Turing was the guy who solved Enigma, and this was his thanks. The ECHR protects peoples rights... against persecution for example. If people like Jenrick want to take those rights away ask yourself why...
It’s simplism. And it works. Engaging with complex, expensive issues is hard. So instead, they find an example that fits their simplistic worldview to wish problems away, and pretend that it is the rule rather than the exception. See also the ECHR, immigration and Brexit debates.
Agreed, but let's imagine Jenrick becomes PM and joins Russia and Belarus out of ECHR. I'm pretty sure Labour will say, "It's a settled matter, and we won't seek to return."
Counter argument: Jenrick will say or do anything to court the "send em back" vote, and wants to escape the ECHR at the earliest opportunity. Also implicated in at least 3 funny money schemes
LK was political editor at the BBC for 7 years. Jenrick wishes to be head of government of the UK. The GFA is over a quarter of a century old, and only 32 pages long. So they devote one minute to it, and get it wrong. Just grim. #Brexit#echr#Tories#BBC#Ireland
But...if the UK is a great and trusted democracy it should have nothing to fear from ECHR and welcome its support and alignment.
If a party is saying we should leave the ECHR, we definitely need it to protect us from them.
The logic I've seen defended by those who want to exit ECHR is that if countries that are quite new at democracy want to have overlords telling them what they can do or not, great for them. The UK is a great democracy so it can be trusted and doesn't need ECHR.
Alt: Doctor Evil says RIGHT...
All good links above. The usual right-wing complaint - crystallised in your “far beyond what was intended” quote - is about the “living instrument” doctrine: in essence that you don’t interpret the ECHR against the background of its time and what its framers thought it meant.
Yet in the interview with "journalist" Laura Kuenssberg, Jenrick was able to state unchallenged that the Good Friday agreement is “not reliant upon the ECHR”. A cursory glance at the 35 page document would show what a load of bollocks this is, for example
