Is kindly removed to preserve the integrity of the Ongoing Investigation and to avoid further distress to those involved. This was a very distressing incident, and our thoughts are with the victims. Thoughts are with the victims. An online terror group has become the first of its kind to become the first of its kind to be proscribed in the uk. Mps be proscribed in the uk. Mps voted for neo fascist group terror graham to be banned. The home office says the group publishes propaganda designed to incite followers to commit violence. It was credited by an attacker who killed two people in an lgbt nightclub shooting in slovakia in 2022. Support for the group will be illegal, with punishments of up to 14 years in prison. Three men have been prison. Three men have been arrested following the deaths of five migrants, including a young girl, while trying to cross the channel yesterday. The National Crime agency says they were arrested on suspicion of facilitating illegal immigration and entering the uk illegally. And entering the uk illegally. Those detained include two sudanese men, aged 22 and 19, and a 22 year old south sudan national. It comes as figures from the home office show that more than 400 migrants crossed the channel yesterday. Well, a the channel yesterday. Well, a man has been charged after a nine Year Old Girl was kidnapped in knightsbridge in Central London. 56 year old robert prussack was charged with multiple offences including kidnap and sexual assault. The kidnap and sexual assault. The child was reported missing on Brompton Road in london on monday. The former leader of the democratic unionist party, sir Jeffrey Donaldson , has been Jeffrey Donaldson, has been released on bail. Northern irelands longest serving mp was suspended from the dup following his arrest last month for whats been described as historical sex charges, including one count of rape. His wife has also been charged with aiding and abetting in relation to the same investigation. In his Resignation Letter , he said he Resignation Letter, he said he would be strenuously contesting the allegations and the government is set to face a high Court Challenge against its xl bully ban Campaign Group dont ban me, license me has been given permission to bring legal action against the department for environment and rural affairs. The large bulldog type american breed was added to the list in october last year, following a series of attacks. Campaigners argue that the ban is unlawful and irrational. Well, for the latest stories, sign up to gb news alerts by scanning the qr code on your screen, or go to gb news. Com slash alerts. Back now to. Jacob. Welcome back to state of the nation. When the Prime Minister made the surprising decision last year to bring david, now lord cameron, back into politics by appointing him as foreign secretary. David camerons old chancellor and charm , george chancellor and charm, george osborne, chimed in and claimed leaving the European Court of human rights was off the table as long as he was the new foreign secretary. Well, last night, when the foreign secretary was interviewed following royal assent, the safety of rwanda bill. David cameron said this, i would say, is we have to make sure we deal with illegal immigration. That comes first. I dont think its necessary to leave the echr. I dont think that is needs to happen to make this policy work, but i know what matters the most. Its being able to say to the British Public, weve got a fair immigration system , weve got a immigration system, weve got a strong immigration system, and were not putting up with illegal migration. It must be for britain to say, who can come and who cant come, rather than anybody else. Anybody else. But even if lord camerons right, he really ought to have learned the lesson of brexit by now. The british people do not like being told what to do by foreign unelected bureaucrats, especially ones that have become increasingly politicised, as in the case of the european commission, who are unelected bureaucrats and were unaccountable to the british people. We have no way of getting rid of the people who issued the rule 39 order that blocked the original rwanda deportation flight two years ago. The deportation flight two years ago. The judges that sit on the European Court of human rights are political nominees. In many cases , this means that at one cases, this means that at one point prior to russias expulsion from the council of europe, one of the judges who sat on this court was nominated by none other than vladimir putin. And you had no means of ousting him. While the eu and the echr are separate and distinct institutions, the principle remains the same. Sovereignty in this country belongs to the british people who delegate it to the king in parliament for five years at a time. The laws passed by parliament are the ultimate valid authority. In the case of valid authority. In the case of the eu, David Cameron promised to reduce immigration down from the hundreds to the tens of thousands. This was in the tory manifesto for 2010. But because we were part of an institution that disregarded the democratic will of the british people , will of the british people, there was no means of controlling mass migration from the bloc. And his promise was neven the bloc. And his promise was never, and still has not been met. The thing about the eu is that it met. The thing about the eu is thatitis met. The thing about the eu is that it is , and always was, an that it is, and always was, an explicitly political project , explicitly political project, whereas the echr operates under the pretence that it is merely a body that interprets the European Convention on human rights. But theyve been going so much further. Ive mentioned so much further. Ive mentioned before the problem with its living instrument doctrine , the living instrument doctrine, the idea that it can invent new rights as it pleases, as long as the rights are in its definition of the spirit of the original convention. But the ramifications of this policy are on full display. Recently, when it decided that switzerland had breached the rights of its citizens by not pursuing a radical green agenda. This bnngs radical green agenda. This brings the court directly into policy decisions, and other similar cases are now expected to be heard by the court. The court is now as politicised as the eu, and although the eu was bad for this country, at least there was a thin veil of democracy in the european parliament. The case of the echr, theres nothing you can do. Theres no way of voting to change the law , which is exactly change the law, which is exactly why its time to leave it as the real safeguard of human rights has long been parliament, via your votes. And the sooner the noble lord cameron understand this, the better. As ever, let me know your thoughts. Mail margaret gb news. Com. Im joined now by a friend of the program , human rights and program, human rights and immigration lawyer ivan sampson. Ivan, thank you, as always for coming in. Pleasure. If the European Court of human rights issues another article 39 injunction, what better time. 7 injunction, what better time . There will be a huge round there between the uk and the echr. Potentially, yes, but the bill, the rwanda bill, dis appues bill, the rwanda bill, dis applies the human rights act thats what it does. And as you know, the human rights act incorporates the European Convention of human rights into domestic legislation. And it also gives the power to the secretary of state to override any interim injunctions. So theres going to be a conflict between the convention and what the secretary of state does. And remember, article two and three of the human rights act says that british courts courts must apply the law and jurisprudence of the European Convention or European Courts , but it also European Courts, but it also says in the human rights act that the uk court can only issue a certificate of incompatibility vie it cant overrule parliament. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is maintained within the human rights act, and has been firmly reasserted in the rwanda act. This is where you and i differ because i believe in whats called the universality of human rights laws. No, no, parliament can say its okay to convict someone without a fair trial. And even if parliament enacted such an act , it trial. And even if parliament enacted such an act, it would be unlawful. So parliaments only sovereign insofar it its laws comply with fundamental human rights. The issue there is who is the right judge of that . Because as i dont Want Parliament to sentence people to death by bill of attainder, as it used to be able to do, but that wont happen because the british people wouldnt vote for that to happen, whereas the human rights that were getting from the convention, and we saw this very strongly with the swiss judgement recently, is intervening in things that are best decided by local democracies. Democracies. Well, the European Convention is political. If you look at the articles and human rights act itself, the right to freedom of assembly , for example, thats assembly, for example, thats political. The right to a free election, thats political. So you cant separate out rights, human rights from Political Rights because there intrinsically linked. Okay. But if you take a right to a free election, there are some people who would argue that first past the post does not give you a proper election system. Now, it seems to me unquestionably that should be decided by parliament, not by the European Court. Decided by parliament, not by the European Court. We used to the European Court. We used to have voting at the age of 21. Some people want it to be 16. Again, that should be decided by our parliament, not by the European Court. So you only ought to get into these areas if the judgement of parliament is that nobody can vote until theyre 50 or Something Like that, something which is so egregious is that it is a threat to something where its not a matter of judgement, its just an attempt to fiddle things. Now, as the European Courts got more political with a capital p, its interfered in the detail. And thats where i think we need to pull out or ideally reform it. But as that seems extremely difficult and long process to pull out and make our laws for ourselves with the protection of ourselves with the protection of our democracy. Our democracy. You know, i agree with you some extent, because you remember the prisoners right to vote. Thats a good example where parliament decided , no, where parliament decided, no, they didnt have a right to vote if they were in prison because they gave up that right by committing criminal offences where the european European Court said, no, thats actually a breach of individual human rights. So i agree with you about that. But the fundamental right to a free vote that they cant tamper with, but that isnt going to be taken away by the Sovereign Parliament anyway. Indeed. So it seems to me that my im in favour of our ancient rights, the liberties of the english back to magna carta and britain, the united kingdom, and britain, the united kingdom, and so on. But ive always thought the best protector of those is the king in parliament, rather than an overarching court, which makes decisions that are judgement rather than fact. So on rwanda itself, with the Supreme Court, it started saying that as a matter of straightforward fact, rwanda is not safe. That seemed to me always to be false. That its a matter of judgement and the ministers judgement and the judges judgement differed. But its not an absolute fact. Its not a fact like the sun is 92 million miles from the earth, but every minister must take advice before making that judgement call. And what we had was a Supreme Court took advice from experts from the united nations, from , from the united nations, from, organisations like amnesty international, human rights watch. It read all the reports. Watch. It read all the reports. It read about paul kagame , what it read about paul kagame, what hes about. And having looked at all of that, it said this policy is not lawful. Is not lawful. Well, it didnt say the policy wasnt lawful. Quite. Did it . It said that the implementation of it at the moment, no. If you read paragraph nine, it didnt say the policy of removing people was automatically illegal. That was merely the point im making sending people to rwanda. Yes, that was unlawful because rwanda, it deemed rwanda was unsafe of refoulement. But this is where the issue has to be, a high test of judgement. Has to be, a high test of judgement. The old wednesbury test is the judgement. So irrational that no ordinary normal person could come to that conclusion rather than weve heard from the unhcr, which sends people around anyway, one thing weve heard from minister, the other were deciding this , the other were deciding this, that thats the judge is making a fundamentally ministerial decision. Well, thats an old, old law. The wednesbury versus associated pictures, look , the amendment by pictures, look, the amendment by lord hope was why was the government so afraid of that if the judgement is based on facts that amendment, why did they run away from that . Oh lord hopes amendment was straightforward wrecking amendment because it would have brought the courts straight back in and would have undermined the whole principle. No, it wouldnt, because you had a committee to say, heres the evidence. The evidence. And here, minister, because the judges could then have decided whether the committee was rational. And so it would have undermined the whole bill. Im being told ive got to finish. Sorry. I banged on too long. Thank you very much to ivan. Its always such a pleasure to have him on, coming up, the media regulator ofcom has issued some news which affects state of the nation. Plus the question of whether marshmallows. Ive got some. Here are a sweet or an ingredient has shocked and divided the entire tax system well, weve been discussing the European Convention of human rights. And the noble lord, lord cameron and alan says. Im afraid jacob, lord cameron is part of the problem. He should part of the problem. He should never have been appointed foreign secretary. And mike says lord cameron is completely wrong about the echr. No Foreign Court should be able to overrule our own courts. Mike, i agree with you entirely. Cameron was and still is a remainer. Yes he might have 1 or 2 useful connections, but he was a terrible choice to be foreign secretary. Hes proving the point daily and jane are jane has a support for mr my lord cameron. David camerons totally right. The migrant policy will work if we stay within the echr. Pulling out would send the wrong message about our country and serve no purpose. Well, im not sure about that, ofcom has threatened broadcasters with sanctions if they fail to maintain the highest level of due impartiality in the run up to the general election, and a stern worded statement, the regulator said it was sounding a warning to any potential rule breakers. This move comes after ofcom commissioned Audience Research that found that the British Public more or less agrees with ofcom and its broadcasting code, but the big news for state of the nation is that ofcoms consultations over whether sitting politicians can host their own programme has been completed and for now, at least, state of the nation is here to stay with me. Approved by ofcom. Im joined now by my most pugnacious panel. Former editor of the sun, Kelvin Mackenzie , and the historian and mackenzie, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop. Broadcaster tessa dunlop. Kelvin, although its always funny when somebody does research and they find the people theyve consulted agree with them completely because that doesnt seem very likely. It depends who you ask. Nonetheless, what theyve decided seems to me perfectly rational that people like me cant broadcast during the election. I never thought i would be able to. I can see why that would be problematic, that we need to have clear differentiation between a news bulletin and a Discussion Programme and a reporter and a reporter. We do that, and we have to be careful. Thats fair enough. Yeah, well, its okay, its okay. And its nice to get the official regulator imprimatur for your appointment. I must say, however , for it is, say, however, for it is, i think, ridiculous of ofcom to suggest that in the six weeks which are normal purdah in involved in these general elections, that a presenter cant carry on presenting because. Because the truth about because. Because the truth about the matter is that the audience already have a view about you. They either like you or dislike you are going to vote for you or not vote for you. Since you have just agreed that actually youre not going to overstep the line, why not just allow people to continue . For instance, an absurd part of it . And i suspect this is the reason why theyve given you the go ahead, is that they started to investigate david lammy, as ive said before , i was on lammys show on one occasion he would have hated every single word. This was on lbc. He never said a word. He tookit lbc. He never said a word. He took it all on the chin in the way you have to when somebody comes, as that lawyer did, and said the opposite to you, you are quite bright enough to work out where the line is and there are many politicians who could be presenting, right, who would actually almost certainly lose votes r