Look what you've done!

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Look what you've done!

Page 2 of 17 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

imbored UK 09 May 15 12.02am
Quote humber eagle at 08 May 2015 11.51pm We voted , they won, get over it. Pretty happy with the overall result to be honest. Thats after 23 years in the forces and 7 years as a lecturer, nothing to complain about as I get to keep the hard earned money I've worked my bollocks off for. If you don't like it and feel you're hard done by because your benefits are being cut or your going to have to work harder....welcome to the life most of us have to endure.In my opinion that is. A bit of a cliche of both parties and supporters of. Edited by imbored (09 May 2015 12.02am)

imbored

UK 09 May 15 12.02am

Quote humber eagle at 08 May 2015 11.51pm

We voted , they won, get over it. Pretty happy with the overall result to be honest. Thats after 23 years in the forces and 7 years as a lecturer, nothing to complain about as I get to keep the hard earned money I've worked my bollocks off for.
If you don't like it and feel you're hard done by because your benefits are being cut or your going to have to work harder....welcome to the life most of us have to endure.In my opinion that is.

A bit of a cliche of both parties and supporters of.

Edited by imbored (09 May 2015 12.02am)

legaleagle 09 May 15 12.07am
Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.01am I don't think any right minded person would object to the things you've stated. My beef is when people blatantly abuse it, Like Rapists/Murderers not being deported because they are entitled to 'Family life" they are alcoholics, Gay,and other such bulls*.... Surely any changes to protect the country and its citizens can only be a positive. They can only amend the Human Rights Act, as it belongs to the UK, however the UNHDR cannot be amended by anyone, which is the foundations to how we would like to think our great country is being run**. Our rapists, murderers, child molesters etc. will finally be given a sentence that cannot be interfered with by those tossers in Europe or those who believe the culprits have issues and need counselling. .................................................... They are threatening to derogate from the Convention,of which we were a founder signatory,and of which Winston Churchill was a great proponent.That will send a great message to European dictatorships like Belarus... Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.14am)

legaleagle

09 May 15 12.07am

Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.01am

I don't think any right minded person would object to the things you've stated. My beef is when people blatantly abuse it, Like Rapists/Murderers not being deported because they are entitled to 'Family life" they are alcoholics, Gay,and other such bulls***....

Surely any changes to protect the country and its citizens can only be a positive. They can only amend the Human Rights Act, as it belongs to the UK, however the UNHDR cannot be amended by anyone, which is the foundations to how we would like to think our great country is being run. Our rapists, murderers, child molesters etc. will finally be given a sentence that cannot be interfered with by those tossers in Europe or those who believe the culprits have issues and need counselling.

....................................................

They are threatening to derogate from the Convention,of which we were a founder signatory,and of which Winston Churchill was a great proponent.That will send a great message to European dictatorships like Belarus...

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.14am)

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 09 May 15 12.07am
Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.52pm Quote legaleagle at 08 May 2015 11.38pm Sure.But,its an interesting article.An opinion,yes. So,sometimes a link on its own can be valid.One loads on here might not agree with.But a valid issue.Its not just based on today's outcome.The Tories are committed to abolishing/amending the Act. Their own last Attorney General criticised them strongly for this.So,being against it is hardly just a tedious "out there" "nutty lefty" opinion.Now they have a majority they are likely to do so,not least because its a way of appeasing some segments of anti-EU/little englander sentiment,even though the Act and the Convention are actually nothing to do with the EU. If they get rid of the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights,what will they replace it with? There's loads in the press about the Act,but its almost all about a tiny part of what the Act actually relates to. The Act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals in the UK have access to. They include: Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections So,its hardly naff to raise the issue for debate... Edited by legaleagle (08 May 2015 11.45pm) I don't think any right minded person would object to the things you've stated. My beef is when people blatantly abuse it, Like Rapists/Murderers not being deported because they are entitled to 'Family life" they are alcoholics, Gay,and other such bulls***.... The problem is that anything will always have some abuse.So,as a lawyer,I see clever people representing themselves "playing the system" to get out of something.But,the reason why they can is because of certain safeguards built into the system to protect many more others from abuse... .....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act? Pro USA & Israel

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 09 May 15 12.07am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am

Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.52pm

Quote legaleagle at 08 May 2015 11.38pm

Sure.But,its an interesting article.An opinion,yes. So,sometimes a link on its own can be valid.One loads on here might not agree with.But a valid issue.Its not just based on today's outcome.The Tories are committed to abolishing/amending the Act. Their own last Attorney General criticised them strongly for this.So,being against it is hardly just a tedious "out there" "nutty lefty" opinion.Now they have a majority they are likely to do so,not least because its a way of appeasing some segments of anti-EU/little englander sentiment,even though the Act and the Convention are actually nothing to do with the EU.

If they get rid of the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights,what will they replace it with?

There's loads in the press about the Act,but its almost all about a tiny part of what the Act actually relates to.

The Act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals in the UK have access to. They include:

Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections

So,its hardly naff to raise the issue for debate...

Edited by legaleagle (08 May 2015 11.45pm)

The problem is that anything will always have some abuse.So,as a lawyer,I see clever people representing themselves "playing the system" to get out of something.But,the reason why they can is because of certain safeguards built into the system to protect many more others from abuse...

.....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act?

Pro USA & Israel

humber eagle hull 09 May 15 12.08am
Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm [Link] Just for starters & there's dozens more !111 Human Rights pah!!!! Good Friday agreement......one of Labours proudest moments.....lets release 100's of murderers who threatened our country and service men and women and citizens for decades, David C would have to welcome ISIS with open arms to beat that debacle. In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

humber eagle

hull 09 May 15 12.08am

Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm

[Link]

Just for starters & there's dozens more !111

Human Rights pah!!!!
Good Friday agreement......one of Labours proudest moments.....lets release 100's of murderers who threatened our country and service men and women and citizens for decades, David C would have to welcome ISIS with open arms to beat that debacle.

In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

legaleagle 09 May 15 12.13am
Quote Jimenez at 09 May 2015 12.07am Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am The problem is that anything will always have some abuse.So,as a lawyer,I see clever people representing themselves "playing the system" to get out of something.But,the reason why they can is because of certain safeguards built into the system to protect many more others from abuse... .....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act? Not a cop out.The press and politicians spotlight what suit them so you get the impression every day a bad evil person is allowed to stay.Thing is the same bits of the act provide really important protections to all sorts of people daily,but of course yo never read about that in the Mail etc. Yes, it could be replaced by a new Human Rights Act.Question is,what would it contain and what wouldn't it? Also,if they didn't also derogate from the European Convention,people could also take their case to the Court in Strasbourg anyway. Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.13am)

legaleagle

09 May 15 12.13am

Quote Jimenez at 09 May 2015 12.07am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am

.....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act?

Not a cop out.The press and politicians spotlight what suit them so you get the impression every day a bad evil person is allowed to stay.Thing is the same bits of the act provide really important protections to all sorts of people daily,but of course yo never read about that in the Mail etc.

Yes, it could be replaced by a new Human Rights Act.Question is,what would it contain and what wouldn't it?

Also,if they didn't also derogate from the European Convention,people could also take their case to the Court in Strasbourg anyway.

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.13am)

legaleagle 09 May 15 12.16am
. Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.18am)

legaleagle

09 May 15 12.16am

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.18am)

legaleagle 09 May 15 12.17am
Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.08am Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm [Link] Just for starters & there's dozens more !111 Human Rights pah!!!! Good Friday agreement......one of Labours proudest moments.....lets release 100's of murderers who threatened our country and service men and women and citizens for decades, David C would have to welcome ISIS with open arms to beat that debacle. Good Friday Agreement: Would you rather The Troubles were still kicking off nightly then? Is N Ireland a better or worse place now than then,taking everything into account?

legaleagle

09 May 15 12.17am

Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.08am

Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm

[Link]

Just for starters & there's dozens more !111

Good Friday Agreement:

Would you rather The Troubles were still kicking off nightly then?

Is N Ireland a better or worse place now than then,taking everything into account?

humber eagle hull 09 May 15 12.22am
Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.07am Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.01am I don't think any right minded person would object to the things you've stated. My beef is when people blatantly abuse it, Like Rapists/Murderers not being deported because they are entitled to 'Family life" they are alcoholics, Gay,and other such bulls*.... Surely any changes to protect the country and its citizens can only be a positive. They can only amend the Human Rights Act, as it belongs to the UK, however the UNHDR cannot be amended by anyone, which is the foundations to how we would like to think our great country is being run**. Our rapists, murderers, child molesters etc. will finally be given a sentence that cannot be interfered with by those tossers in Europe or those who believe the culprits have issues and need counselling. They are threatening to derogate from the Convention,of which we were a founder signatory,and of which Winston Churchil was a great proponent.That will send a great message to European dictatorships like Belarus... Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.08am) Granted, but article 30 clearly states that the UNHDR belongs to no state, person etc. So, surely that means anything that is made an act of government as long as it does not infringe on any of the other articles, is theirs to amend. How many of many of those founder nations have a grave history of human rights violations? In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

humber eagle

hull 09 May 15 12.22am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.07am

Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.01am

They are threatening to derogate from the Convention,of which we were a founder signatory,and of which Winston Churchil was a great proponent.That will send a great message to European dictatorships like Belarus...

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.08am)

Granted, but article 30 clearly states that the UNHDR belongs to no state, person etc. So, surely that means anything that is made an act of government as long as it does not infringe on any of the other articles, is theirs to amend. How many of many of those founder nations have a grave history of human rights violations?

In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

legaleagle 09 May 15 12.27am
No, you can't amend the Charter.Only derogate from it completely or ask all the others signatories to agree to an amendment.It comes as a package. Abolishing the Human Rights Act wouldn't affect that. Its not a UN convention,its the ECHR: THe European Convention on Human Rights. Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.29am)

legaleagle

09 May 15 12.27am

No, you can't amend the Charter.Only derogate from it completely or ask all the others signatories to agree to an amendment.It comes as a package.

Abolishing the Human Rights Act wouldn't affect that.

Its not a UN convention,its the ECHR: THe European Convention on Human Rights.

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.29am)

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 May 15 12.29am
Day one: [Link]

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 May 15 12.29am

Day one: [Link]

humber eagle hull 09 May 15 12.33am
Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.17am Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.08am Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm [Link] Just for starters & there's dozens more !111 Human Rights pah!!!! Good Friday agreement......one of Labours proudest moments.....lets release 100's of murderers who threatened our country and service men and women and citizens for decades, David C would have to welcome ISIS with open arms to beat that debacle. Good Friday Agreement: Would you rather The Troubles were still kicking off nightly then? Is N Ireland a better or worse place now than then,taking everything into account? Having served there, I am more concerned about the fact that those whose lives were taken from them prematurely or sacrificed dismissed so casually by the government of the day, nobody would want those dark days to return Legaleagle, and i'm sure that nightmares for those who live there are slowly fading as life progresses, and long may it, shame the same couldn't be said for the thousands of families who cannot forgive the slaughter of their loved ones. In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

humber eagle

hull 09 May 15 12.33am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.17am

Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.08am

Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm

[Link]

Just for starters & there's dozens more !111

Good Friday Agreement:

Would you rather The Troubles were still kicking off nightly then?

Is N Ireland a better or worse place now than then,taking everything into account?

Having served there, I am more concerned about the fact that those whose lives were taken from them prematurely or sacrificed dismissed so casually by the government of the day, nobody would want those dark days to return Legaleagle, and i'm sure that nightmares for those who live there are slowly fading as life progresses, and long may it, shame the same couldn't be said for the thousands of families who cannot forgive the slaughter of their loved ones.

In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

legaleagle 09 May 15 12.38am
Atrocities are nothing to be proud of and thank goodness everyone now has a brighter future because of the Good Friday Agreement. Very few deals that end a war are perfect.But,they end a war,so no more die. Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.39am)

legaleagle

09 May 15 12.38am

Atrocities are nothing to be proud of and thank goodness everyone now has a brighter future because of the Good Friday Agreement. Very few deals that end a war are perfect.But,they end a war,so no more die.

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.39am)

humber eagle hull 09 May 15 12.41am
Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.27am No, you can't amend the Charter.Only derogate from it completely or ask all the others signatories to agree to an amendment.It comes as a package. Abolishing the Human Rights Act wouldn't affect that. Its not a UN convention,its the ECHR: THe European Convention on Human Rights. Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.29am) Forgive my ignorance legaleagle, I thought they were both directly conceived from the UNHDR which was signed in 1948 therefore article 30 would still have precedent, giving governments a right to compose there own acts such as the UK and EU and rights to amend them as they see fit as the original can not be imposed as law by anyone or state. In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

humber eagle

hull 09 May 15 12.41am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.27am

No, you can't amend the Charter.Only derogate from it completely or ask all the others signatories to agree to an amendment.It comes as a package.

Abolishing the Human Rights Act wouldn't affect that.

Its not a UN convention,its the ECHR: THe European Convention on Human Rights.

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.29am)

Forgive my ignorance legaleagle, I thought they were both directly conceived from the UNHDR which was signed in 1948 therefore article 30 would still have precedent, giving governments a right to compose there own acts such as the UK and EU and rights to amend them as they see fit as the original can not be imposed as law by anyone or state.

In my day, a Selfie was what you had when the wife didn't put out.

crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 09 May 15 12.57am
Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.08am Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm [Link] Just for starters & there's dozens more !111 Human Rights pah!!!! Good Friday agreement......one of Labours proudest moments.....lets release 100's of murderers who threatened our country and service men and women and citizens for decades, David C would have to welcome ISIS with open arms to beat that debacle. They also didn't prosecute dozens; no, scores f members of the security forces who murdered innocent people. We've debated this dozens of times, but the Human rights agreement has, in the main, been a force for good. Yes, there has been a few problems, but more good has come from it than bad, I used to be immortal

crystal balls

The Garden of Earthly Delights 09 May 15 12.57am

Quote humber eagle at 09 May 2015 12.08am

Quote Jimenez at 08 May 2015 11.55pm

[Link]

Just for starters & there's dozens more !111

They also didn't prosecute dozens; no, scores f members of the security forces who murdered innocent people. We've debated this dozens of times, but the Human rights agreement has, in the main, been a force for good. Yes, there has been a few problems, but more good has come from it than bad,

I used to be immortal

Dweeb East London 09 May 15 10.32am
Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.13am Quote Jimenez at 09 May 2015 12.07am Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am The problem is that anything will always have some abuse.So,as a lawyer,I see clever people representing themselves "playing the system" to get out of something.But,the reason why they can is because of certain safeguards built into the system to protect many more others from abuse... .....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act? Not a cop out.The press and politicians spotlight what suit them so you get the impression every day a bad evil person is allowed to stay.Thing is the same bits of the act provide really important protections to all sorts of people daily,but of course yo never read about that in the Mail etc. Yes, it could be replaced by a new Human Rights Act.Question is,what would it contain and what wouldn't it? Also,if they didn't also derogate from the European Convention,people could also take their case to the Court in Strasbourg anyway. Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.13am) Ahem. Can I ask one rhetorical question please, namely who drew up the ECHR in the first place. Might have been the Conservatives post-war. It is that the HR Act was supposed to formally implement wasn't it? Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

Dweeb

East London 09 May 15 10.32am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.13am

Quote Jimenez at 09 May 2015 12.07am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am

.....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act?

Yes, it could be replaced by a new Human Rights Act.Question is,what would it contain and what wouldn't it?

Also,if they didn't also derogate from the European Convention,people could also take their case to the Court in Strasbourg anyway.

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.13am)

Ahem. Can I ask one rhetorical question please, namely who drew up the ECHR in the first place. Might have been the Conservatives post-war. It is that the HR Act was supposed to formally implement wasn't it?

Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again

Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

derben 09 May 15 10.38am
If we regained full control of our law making by leaving the EU and associated court jurisdictions, we could frame our own laws and human rights legislation, tailored to our own needs and interests.

derben

09 May 15 10.38am

If we regained full control of our law making by leaving the EU and associated court jurisdictions, we could frame our own laws and human rights legislation, tailored to our own needs and interests.

Dweeb East London 09 May 15 10.46am
Well that's OK then, I mean the Tories didnt want: the minimum wage - so let's turn the economy back into an even lower wage, one with hundreds of thousands of employed people scrounging of the state to subsidise their wages so they can actually live extended shopping hours - so let's go back to a 9-6 six days a week with no Sunday trading except for your local newsagent/corner shop type economy working hours directive - so junior doctors can then be forced to go back to working 70-100 hours per week, and commercial lorry drivers just keep driving without a break or speed restrictions so clearly no more acccidents on the road... to name but three! Edited by Dweeb (09 May 2015 10.47am) Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

Dweeb

East London 09 May 15 10.46am

Well that's OK then, I mean the Tories didnt want:

the minimum wage - so let's turn the economy back into an even lower wage, one with hundreds of thousands of employed people scrounging of the state to subsidise their wages so they can actually live

extended shopping hours - so let's go back to a 9-6 six days a week with no Sunday trading except for your local newsagent/corner shop type economy

working hours directive - so junior doctors can then be forced to go back to working 70-100 hours per week, and commercial lorry drivers just keep driving without a break or speed restrictions so clearly no more acccidents on the road...

to name but three!

Edited by Dweeb (09 May 2015 10.47am)

Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again

Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

legaleagle 09 May 15 10.54am
Quote Dweeb at 09 May 2015 10.32am Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.13am Quote Jimenez at 09 May 2015 12.07am Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am The problem is that anything will always have some abuse.So,as a lawyer,I see clever people representing themselves "playing the system" to get out of something.But,the reason why they can is because of certain safeguards built into the system to protect many more others from abuse... .....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act? Not a cop out.The press and politicians spotlight what suit them so you get the impression every day a bad evil person is allowed to stay.Thing is the same bits of the act provide really important protections to all sorts of people daily,but of course yo never read about that in the Mail etc. Yes, it could be replaced by a new Human Rights Act.Question is,what would it contain and what wouldn't it? Also,if they didn't also derogate from the European Convention,people could also take their case to the Court in Strasbourg anyway. Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.13am) Ahem. Can I ask one rhetorical question please, namely who drew up the ECHR in the first place. Might have been the Conservatives post-war. It is that the HR Act was supposed to formally implement wasn't it? Answer to rhetorical question.Yes,Winston Churchill and another Tory politician,David Maxwell-Fyfe, were driving forces behind the drafting of the Convention. The Act was to put directly into UK law the Convention so UK Courts could rule directly on Convention breaches without people needing to go to the Court in Strasbourg.But we were/and would be bound by the Convention regardless of the Act unless we derogated.. Link is a 2009 piece by Peter Oborne,right wing journalist, who places the Convention/Act firmly within the Conservative tradition. [Link] Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.16am)

legaleagle

09 May 15 10.54am

Quote Dweeb at 09 May 2015 10.32am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.13am

Quote Jimenez at 09 May 2015 12.07am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am

.....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act?

Yes, it could be replaced by a new Human Rights Act.Question is,what would it contain and what wouldn't it?

Also,if they didn't also derogate from the European Convention,people could also take their case to the Court in Strasbourg anyway.

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.13am)

Answer to rhetorical question.Yes,Winston Churchill and another Tory politician,David Maxwell-Fyfe, were driving forces behind the drafting of the Convention.

The Act was to put directly into UK law the Convention so UK Courts could rule directly on Convention breaches without people needing to go to the Court in Strasbourg.But we were/and would be bound by the Convention regardless of the Act unless we derogated..

Link is a 2009 piece by Peter Oborne,right wing journalist, who places the Convention/Act firmly within the Conservative tradition.

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.16am)

derben 09 May 15 11.01am
We would have whatever laws our elected government make, rather than edicts imposed on us by unelected EU commissioners. If the three things you list were legislated that way by a UK government, so be it. If the UK electorate did not like it, they could elect a different UK government - in practical terms they can do sod all about the unelected EU Commissioners. Edited by derben (09 May 2015 11.02am)

derben

09 May 15 11.01am

We would have whatever laws our elected government make, rather than edicts imposed on us by unelected EU commissioners.

If the three things you list were legislated that way by a UK government, so be it. If the UK electorate did not like it, they could elect a different UK government - in practical terms they can do sod all about the unelected EU Commissioners.

Edited by derben (09 May 2015 11.02am)

legaleagle 09 May 15 11.05am
But none of that relates to the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act/Convention are nothing to do with the EU...

legaleagle

09 May 15 11.05am

But none of that relates to the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act/Convention are nothing to do with the EU...

Page 2 of 17 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Look what you've done!

Site Map