Court of Appeal judges have described the immigration rules as 'Byzantine', even 'a disgrace'. If they find them hard to understand, how are the new non-lawyer adjudicators supposed to? A better answer is to train the Home Office decision makers to make better decisions, to reduce the number of appeals. Instead, expect more bad decisions by adjudicators and more appeals from them.
Thank you. It seems to me that this is simply swirling around the edges. Not needing any qualifications, offeribg payment and thus luring people from the same pool of prospective applicants as unpaid magistrates when there's already a dearth of those... this vis owefectly designed to achieve nothing whilst wasting even more money. Its like buying a new house when all you need is a new front door key.
The answer is simple: exit or at least reinterpret the ECHR in alignment with other members of the ECHR.
You may have been charitable, but this proposed scheme seems troubling.
It seems to deviate from what English justice has — rightly — always been.
The scheme deserves serious scrutiny.
Another skeleton bill, another sideshow
Court of Appeal judges have described the immigration rules as 'Byzantine', even 'a disgrace'. If they find them hard to understand, how are the new non-lawyer adjudicators supposed to? A better answer is to train the Home Office decision makers to make better decisions, to reduce the number of appeals. Instead, expect more bad decisions by adjudicators and more appeals from them.
Thank you. It seems to me that this is simply swirling around the edges. Not needing any qualifications, offeribg payment and thus luring people from the same pool of prospective applicants as unpaid magistrates when there's already a dearth of those... this vis owefectly designed to achieve nothing whilst wasting even more money. Its like buying a new house when all you need is a new front door key.
The answer is simple: exit or at least reinterpret the ECHR in alignment with other members of the ECHR.