jamiemartin721  Reading 24 Jul 15 9.59am |
|
Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 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).
The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy.
It was in large part the ECHR was written by a Tory MP and it was one of Churchill's greatest legacies. It shows how far to the right the Conservative party has moved and what a nasty strain of nationalism that drives it that this should somehow be regarded as left wing.
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
Todays Tories are more Liberal than Tories of the past. Most MPs live in a bubble, they are all part of the liberal elite who live in cloud cuckoo land and have never really lived in the real world. Most of them have never really held down real jobs and have no idea how the real world works.
Of the 80s and 90s, but not those pre-Thatcher, Ted Heaths Conservative government would have been to the left of New Labour. Traditional conservatism through out most of the 20th century was surprisingly liberal influenced. Its really only with the government of Thatcher that the Conservatives really shifted to a strongly right wing party.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 10.04am |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 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).
The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy.
It was in large part the ECHR was written by a Tory MP and it was one of Churchill's greatest legacies. It shows how far to the right the Conservative party has moved and what a nasty strain of nationalism that drives it that this should somehow be regarded as left wing.
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.
See that's where we differ, if its the greatest set of laws ever devised, then it doesn't matter what nationality it is.
Besides that's not how the ECHR operates, it doesn't set law, it provides interpretation of laws. You could do the same thing in the UK (it'd cost a lot more), but the outcome would be the same unless it operated under direct political pressure.
I also love the fact that the right wing only ever comment on issues where the ECHR doesn't support their view, and never ever seem to comment on the rational produced (or seem to understand how it works).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 10.07am |
|
Quote -TUX- at 23 Jul 2015 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.
With all due respect, that's a crock as history clearly shows.
Well at least as far as the power of the individual to resist the authority of state, the ECHR has repeatedly demonstrated incidents where government, of all European countries, has failed to abide by their own laws, introduced by democratically elected governments.
We might not always like the outcome, but I haven't actually ever seen an issue on which they were wrong from a legal standpoint.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
 Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 24 Jul 15 11.36am |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 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).
The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy.
It was in large part the ECHR was written by a Tory MP and it was one of Churchill's greatest legacies. It shows how far to the right the Conservative party has moved and what a nasty strain of nationalism that drives it that this should somehow be regarded as left wing.
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.
But that is precisely what our Parliament chose to do. To enact it - just like everyone except the rather thuggish regime in Belarus.
Can you clarify what rights you want to remove so we can see what is different between your rights and the ECHR
|
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 24 Jul 15 12.14pm |
|
Quote legaleagle at 23 Jul 2015 11.15pm
Current Tory party/government more "liberal"?
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)
Nope I'm not having a laugh. There is no such thing as right wing politicians on the front benches of the Tories anymore.
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 12.33pm |
|
Quote fed up eagle at 24 Jul 2015 12.14pm
Quote legaleagle at 23 Jul 2015 11.15pm
Current Tory party/government more "liberal"?
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)
Nope I'm not having a laugh. There is no such thing as right wing politicians on the front benches of the Tories anymore.
You mean no very right wing MPs. Just because they're to the left of your view point, doesn't mean they're not right wing. The Conservative party has never been a center or left wing party.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 24 Jul 15 1.32pm |
|
Quote Sedlescombe at 24 Jul 2015 11.36am
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 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).
The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy.
It was in large part the ECHR was written by a Tory MP and it was one of Churchill's greatest legacies. It shows how far to the right the Conservative party has moved and what a nasty strain of nationalism that drives it that this should somehow be regarded as left wing.
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.
But that is precisely what our Parliament chose to do. To enact it - just like everyone except the rather thuggish regime in Belarus.
Can you clarify what rights you want to remove so we can see what is different between your rights and the ECHR
Sure - all of them; then frame our own laws which may well include similar rights.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 24 Jul 15 1.42pm |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Jul 2015 1.32pm
Quote Sedlescombe at 24 Jul 2015 11.36am
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 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).
The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy.
It was in large part the ECHR was written by a Tory MP and it was one of Churchill's greatest legacies. It shows how far to the right the Conservative party has moved and what a nasty strain of nationalism that drives it that this should somehow be regarded as left wing.
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.
But that is precisely what our Parliament chose to do. To enact it - just like everyone except the rather thuggish regime in Belarus.
Can you clarify what rights you want to remove so we can see what is different between your rights and the ECHR
Sure - all of them; then frame our own laws which may well include similar rights.
So if we just adopted the same rules and called it the UKCHR you'd be happy
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 24 Jul 15 1.57pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 24 Jul 2015 1.42pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Jul 2015 1.32pm
Quote Sedlescombe at 24 Jul 2015 11.36am
Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 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).
The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy.
It was in large part the ECHR was written by a Tory MP and it was one of Churchill's greatest legacies. It shows how far to the right the Conservative party has moved and what a nasty strain of nationalism that drives it that this should somehow be regarded as left wing.
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.
But that is precisely what our Parliament chose to do. To enact it - just like everyone except the rather thuggish regime in Belarus.
Can you clarify what rights you want to remove so we can see what is different between your rights and the ECHR
Sure - all of them; then frame our own laws which may well include similar rights.
So if we just adopted the same rules and called it the UKCHR you'd be happy
Absolutely - as long as it is a product of the UK parliament and is administered by British courts.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 24 Jul 15 2.10pm |
|
|
Let me get this right. You think what is contained in the Human Rights act is perfectly ok other than its not British?
Surely then the cases you cited earlier would still have had the same conclusion.
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 24 Jul 15 2.26pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 24 Jul 2015 2.10pm
Let me get this right. You think what is contained in the Human Rights act is perfectly ok other than its not British?
Surely then the cases you cited earlier would still have had the same conclusion.
I might or might not agree with a particular law. My point of course (as you no doubt know) is that I want the UK to make its own laws and administer them itself without recourse to foreign courts and legislation. We might well enact bollocks knowing our politicians. But it would be our bollocks, so I would put up with it, knowing that by electing a different government we might be able to change the law - something immeasurably more difficult with foreign laws. I want the UK people to have more control over the laws that govern them, something I thought you lefties would be in favour of.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 2.41pm |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Jul 2015 2.26pm
Quote nickgusset at 24 Jul 2015 2.10pm
Let me get this right. You think what is contained in the Human Rights act is perfectly ok other than its not British?
Surely then the cases you cited earlier would still have had the same conclusion.
I might or might not agree with a particular law. My point of course (as you no doubt know) is that I want the UK to make its own laws and administer them itself without recourse to foreign courts and legislation. We might well enact bollocks knowing our politicians. But it would be our bollocks, so I would put up with it, knowing that by electing a different government we might be able to change the law - something immeasurably more difficult with foreign laws. I want the UK people to have more control over the laws that govern them, something I thought you lefties would be in favour of.
Which is what we do, the ECHR doesn't make or administer law, it provides interpretation of the laws member states have issued, to the requesting judiciary (typically the court of appeal). In fact that is pretty much its sole function.
Bold
Of course the fact we have a different set of laws for Scotland and Northern Ireland, from Wales and England, and a different set of laws for the Isle of Man, can be problematic.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 2.42pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 24 Jul 2015 2.10pm
Let me get this right. You think what is contained in the Human Rights act is perfectly ok other than its not British?
Surely then the cases you cited earlier would still have had the same conclusion.
It is as British as it is French, German, Polish, Belgian etc.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 2.50pm |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Jul 2015 1.57pm
Absolutely - as long as it is a product of the UK parliament and is administered by British courts.
It can't be a product of Parliament, as its a Court of Appeal, as such it has to be formed independently of parliamentary influence and appointments.
It could however probably be administered as part of the court service, provided the Ministry of Justice had no involvement in appointment of Judges to the UK Court.
Which would be a massive waste of money, to achieve the same thing that the ECHR provides. Maybe they could all wear union jack wigs to prove how British they are.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 24 Jul 15 2.58pm |
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 2.50pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Jul 2015 1.57pm
Absolutely - as long as it is a product of the UK parliament and is administered by British courts.
It can't be a product of Parliament, as its a Court of Appeal, as such it has to be formed independently of parliamentary influence and appointments.
It could however probably be administered as part of the court service, provided the Ministry of Justice had no involvement in appointment of Judges to the UK Court.
Which would be a massive waste of money, to achieve the same thing that the ECHR provides. Maybe they could all wear union jack wigs to prove how British they are.
I know it can't be a product of Parliament as things stand, that is the point! I don't want a foreign appeal court, I want our own. 'Massive waste of money', how very amusing compared to the catastrophic waste of money that is the EU and the ECHR. There would be no need to wear union jack wigs to prove how British they are, it would be self evident as they would be British courts.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| ghosteagle 24 Jul 15 3.05pm |
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 2.50pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Jul 2015 1.57pm
Absolutely - as long as it is a product of the UK parliament and is administered by British courts.
It can't be a product of Parliament, as its a Court of Appeal, as such it has to be formed independently of parliamentary influence and appointments.
It could however probably be administered as part of the court service, provided the Ministry of Justice had no involvement in appointment of Judges to the UK Court.
Which would be a massive waste of money, to achieve the same thing that the ECHR provides. Maybe they could all wear union jack wigs to prove how British they are.
Prehaps they could morris-dance into the courtroom, or possibly be announced by a chrous of bulldogs?
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 28 Jul 15 12.51pm |
|
|
[Link]
'The former Thames Valley chief constable took up her role in April when the NPCC replaced the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
She said police budgets had been cut "significantly" - by 25% over four years - and they were expected to be cut further.
"Over 10 years we will have lost about 70,000 posts and I don't think it's possible to carry on doing what we've always done, as we will just fail the public but also cause unacceptable stress among our officers and staff," she said.'
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 28 Jul 15 1.35pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 28 Jul 2015 12.51pm
[Link]
'The former Thames Valley chief constable took up her role in April when the NPCC replaced the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
She said police budgets had been cut "significantly" - by 25% over four years - and they were expected to be cut further.
"Over 10 years we will have lost about 70,000 posts and I don't think it's possible to carry on doing what we've always done, as we will just fail the public but also cause unacceptable stress among our officers and staff," she said.'
Surely you think it a good thing that there are less racist, repressive police?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
|
| ghosteagle 28 Jul 15 1.41pm |
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 28 Jul 2015 1.35pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Jul 2015 12.51pm
[Link]
'The former Thames Valley chief constable took up her role in April when the NPCC replaced the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
She said police budgets had been cut "significantly" - by 25% over four years - and they were expected to be cut further.
"Over 10 years we will have lost about 70,000 posts and I don't think it's possible to carry on doing what we've always done, as we will just fail the public but also cause unacceptable stress among our officers and staff," she said.'
Surely you think it a good thing that there are less racist, repressive police?
It's always a good thing when there are less racist, repressive people per se. Surely you wouldn't disagree?
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Jul 15 8.49pm |
|
|
[Link]
Like to stigmatise this lot don't they?
|