Look what you've done!
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
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).
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
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" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| 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).
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" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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 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.
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" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 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).
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.
Can you clarify what rights you want to remove so we can see what is different between your rights and the ECHR
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 24 Jul 15 12.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 23 Jul 2015 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 12.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote fed up eagle at 24 Jul 2015 12.14pm
Quote legaleagle at 23 Jul 2015 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)
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" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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).
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.
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 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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).
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.
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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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).
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.
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.
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 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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" |
|
| 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.