A couple of points about the criminal appeals being heard today, two against whole life sentences and one by the Attorney General seeking to increase a sentence to a whole-life term. And I'll phrase this in language so simple that even the meanest intelligence can understand.
1. Although everyone knows the ECHR and the EU are not the same, they share a common effect in diminishing UK sovereignty and increasing their own
2. The UK has a fair and comprehensive appeals process that can be used by sentenced persons to appeal the length and conditions of their sentence. This system is whole and complete in itself and requires no external meddling or modification
3. The ECHR judgement on whole-life terms requires them to be open to review in a process additional to and over and above the UK appeals system
4. Judges are concerned that this ECHR intervention constrains their ability to pass whole life terms in a way that the appeals system does not.
And this last point is very important. Commentators may think that this ECHR refinement is fair and reasonable, or even 'appropriate', or even that it 'shows up the inadequacies' of the UK legal system, but these are opinions, they are not facts. And whilst everyone is entitled to hold opinions, it is vital in order for sceptics to retain credibility that they avoid mistaking their own opinions for facts. The fact is that this intervention from the ECHR diminishes UK sovereignty, and that's what many sceptics object to.
That's all. carry on.