights. The journalist is Charlotte Edwardes. That section is as follows:

“[…] We move on to the conflict in Israel and Gaza, because he’s declared Palestine woke and I’d like to know how. He says the position of Israel is important to our politics in the UK, but also to the west in general, “because it stands for the idea of the nation and of western civilisation being something worth defending. [Israel] is fighting the battle for all of us in the Middle East”.

“Kruger does not believe Israel is committing genocide in the region: he says all the deaths in Gaza are the responsibility of Hamas. Nor does he feel Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has gone too far. “The children wouldn’t die if Hamas was not a security threat to Israel” he argues. “I can’t judge the precise tactics of particular IDF operations. I can well imagine there have been atrocities and excesses, as happens in wartime.” Is there no price too great in terms of human life for the elimination of Hamas? “Well, if that price is the elimination of Israel, then nothing is too great […].”

Normally, statements such as these would go unremarked being just one of many foolish statements made by a variety of MPs. But Kruger is advising Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform who, current polls predict are in a good position to form a government in the next election. He is thus someone who is influential and may be in a position to influence policy if Reform are successful in forming a government. A reading of the whole article – the result of three interviews – sees another journalist struggling to make sense of his remarks.

Comments
  • His comments are simplistic. To say ‘all the deaths in Gaza are the responsibility of Hamas’ is a gross distortion. It is accepted that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and the attack on October 7th was horrific. But Israel’s response has been wholly disproportionate making Gaza a wasteland and killing 70,000 Palestinians – many of them women and children.
  • He shows no sign of recognising the history of the conflict. It did not start on October 7th as so many of the Israeli cheerleaders want us to believe but its roots lie in the events following 1948/9 and the brutal expulsion and murder of at least 750,000 Arabs and Palestinians. He makes no reference to the system of apartheid operating in Israel making non-Jews second class citizens. As someone who has a DPhil degree from Oxford, it might be expected to see a greater understanding of historical causes of conflict.
  • It displays a degree of callousness to the suffering of the people of Gaza. To say ‘the children would not die if Hamas was not a security threat to Israel’ is crass not to say offhand. Elsewhere in the interview (and in other interviews and commentary) he makes great play of his Christian faith yet there is no sign of this in these comments.
  • Denial. He denies that Israel is committing genocide. He echoes the Labour government’s position on this which is no recommendation. How would you describe the deaths of 70,000, the deliberate destruction of all the hospitals, schools and water treatment plants, preventing food, water and medicines to enter the area? Perhaps there is another word Mr Kruger would like to deploy?
  • ‘Palestine [is] woke’ means what exactly? The interviewer does not get an answer.
  • The use of weasel words and phrases. ‘I cannot judge the precise tactics of IDF operations …’ is trite although he admits there have been atrocities and excesses. He has been quick to condemn Hamas (does he know the ‘precise tactics’ of their operations?) but tries to excuse IDF operations with these weasel words. The use of cluster munitions, using massive 500lb bombs to blow up entire buildings with no concern for who’s inside, parking remote control vehicles packed with explosives outside apartment blocks and blowing them up ditto.
  • His statement that Israel ‘stands for the idea of the nation and of western civilisation being something worth defending’ and that the country is ‘fighting the battle for all of us in the Middle East’. Can this really be true? How does apartheid fit into that? How does attacking olive farmers and destroying their trees count as civilised? Gangs attacking Palestinian villages at will with the police and army standing by – is this fighting the battle for all of us? The murder of many Palestinians in Israeli prisons. Holding over a thousand Palestinians in sometimes underground cells and the use of vile torture methods – are these values Mr Kruger wants us to support?
  • Finally, no mention or recognition of the violence on the West Bank.
  • His answer to the question ‘is there no price too great … ?’ is especially damning.

What emerges is someone who has a surface view of history and seemingly no understanding of the conflict or its roots. It is a combination of naivete and surface thinking. He seems to have swallowed Israeli ‘talking points’ wholesale. It lacks balance. Perhaps the most shocking part of the interview is the shear callousness concerning the death of children in vast numbers. We could add those who have lost limbs or have starved to death. This throwaway remark seems to be widely at odds with his purported Christian beliefs. He may be in an influential position in government after the next election when these beliefs will matter.

The full Guardian interview can be read here.

Recent posts:

1

Nigel Farage and immigration


The leader of the Reform party sets out his policy for handling immigrants and asylum seekers

August 2025

Nigel Farage made a speech yesterday (26th) setting out his ideas for handling the rising numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers many of whom arrived in boats across the Channel. Often termed ‘illegal’ immigrants although it is not illegal to come via this method if asylum is claimed. The whole issue of asylum seekers, boat crossings and hotels has become headline news in recent months and there have been protests outside some of them most notably in Epping. A case started today (26 August) concerning an Ethiopian man alleged to have sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl and this has added to the widespread sense of outrage.

Mr Farage in his speech promised to fix the problem in quick order if he became prime minister. His speech has made headlines because of his poll lead which if maintained, could conceivably mean he will be a prime minister after the next election. Some polls show a 15 point lead over Labour. He promised to launch ‘Operation Restoring Justice‘ which would involve leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (joining Russia and Belarus), repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying the Refugee Convention. This is to enable the UK to detain every migrant arriving illegally. Countries will be persuaded by a mixture of ‘carrot and stick’ to take them back. These will include countries with poor human rights records such as Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan where the risk of torture or death is extremely likely. The detentions will include women and children he made clear. They ‘will never be allowed to stay’ he said.

Critical issues arose in the press conference and included the cost and where they will be housed while deportations are arranged. He was not able to answer these questions. By amending or abolishing the legislations and coming out of the ECHR etc, it will frustrate the ability of lawyers to prevent deportations largely because the majority do have asylum claims which are legitimate. Over the coming days, other criticisms will appear. For example, existing English law, upon which the ECHR was largely founded after the war, provides protections despite membership of the Convention. Will foreign countries be willing to accept the large numbers involved?

Human rights

The concern here though is the desire to rid us of the ECHR and to repeal the Human Rights Act. This has popped up as a policy in several Conservative manifestos but has never actually come to pass. Local MP Danny Kruger is an advocate of this policy. Mr Farage’s ideas gained favourable coverage in some of the newspapers with the Daily Mail saying in a headline ‘Finally a politician who gets it’ [26 August, accessed 27 August]. His indifference to those he proposes returning to countries where torture is routine was particularly noteworthy. It is interesting however, looking at the comments from readers many of which were not supportive of his comments despite the uncritical nature of the article. The extent to which Mr Farage and Reform are making the waves was clear from the responses from the two main parties. Kemi Badenoch complaining that Reform had stolen their policies and a No 10 statement merely saying that Labour could not rule out leaving the ECHR. There was strong condemnation from the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Farage couched his speech in terms of a public mood of ‘total despair and rising anger’. It is disappointing to note the feeble and pusillanimous nature of the responses in particular from No 10. Britain was in the lead in promoting a new world order after the war following the Atlantic Conference. The ECHR was based a lot on British principles of justice. We would join only Russia and Belarus if we left – neither country a ringing endorsement of rights and human dignity. It is also disappointing to see newspapers like the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph (How Farage would kick 600,000 migrants out of Britain) seemingly to endorse Mr Farage with little sign of critical analysis. The Telegraph even had a story headed ‘We’re ready to work with Farage on migration says Taliban‘. The human rights situation in Afghanistan is abysmal.

How have we come to a situation where prejudice and a lack of critical reporting about the almost unworkable and hugely expensive proposals put forward by Reform are treated in this way? Instead of a robust response and clear statements of how to tackle problems, the two main parties seem to be falling over themselves to ape Reform policies. Partly it is because they confuse some newspaper reporting as reflective of the wider public’s feelings about immigration which are a lot less black and white. It may also be a reflection of years of negative articles by some newspapers about human rights – and by extension the Human Rights Act – claiming it is a criminal’s charter. It is perhaps not surprising that part of Mr Farage’s speech was about the HRA and he spoke of ‘removing the tools from our judiciary’ to prevent successful asylum claims.

A point he referred to several times was around ‘whose side are you on?’ This was in answer to a question from the BBC concerning the risk of returnees being tortured. His answer was ‘are you on the side of the safety of our women and children on our streets, or on the side of outdated treaties backed up by dubious courts’. Another quote was defending our borders and keeping our people safe. There is no evidence of women and children rendered unsafe on our streets disproportionately by immigrants (illegal or otherwise). The torture question was asked more than once.

The tone of the presentation was that immigrants are a threat to our society. That women and girls are unsafe despite the fact that many asylum seekers and others are in secured accommodation. By extension, many of our problems would be removed in short order if he became prime minister. The HRA and other laws and treaties are part of the problem he claims.

Reflections

Mr Farage, despite being a member of a party with only 4 MPs, is able to command a big audience from a speech and to be the lead item on many news channels.

He enjoys wide and largely uncritical support in chunks of the media.

Mr Farage himself (!) noted an interesting point, namely most of the press questions were about process. There was little of a moral or principled point of view.

A large part of his speech was based on dubious claims and unsubstantiated facts. There are problems surrounding immigration and he is correct that both parties have been ham-fisted in trying to deal with them and failing. But solutions are complex and the nation cannot simply step away from international treaties and agreements.

He does not discuss the reactions from other nations from his set of unilateral proposals to deport all illegal migrants. The question is – what if all countries decided to do the same? He spoke of return agreements and an expert from the Migration Observatory said in an interview that such agreements had a mixed history.

He speaks as though the UK is uniquely affected by these problems. The reality is that the scale of displaced people around the world is massive. There are 36.8m refugees worldwide and 123m displaced people according to UNHCR. The UK’s problems in comparison are miniscule. We are also a rich country better able than most to tackle the problem with capable leadership. Many of the millions are in, or adjacent to, countries which are among the world’s poorest. No part of his speech discussed what could be done to tackle the worldwide problem.

So whose side are we on to pose Mr Farage’s question? Not his.

0

Why Labour Leaders Are Pushing for ECHR Revisions: A Political Analysis


Alarming stories that Labour leaders are wanting to reform the European Convention

June 2025

Alarming reports have emerged over the past few days that the current government is considering some kind of revision to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Figures such as the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Attorney General Lord Hermer have made speeches suggesting disquiet concerning aspects of the Convention. In particular it is article 3: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

This story has history and the statements by politicians are more than usually disingenuous. To understand the story and the reasons for this recent slew of statements it is necessary to look at causes and why there is a clamour among politicians, some of the public and the media for change.

Stage 1 – the media

Much of the pressure has come from sections of the media so it is necessary to look at what is going on there. Newspaper readership has declined precipitately. Between 2000 and 2010, the decline was 65% and in the following decade up to 2020 a further 55%. Add in rising costs and declining advertising, and there is something of a crisis in the newsrooms. In this climate, it is cheaper to break into the emails, phones, bank accounts and even houses of the rich and famous, politicians and footballers to achieve a juicy front page, than to carry on the normal business of journalism.

Then came the hacking exposures and the Leveson enquiry which exposed the depth and extent of the hacking and criminal activity. It included senior police officers in the Metropolitan police in particular who sold information to the newspapers. This changed the dynamic of the industry and the notion of privacy was an anathema to their business models.

Over the last two decades there have been hundreds of stories alleging that criminals were not getting their just deserts because of their human rights either because of the ECHR or the domestic Human Rights Act. It was a ‘criminal’s charter’ they alleged. Photos of wanted criminals could not be circulated because of their human rights (they can), police could not evict an armed man until they provided him with a McDonalds hamburger because of his human rights (they could but it was normal practice to accede to requests to cool the situation). Abu Qatada was seriously misreported in the tussle over his deportation to Jordan.

Sadly, positive stories about the acts were almost entirely missing. The Daily Mail used the act to defend its journalist’s rights to protects their sources but strangely forgot to mention this to its readers.

Stage 2 – the politicians

Then the politicians began to join in perhaps sensing from the newspaper coverage that they were onto a popular winner. After all, if the voters were reading a never ending litany of stories about the evils of the human rights laws and Europe meddling in our affairs, it was a gift. It soon became part of the Conservative manifestos to abolish the act or later reform it. It became tangled up with the Brexit crusade and it is possible that many thought that coming out of Europe would mean that the ECHR would also be history. There was the famous cat story by Theresa May which was almost complete nonsense.

There was meant to be a Leveson part II to look at the unlawful conduct between the media and police but there were allegations that in return for a softer ride from the press, Keir Starmer agreed not to set it up. These allegations are denied. There are no plans for a part II.

Stage 3 – the boat people

As the means to arrive into the UK as a refugee or an asylum seeker diminished so the numbers who took to the boats to cross the Channel rose. This became a matter of massive political importance and the Reform party made huge progress with its promises to stop it. Media stories of asylum seekers being installed in hotels are constant. Despite boat crossings being only a small part of those coming to the UK, they loom large in the public imagination and politicians on the right have taken note of this.

The problem is that the government has obligations under the ECHR and other agreements, to treat asylum seekers in a proper way. Demands to simply ‘send them back’ are difficult to do particularly as ‘back’ can mean a county riven by war or where they can face dire consequences. But in simplistic terms human rights are standing in the way, as Mahmood says: ‘voters say international law stop them achieving the changes they want to see.‘

Stage 4 – the Reform party

Along came Reform and quickly began to made inroads into the political landscape. The overturning of a massive Labour majority of 14,700 in Runcorn and Helsby by Reform has shaken them badly. Reform has simple answers to matters like immigration which appeal to many and which has defeated both the Conservatives and now Labour. They would pick up boats in the Channel and return them to France. Asylum seekers would be processed off shore. These and other policies quick fix policies appeal to many and saying that they are difficult or impossible to do because of our international obligations carry little weight with many voters. They are even inflammatory particularly with those who have a deep distaste for anything European.

Stage 5 – today

So the Labour government is feeling under pressure. It has not ‘solved’ the Channel crossings problem. It has lost popularity for a variety of reasons quite apart from the discussion here. Reform is making great strides and even ahead in some polls with suggestions that Nigel Farage becoming a future prime minister was not the joke it might once have been. The Home Office remains dysfunctional and would take years to reform even under competent leadership. The party is becoming desperate to be able to counter the tide of dissatisfaction present in large parts of the kingdom particularly in the red wall seats.

So this brings into where we started and speeches about trying to reform elements of ECHR. The sadness is that they cannot. It would take years to carry through any reform in Strasbourg with little likelihood of success. If the government were to resile from either or both articles 3 and 8 would it solve its problems? Again sadly, no. The opposition to human rights laws and agreements have little to do with the people at the bottom of society so to speak. Almost no part of their speeches are about the victims of injustice which human rights are about.

As we have argued, it is sections of the media who have over decades created myths and disinformation about the workings of the laws. It is their business models which are under threat not the fate of asylum seekers. Why else would the Murdoch press spend over £1 billion in keeping the facts of its intrusion and criminality out of the courts? It is an irony – almost a supreme irony – that the much prized sovereignty that people apparently so desperately want is not in fact available to them. The Judiciary are all too happy to allow these hugely expensive legal actions to go ahead and thus subvert justice and free speech. There is no justice in any meaningful sense of the word. The rich and powerful can ‘buy’ silence by paying large sums into court that no one can afford to match.

These speeches appear to be preparing the ground at present in an attempt to match the rhetoric of Reform politicians. Instead of a proper concern for justice, establishing a Leveson II enquiry into the criminality of some of the media and their friends in the police, or tackling the rampant injustice of the defamation laws which serve to protect the rich from proper enquiry, our politicians seek to curry favour and favourable headlines in those very media outlets which have distorted the public’s attitudes to the laws which in truth protect them. The sadness is that the three politicians saying this stuff are experienced human rights lawyers who know it to be a distortion of the truth. A truly bizarre state of affairs.

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑