I think it’s more a matter that people think the Home Secretary has a lot more independent power than they actually have. Take as an example, the decision concerning Geller and Spencer - a lot of people seem to think May was completely free to make a decision on that herself.
In actual fact, she was expected to pay very close attention to the recommendations of her department, and she as obliged to follow the principles laid down in law. The Prime Minister may have also ventured an opinion on the issue which should be obliged to treat with respect.
She followed the law which is why the Court of Appeal did not overturn her decision. She’s supposed to follow the law.
I also think some people pay too much attention to the EU and not to the other European bodies that have negatively impacted British law - in this case, in particular, the European Convention on Human Rights, which has often been used to overturn British law - May supports British withdrawal from that Convention - whether she will do anything as Prime Minister remains to be seen (in the short term, I doubt it, because it would not currently be likely to get through Parliament and she seems to understand that - in the longer term, withdrawal from ECHR is almost as important to British sovereignty as withdrawal from the EU.
If and when you have time, I’d appreciate your take on this article below. I’m also wondering how Geller and Spencer could be banned, but so many radical imams and other radical Islamists who actually taught violence, would be allowed.
Theresa May forced to defend views on Sharia Law as she prepares to enter No 10
May sparked controversy when she spoke out in support of the Islamic courts operating in the country, telling the nation they could “benefit a great deal” from Sharia teachings.
The future Tory leader made the comments as she ordered a review into the system which are accused of ordering women to stay with abusive partners.
(Short snip above)