Sarah Pochin’s War on Human Rights
Sarah Pochin’s crusade against the ECHR threatens to dismantle Britain’s hard-won liberties, replacing justice for all with privilege for few and fear for many.
On 20 August 2025, a post appeared on X, attributed to the UK Talk TV account1, quoting Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin declaring that if she were to become Home Secretary, she would withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)2, and “put a stop to this huge industry of left‑wing human rights lawyers.” Such radical statements amount to little short of a frontal assault on Britain’s foundational principles of liberty and justice, and mark a worrying evolution in the rhetoric of a sitting MP.
In her own words: “If I was in the fortunate position one day of being the Home Secretary, then under my watch it's not impossible… We will leave the ECHR when we get into government in 2029. … We need to put a stop to this huge industry of left‑wing human rights lawyers… endless appeal after appeal… these asylum seekers… do not get the opportunity to spend the rest of their days here at the taxpayers’ expense appealing and appealing.” This is not a casual off‑the‑cuff remark, it is a calculated blueprint for dismantling legal protections that have long safeguarded vulnerable individuals.
The claim that Britain could simply walk away from the ECHR exhibits both ideological hubris and legal ignorance. The ECHR is interwoven into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998—it is not a plug‑and‑play accessory one may remove at will. Moreover, the principle of separation of powers and binding international commitments mean that such a move would require sweeping legislative change with severe diplomatic consequences. Labour, human rights groups and legal authorities have uniformly condemned the Conservative Party’s own flirtations with ECHR withdrawal on these grounds, warning it could threaten the Good Friday Agreement, undermine justice and damage international cooperation3.
Pochin's insistence on “ending this huge industry of left‑wing human rights lawyers” lends crude populist flourish to these factual deficiencies. But it also forgets the crucial role of human rights lawyers, not left‑wing agitators who have frequently been the last line of defence for those subjected to tyranny, persecution or overreach. To characterise them as profiteers feeding at taxpayers' expense is not only factually vile, it is dangerously dehumanising. A functioning democracy relies on legal safeguards, not vendettas.
Pochin’s record reveals more cause for alarm. In July 2025, she was fact‑checked live on LBC over her claim presented as “a fact” that Afghan and Eritrean asylum seekers are more likely to carry out sexual assaults. When pressed by presenter Nick Ferrari, she admitted she had no data to support her assertions: “Well, we don’t… I believe that predominantly they’re white British women,” she said, citing anecdotal rape reports from her constituency. That is belief, not evidence4. Meanwhile, actual figures showed only 129 such convictions over three years, out of 16,771 cases where nationality was known an infinitesimal sample used to stoke fear5.
Further, earlier that summer, residents of a street in her constituency vigorously countered Pochin’s claims of “disturbing reports” linked to migrant crime. Cheshire Constabulary confirmed no such incidents had been recorded; locals accused her of scaremongering and hate‑stirring for political gain6.
These repeated falsehoods, amplification of fear, and willingness to distort narrative indicate a politician more invested in political theatre than public service. That someone so cavalier with facts could be poised for a position as powerful as Home Secretary is deeply troubling.
Fellow Britons, we face serious risks. If these positions become law, we would be baring our throat to authoritarian rollback. The ECHR is not only a check on government power, it is a guarantee that underpins protections for all, from freedom of expression to due process. Dismantling it would shift us away from our tradition of equitable justice and toward a system where the few those favoured by populist narratives are protected, and the many, here othered through fear and malice, are left powerless. The rhetoric of “privilege for some, enslavement for others” does not emerge from nowhere, it is built, piece by rotten piece, in statements like these.
In 2025, Britain is not debating whether to uphold human rights. We must decide whether we want to preserve a nation of safeguards, or slide into a society where liberties are rationed, and "freedom for all" becomes a hollow slogan.
To allow such intentions to go unchallenged is to abdicate responsibility, especially for those whose duty it is to stand as guardians of law, equity, and decency.
The Age of Impunity: How Autocrats Win When Democracies Falter
On a damp Monday evening in London, a room filled with journalists, advocates, and the morally curious leaned in to listen. The topic was human rights—a subject that should be universally embraced but is increasingly subject to political convenience and brutal suppression. At the heart of the conversation sat Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, a man who has spent decades in the trenches of global justice.
Sarah Pochin UK Talk TV on X.
Tory proposal to leave ECHR would put peace in Northern Ireland at risk, Labour suggests – as it happened — The Guardian.