Look what you've done!
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 23 Jul 15 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 12.20pm
Of course it is foreign - it is not British. So if its not British, what nationality is it. The British have as much influence and membership as any other EU member? Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 12.20pm
You want "independence from the states capacity to interfere in my personal life", yet you support our association with onerous entities such as the EU and ECHR and Socialist control. I'm complicated. But I prefer the oversite of an independent Court, should I need it to protect my rights than one that is appointed by the state and politically allied to that state. Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 12.20pm
It is absurdly stupid not to deport/extradite/get-rid-of dangerous enemies like Choudhury as his aim is to create here a tyranny like Soviet Communism or Fascism. The reality of the situation is that you should extradite someone who is a threat regardless of whether you had previously granted them asylum. Probably, but that's his prerogative and right. Its mine not to agree with him. The idea of course that someone who hasn't actually been convicted of an offence, can be 'done away with' because you don't agree with what they're saying or represent, is exactly the kind of tyranny like Soviet Communism or Nazi Germany, where the act of legal defiance or protest, became grounds for persecution. I don't see how you can comfortably resort to terms like thought crime, on a regular basis, and then actually suggest implementing exactly the same kind of thing. And no, it should never be legal to extradite someone to a country, from which you, as a state, offered them political protection from. You should either try them in the UK (terrorism has universal jurisdiction). The very nature of the idea of asylum, means you can't extradite them. The UK does not extradite its citizens to states where they will not have a reasonable fair trial.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 23 Jul 15 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 12.59pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 12.20pm
Of course it is foreign - it is not British. So if its not British, what nationality is it. The British have as much influence and membership as any other EU member? Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 12.20pm
You want "independence from the states capacity to interfere in my personal life", yet you support our association with onerous entities such as the EU and ECHR and Socialist control. I'm complicated. But I prefer the oversite of an independent Court, should I need it to protect my rights than one that is appointed by the state and politically allied to that state. Deluded if you think the EU will not interfere with your life. 'Independent Court'? Independent of what, us? European interests? I would much rather have a court made up of my fellow countrymen deciding on laws made in my own country. Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 12.20pm
It is absurdly stupid not to deport/extradite/get-rid-of dangerous enemies like Choudhury as his aim is to create here a tyranny like Soviet Communism or Fascism. The reality of the situation is that you should extradite someone who is a threat regardless of whether you had previously granted them asylum. Probably, but that's his prerogative and right. Its mine not to agree with him. The idea of course that someone who hasn't actually been convicted of an offence, can be 'done away with' because you don't agree with what they're saying or represent, is exactly the kind of tyranny like Soviet Communism or Nazi Germany, where the act of legal defiance or protest, became grounds for persecution. I don't see how you can comfortably resort to terms like thought crime, on a regular basis, and then actually suggest implementing exactly the same kind of thing. And no, it should never be legal to extradite someone to a country, from which you, as a state, offered them political protection from. You should either try them in the UK (terrorism has universal jurisdiction). The very nature of the idea of asylum, means you can't extradite them. The UK does not extradite its citizens to states where they will not have a reasonable fair trial. Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Again, I am more than happy to extradite people that we have previously granted asylum to. Of course I wouldn't have granted asylum to most of them in the first place.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Jul 15 2.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 1.25pm
Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat. The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights. That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 23 Jul 15 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 2.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 1.25pm
Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat. The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights. That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws. Have not referred to the ECHR as Socialist. Parliament can pass whatever laws it likes as long as they have a majority voting in favour of the proposed law (unless of course the non-democratic commissioners of the EU put in place an edict saying that we can't).
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 23 Jul 15 6.26pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 2.17pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 2.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 1.25pm
Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat. The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights. That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws. Have not referred to the ECHR as Socialist. Parliament can pass whatever laws it likes as long as they have a majority voting in favour of the proposed law (unless of course the non-democratic commissioners of the EU put in place an edict saying that we can't).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 23 Jul 15 6.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.26pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 2.17pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 2.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 1.25pm
Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat. The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights. That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws. Have not referred to the ECHR as Socialist. Parliament can pass whatever laws it likes as long as they have a majority voting in favour of the proposed law (unless of course the non-democratic commissioners of the EU put in place an edict saying that we can't).
Go and read what Peter Oborne and Jesse Norman MP have to say on it. They argue it is a thoroughly Tory piece of legislation
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 23 Jul 15 6.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 6.35pm
Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.26pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 2.17pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 2.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 1.25pm
Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat. The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights. That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws. Have not referred to the ECHR as Socialist. Parliament can pass whatever laws it likes as long as they have a majority voting in favour of the proposed law (unless of course the non-democratic commissioners of the EU put in place an edict saying that we can't).
Go and read what Peter Oborne and Jesse Norman MP have to say on it. They argue it is a thoroughly Tory piece of legislation It does not matter whether it is the greatest set of laws ever devised. The point is that we should make and administer our own laws. If the ECHR is so great, we could enact our own versions of the laws.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
johnno42000  23 Jul 15 8.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
. Edited by johnno42000 (23 Jul 2015 8.47pm)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
-TUX-  Alphabettispaghetti 23 Jul 15 8.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 2.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 1.25pm
Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat. The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights. That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws.
Time to move forward together. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 23 Jul 15 9.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 6.35pm
Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.26pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 2.17pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 2.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 1.25pm
Absurd to compare it with Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. We can of course elect a government that would reverse such laws if we choose to. Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat. The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights. That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws. Have not referred to the ECHR as Socialist. Parliament can pass whatever laws it likes as long as they have a majority voting in favour of the proposed law (unless of course the non-democratic commissioners of the EU put in place an edict saying that we can't).
Go and read what Peter Oborne and Jesse Norman MP have to say on it. They argue it is a thoroughly Tory piece of legislation
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 23 Jul 15 11.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
On certain social issues,yes.Economically,yes if you mean classic 19th century economic liberalism,nowadays generally thought of as the key terrain of the Right. Tory Party more "liberal" in the everyday use of the word than the Tory Party 1945-74? You're having a laugh...Much of that Tory party IMO would in many ways sit comfortably in the centre of the Labour Party of today. Edited by legaleagle (23 Jul 2015 11.16pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 9.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.26pm
The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy. Which it isn't. Its a legal body that interprets law, and makes a ruling based on the body of the law. Having worked with judges in my 20s, I can say that irrespective of their political beliefs, judges work from the basis of law. Otherwise the other side appeals and wins. Plus the ECHR doesn't make law it provides arbitration where the UK courts of appeal cannot fully determine a verdict or outcome.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.