

As someone who voted for Nick Clegg in their first ever general election vote, I think it’s important that we shatter our youth’s idealism early and often.
As someone who voted for Nick Clegg in their first ever general election vote, I think it’s important that we shatter our youth’s idealism early and often.
If I had a penny for every time I heard about new advancements about to revolutionise solar panel technology, I’d have glazed the bloody Sahara with them by now.
Funnily enough the rights themselves are broadly similar, but the European Convention on Human Rights established the European Court of Human Rights, so being a party to the treaty means we are still within ECtHR’s jurisdiction.
Edit: for anyone who may be confused, the Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU] - sometimes called the European Court of Justice [ECJ] is the court that enforces the law of the European Union [EU]. This includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [CFR]. On the other hand, the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] is a treaty drafted by the Council of Europe [CoE] that provides for the European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR].
So when the United Kingdom [UK] was a member of the EU, then the UK was still subject to the CFR, enforced by the ECJ (except not really because the UK opted out of the CFR (except yes really because the opt out was worded in a way such that it was essentially only symbolic)), and also subject to the ECHR, enforced by the ECtHR. After the UK left the EU, the UK was no longer bound by the CFR or the ECJ (except insofar as it still is, because of Northern Ireland [NI]), but it still is a member of the CoE and bound by the ECHR and the ECtHR.
Theoretically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission [EHRC] in the UK is responsible for promoting the rights of the ECHR, in addition to rights of the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010.
I hope that clears everything up for people.
The UK is still a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I’m not a legal professional (merely an ill-informed amateur), and especially not an American one, but it seems to me like the judge’s order makes a pretty convincing argument that the injunction is legally warranted.
Maybe we might consider that federal law might be the problem before we rush to accuse the judge personally of being a nonce?