Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? " Exactly what sort of country is it where a convicted murderer who feels like living here isn't just allowed to walk in and kill somebody else? Sunak is another Hitler. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Following on from anti-strike laws and anti-protest laws (cue usual very reasonable defenders/excusers)... First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." And have you seen in the Press that this guy doing the NHS management review is a General? Literally the Wehrmacht is taking over Our NHS as we speak and the Murdoch press is silent! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? Exactly what sort of country is it where a convicted murderer who feels like living here isn't just allowed to walk in and kill somebody else? Sunak is another Hitler." When did that happen? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? I would be very surprised if we left the ECHR. It looks it is just a few stupid MPs who want to leave because they can’t get their own way and are now blaming the ECHR for their failings " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? I would be very surprised if we left the ECHR. It looks it is just a few stupid MPs who want to leave because they can’t get their own way and are now blaming the ECHR for their failings " It's got the word European in it. Must be dodgy & untrustworthy. Stands to reason, eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did you find this in The Guardian? They said the same thing over 8 years ago." Several Tory MPs including the Tory leader in Wales have called for it to be scrapped, I doubt it will happen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? I would be very surprised if we left the ECHR. It looks it is just a few stupid MPs who want to leave because they can’t get their own way and are now blaming the ECHR for their failings It's got the word European in it. Must be dodgy & untrustworthy. Stands to reason, eh?" Yep, they can’t blame the EU so they now blame thr ECHR | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did you find this in The Guardian? They said the same thing over 8 years ago." Isn’t it a stated objective of Raab? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
What's your thoughts on the proposed legislation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did you find this in The Guardian? They said the same thing over 8 years ago. Isn’t it a stated objective of Raab?" Yes, but he won’t be there much longer  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did you find this in The Guardian? They said the same thing over 8 years ago. Isn’t it a stated objective of Raab?" 'In the future, depending on the situation we find ourselves in, given the ebb and flow of the approach Strasbourg has taken, I don’t think it’s responsible for the government to rule things out.' If that's what you class as a stated objective, then yes it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? " If I were to speculate, I would suggest that they will keep this for closer to the election. It will energise the more "foreigners out" elements of their support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recent headline: Rishi Sunak accused of ‘willy waving’ over threat to pull UK out of ECHR Seems fitting for this place lol" I have this theory that all the male cabinet ministers in the governments of Johnson, Truss and Sunak are all hung like like Action Man. Just a hunch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? If I were to speculate, I would suggest that they will keep this for closer to the election. It will energise the more "foreigners out" elements of their support." They keep teasing them with the possibility of leaving the ECHR, it will never happen though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You think that we are becoming a more Authoritarian society Our rights are being diminished slowly. Chipped away until we have none left. Whilst it maybe music to many peoples ears. consider this. When all those protections are removed, what stops them oppressing you? If I were to speculate, I would suggest that they will keep this for closer to the election. It will energise the more "foreigners out" elements of their support. They keep teasing them with the possibility of leaving the ECHR, it will never happen though " Agreed, there is very little possibility of us leaving the ECHR | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have all read the new proposed legislation I take it?
What's your thoughts on the proposed legislation?"As I seem to have missed this commitment to leave the ECHR maybe you can explain the proposed legislation. It may help explain the situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have all read the new proposed legislation I take it?
What's your thoughts on the proposed legislation?
As I seem to have missed this commitment to leave the ECHR maybe you can explain the proposed legislation. It may help explain the situation"I haven't read it, hence my post. However with all the comments I thought everyone else had, so very interested in what people thought of it... unless they are shooting from the hip and haven't read it, but that wouldn't happen here, would it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an allowable link: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-06/raab-to-bring-back-british-bill-of-rights-in-bid-to-curb-migrant-crossings 'The legislation was aimed at ensuring that domestic courts do not always need to follow case law from the ECHR in Strasbourg and that the Supreme Court in London is the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues. Critics of the Bill included the Law Society, who claimed it represented a “lurch backwards for British justice which would disempower people in Britain while giving the state more unfettered authority”.' Before some of you get carried away "lefty lawyers" is a long way from an appropriate description of The Law Society." In terms of the ultimate decision maker, Is this unique to leaving the EU, or did we have the power to introduce or reject a specific law? Inside the EU, If parliament decided to overturn the ECHR ruling was that the end of the process, assuming it had passed all pre stage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an allowable link: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-06/raab-to-bring-back-british-bill-of-rights-in-bid-to-curb-migrant-crossings 'The legislation was aimed at ensuring that domestic courts do not always need to follow case law from the ECHR in Strasbourg and that the Supreme Court in London is the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues. Critics of the Bill included the Law Society, who claimed it represented a “lurch backwards for British justice which would disempower people in Britain while giving the state more unfettered authority”.' Before some of you get carried away "lefty lawyers" is a long way from an appropriate description of The Law Society." weren't the supreme court the enemy of the people ? Odd group to want to make decisions about the rights of the people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an allowable link: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-06/raab-to-bring-back-british-bill-of-rights-in-bid-to-curb-migrant-crossings 'The legislation was aimed at ensuring that domestic courts do not always need to follow case law from the ECHR in Strasbourg and that the Supreme Court in London is the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues. Critics of the Bill included the Law Society, who claimed it represented a “lurch backwards for British justice which would disempower people in Britain while giving the state more unfettered authority”.' Before some of you get carried away "lefty lawyers" is a long way from an appropriate description of The Law Society. In terms of the ultimate decision maker, Is this unique to leaving the EU, or did we have the power to introduce or reject a specific law? Inside the EU, If parliament decided to overturn the ECHR ruling was that the end of the process, assuming it had passed all pre stage. " The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. There has never been any option to overturn an ECHR ruling. That's the point. There is no point in a judiciary that can be overruled, although that is what Russia did and what Israel is now apparently aiming for their own Supreme Court. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an allowable link: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-06/raab-to-bring-back-british-bill-of-rights-in-bid-to-curb-migrant-crossings 'The legislation was aimed at ensuring that domestic courts do not always need to follow case law from the ECHR in Strasbourg and that the Supreme Court in London is the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues. Critics of the Bill included the Law Society, who claimed it represented a “lurch backwards for British justice which would disempower people in Britain while giving the state more unfettered authority”.' Before some of you get carried away "lefty lawyers" is a long way from an appropriate description of The Law Society. weren't the supreme court the enemy of the people ? Odd group to want to make decisions about the rights of the people. " edit:it was the high court. The supreme court agreed with the enemy tho. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The ECHR is not anything to do with the EU and it still astonishes me that the two get conflated together by posters on here….you can use google or Wikipedia if you really need proof "They've both got European in the name. Stands to logic they're the same thing innit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The ECHR is not anything to do with the EU and it still astonishes me that the two get conflated together by posters on here….you can use google or Wikipedia if you really need proof
They've both got European in the name. Stands to logic they're the same thing innit"Lolz  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an allowable link: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-06/raab-to-bring-back-british-bill-of-rights-in-bid-to-curb-migrant-crossings 'The legislation was aimed at ensuring that domestic courts do not always need to follow case law from the ECHR in Strasbourg and that the Supreme Court in London is the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues. Critics of the Bill included the Law Society, who claimed it represented a “lurch backwards for British justice which would disempower people in Britain while giving the state more unfettered authority”.' Before some of you get carried away "lefty lawyers" is a long way from an appropriate description of The Law Society. In terms of the ultimate decision maker, Is this unique to leaving the EU, or did we have the power to introduce or reject a specific law? Inside the EU, If parliament decided to overturn the ECHR ruling was that the end of the process, assuming it had passed all pre stage. The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. There has never been any option to overturn an ECHR ruling. That's the point. There is no point in a judiciary that can be overruled, although that is what Russia did and what Israel is now apparently aiming for their own Supreme Court." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an allowable link: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-06/raab-to-bring-back-british-bill-of-rights-in-bid-to-curb-migrant-crossings 'The legislation was aimed at ensuring that domestic courts do not always need to follow case law from the ECHR in Strasbourg and that the Supreme Court in London is the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues. Critics of the Bill included the Law Society, who claimed it represented a “lurch backwards for British justice which would disempower people in Britain while giving the state more unfettered authority”.' Before some of you get carried away "lefty lawyers" is a long way from an appropriate description of The Law Society. In terms of the ultimate decision maker, Is this unique to leaving the EU, or did we have the power to introduce or reject a specific law? Inside the EU, If parliament decided to overturn the ECHR ruling was that the end of the process, assuming it had passed all pre stage. The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. There has never been any option to overturn an ECHR ruling. That's the point. There is no point in a judiciary that can be overruled, although that is what Russia did and what Israel is now apparently aiming for their own Supreme Court. "Whilst a judgement of the ECHR cannot be overuled it can be ignored. The Human Rights Act also requires UK courts, including the Supreme Court, to "take account" of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (which sits in Strasbourg). UK courts are NOT required, however, always to follow the decisions of that Court. Indeed, they can DECLINE to do so, particularly if they consider that the Strasbourg Court has not sufficiently appreciated or accommodated particular aspects of our domestic constitutional position. An example being the refusal by parliament to pass a law allowing prisoners the vote. The ECHR has no power of sanction over a signatory nation that ignores its ruling, unlike the ECJ which can fine EU nation states for not complying with EU law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an allowable link: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-06/raab-to-bring-back-british-bill-of-rights-in-bid-to-curb-migrant-crossings 'The legislation was aimed at ensuring that domestic courts do not always need to follow case law from the ECHR in Strasbourg and that the Supreme Court in London is the ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues. Critics of the Bill included the Law Society, who claimed it represented a “lurch backwards for British justice which would disempower people in Britain while giving the state more unfettered authority”.' Before some of you get carried away "lefty lawyers" is a long way from an appropriate description of The Law Society. In terms of the ultimate decision maker, Is this unique to leaving the EU, or did we have the power to introduce or reject a specific law? Inside the EU, If parliament decided to overturn the ECHR ruling was that the end of the process, assuming it had passed all pre stage. The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. There has never been any option to overturn an ECHR ruling. That's the point. There is no point in a judiciary that can be overruled, although that is what Russia did and what Israel is now apparently aiming for their own Supreme Court.
Whilst a judgement of the ECHR cannot be overuled it can be ignored.
The Human Rights Act also requires UK courts, including the Supreme Court, to "take account" of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (which sits in Strasbourg). UK courts are NOT required, however, always to follow the decisions of that Court. Indeed, they can DECLINE to do so, particularly if they consider that the Strasbourg Court has not sufficiently appreciated or accommodated particular aspects of our domestic constitutional position.
An example being the refusal by parliament to pass a law allowing prisoners the vote.
The ECHR has no power of sanction over a signatory nation that ignores its ruling, unlike the ECJ which can fine EU nation states for not complying with EU law.
"Is that quite true? I think that the Government was in breach of the ECHR ruling and it took them a few years to come up with an acceptable compromise (as you said, no sanction to make them hurry). The changes mean the Government can completely ignore the ECHR on a whim. Although from what I understand, the judiciary and other legal bodies think this is a nonsense and cannot work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Following on from anti-strike laws and anti-protest laws (cue usual very reasonable defenders/excusers)... First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Love the quote....wasn't that one of the anti Nazi clerics? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not " if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? " Why do we need to be told? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told?" for me, it's a backstop, an insurance policy. Why do we need a law to say don't go around killing people (I know this is case law but hey ho). Why do we need to be told? Governments, like people, cant be trusted absolutely. For example... Does one need to be told not to lie to the queen? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told?for me, it's a backstop, an insurance policy. Why do we need a law to say don't go around killing people (I know this is case law but hey ho). Why do we need to be told? Governments, like people, cant be trusted absolutely. For example... Does one need to be told not to lie to the queen? " And you think the ECHR can be trusted when you can nothing about them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told?for me, it's a backstop, an insurance policy. Why do we need a law to say don't go around killing people (I know this is case law but hey ho). Why do we need to be told? Governments, like people, cant be trusted absolutely. For example... Does one need to be told not to lie to the queen? And you think the ECHR can be trusted when you can nothing about them? " the law is written down. That's the benefit. If there is something fundamentally wrong with any of what they ahve done to date, it's worth discussing. If it's a fear they will do something in the future then why not wait until then to repeal ? What have they done to mean you don't trust them ? Or trust them less than you'd trust the government to do what's right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now." how does case law fit into this ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told?for me, it's a backstop, an insurance policy. Why do we need a law to say don't go around killing people (I know this is case law but hey ho). Why do we need to be told? Governments, like people, cant be trusted absolutely. For example... Does one need to be told not to lie to the queen? And you think the ECHR can be trusted when you can nothing about them? the law is written down. That's the benefit. If there is something fundamentally wrong with any of what they ahve done to date, it's worth discussing. If it's a fear they will do something in the future then why not wait until then to repeal ? What have they done to mean you don't trust them ? Or trust them less than you'd trust the government to do what's right. " I would turn that around. I don't believe they've done anything to earn our trust other than that with which we have been involved in. Why are you so keen to let others make decisions for you? If your family is undecided about where next year's holiday should be, how about I decide??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now." I see. You only care about the geographical location of the people who make the laws. Not if the laws are in the interests of the people. Then some confusion about the boogie men "the left". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told?for me, it's a backstop, an insurance policy. Why do we need a law to say don't go around killing people (I know this is case law but hey ho). Why do we need to be told? Governments, like people, cant be trusted absolutely. For example... Does one need to be told not to lie to the queen? And you think the ECHR can be trusted when you can nothing about them? the law is written down. That's the benefit. If there is something fundamentally wrong with any of what they ahve done to date, it's worth discussing. If it's a fear they will do something in the future then why not wait until then to repeal ? What have they done to mean you don't trust them ? Or trust them less than you'd trust the government to do what's right. I would turn that around. I don't believe they've done anything to earn our trust other than that with which we have been involved in. Why are you so keen to let others make decisions for you? If your family is undecided about where next year's holiday should be, how about I decide???" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now.how does case law fit into this ?" Not the point. The point is , a foreign court over rules ours. The only laws that should exist here are laws made by politicians accountable to us the British people. Christ almighty, do you melts know what liberty and self determination mean? I couldn't g.a.f about Europe or their echr,which we wrote for them after ww2 because they had nothing comparable to what we had in the UK. It was meant for them to stop them repeating the same mistakes made in the 20th century. It wasn't meant for us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now.how does case law fit into this ? Not the point. The point is , a foreign court over rules ours. The only laws that should exist here are laws made by politicians accountable to us the British people. Christ almighty, do you melts know what liberty and self determination mean? I couldn't g.a.f about Europe or their echr,which we wrote for them after ww2 because they had nothing comparable to what we had in the UK. It was meant for them to stop them repeating the same mistakes made in the 20th century. It wasn't meant for us." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now.how does case law fit into this ? Not the point. The point is , a foreign court over rules ours. The only laws that should exist here are laws made by politicians accountable to us the British people. Christ almighty, do you melts know what liberty and self determination mean? I couldn't g.a.f about Europe or their echr,which we wrote for them after ww2 because they had nothing comparable to what we had in the UK. It was meant for them to stop them repeating the same mistakes made in the 20th century. It wasn't meant for us." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told?for me, it's a backstop, an insurance policy. Why do we need a law to say don't go around killing people (I know this is case law but hey ho). Why do we need to be told? Governments, like people, cant be trusted absolutely. For example... Does one need to be told not to lie to the queen? And you think the ECHR can be trusted when you can nothing about them? the law is written down. That's the benefit. If there is something fundamentally wrong with any of what they ahve done to date, it's worth discussing. If it's a fear they will do something in the future then why not wait until then to repeal ? What have they done to mean you don't trust them ? Or trust them less than you'd trust the government to do what's right. I would turn that around. I don't believe they've done anything to earn our trust other than that with which we have been involved in. Why are you so keen to let others make decisions for you? If your family is undecided about where next year's holiday should be, how about I decide???" I do like how you have softened the position to make the analogy suit you. If by undecided you mean we ate diametrically opposed and my wife wants a holiday that imo harms me, and that she also has the ability to force me to go ... You know what, I may take anothers input. Especially if they have some experience in deciding holidays. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now.how does case law fit into this ? Not the point. The point is , a foreign court over rules ours. The only laws that should exist here are laws made by politicians accountable to us the British people. Christ almighty, do you melts know what liberty and self determination mean? I couldn't g.a.f about Europe or their echr,which we wrote for them after ww2 because they had nothing comparable to what we had in the UK. It was meant for them to stop them repeating the same mistakes made in the 20th century. It wasn't meant for us." I do understand your point you only want UK courts to oversee our laws. That's not quite the same as politicians are the only ones that make the law. But, to my understanding, the ECHR only legislate on interpretation of the convention of human rights. They don't make laws. It's an arbitration panel for a treaty we chose to enter under self determination. Many treaties have them. And as you saw we wrote it. Or at least helped. So in a way, it meets your criteria. It's also excpetionalism to believe we are somehow immune from having a government that will seek to reduce our rights. Although some may be happy with torture of people they see as the enemy. Or phone tapping... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now." Are laws no longer applicable after a certain time? Murder, for instance? The laws are incorporated into ours, and were voted as such by our elected politicians. Did you not know that? The charter is to protect human rights in general. They are interpreted as circumstances dictate. That's how the laws work. Not liking the consequences is not a reason to remove them. Laws should not be removed because they happen to be politically inconvenient. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told?" The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs." I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope" Should you care more about human lives than having a shiny gun to polish? Yup. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope" how does the Geneva convention fit into this ? Genuine question as that's the other convention i can think of that has a read across. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you want an authoritarian government, this is how you go about it. We side step it, it becomes who watches the watchmen? In the end sometimes you need a higher power to overrule stupid. And the tories are stupid. This wouldn’t have been a problem if labour were in power, because they don’t do stupid and incompetent. 13 years of tory rule, and what have they go to show for it? Dumbfuckery that’s What." The Labour is just as capable of stupid. This is not specifically the Tory party. They have been no more or less law abiding for centuries. It is this specific group of people leading this specific iteration of the party who have slid into the worst kind of hateful politics to obtain and retain power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is this specific group of people leading this specific iteration of the party who have slid into the worst kind of hateful politics to obtain and retain power." Is this not a refection of society today? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope" I don't know why you think that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has anything to do with the ECHR. I'm not even sure that you know what the European Convention on Human Rights is or how it is managed. Do you, actually know? What other nation do you believe dictates its interpretation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is this specific group of people leading this specific iteration of the party who have slid into the worst kind of hateful politics to obtain and retain power. Is this not a refection of society today?" Yes, but I don't think that it is necessarily party specific. It just seems that the Conservative Party enabled it although it took quite a big cull to achieve it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It should have been scrapped years ago. The only law that should exist in this country is law made by our elected politicians. Echr was put in place on 1953. It was never meant to last 70 years. A charter to allow undesirables to invade us and evade deportation, loved by the left. Bin it....now.how does case law fit into this ? Not the point. The point is , a foreign court over rules ours. The only laws that should exist here are laws made by politicians accountable to us the British people. Christ almighty, do you melts know what liberty and self determination mean? I couldn't g.a.f about Europe or their echr,which we wrote for them after ww2 because they had nothing comparable to what we had in the UK. It was meant for them to stop them repeating the same mistakes made in the 20th century. It wasn't meant for us." So, are you literally saying that other people should have laws imposed on them in a way that you disapprove of because we are somehow "better" than they are and what those laws are intended to prevent will "never happen here"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope I don't know why you think that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has anything to do with the ECHR. I'm not even sure that you know what the European Convention on Human Rights is or how it is managed. Do you, actually know? What other nation do you believe dictates its interpretation? " Simple it's a law of our country is it not ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope I don't know why you think that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has anything to do with the ECHR. I'm not even sure that you know what the European Convention on Human Rights is or how it is managed. Do you, actually know? What other nation do you believe dictates its interpretation? Simple it's a law of our country is it not ? " Again, what does the Second Amendment have to do with the European Convention on Human Rights? Do you know that the European Convention on Human Rights and how it is governed? Again, what country do you believe will "dictate" anything to the UK as a consequence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope I don't know why you think that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has anything to do with the ECHR. I'm not even sure that you know what the European Convention on Human Rights is or how it is managed. Do you, actually know? What other nation do you believe dictates its interpretation? Simple it's a law of our country is it not ? Again, what does the Second Amendment have to do with the European Convention on Human Rights? Do you know that the European Convention on Human Rights and how it is governed? Again, what country do you believe will "dictate" anything to the UK as a consequence?" Is it not a erosion of national sovereignty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope I don't know why you think that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has anything to do with the ECHR. I'm not even sure that you know what the European Convention on Human Rights is or how it is managed. Do you, actually know? What other nation do you believe dictates its interpretation? Simple it's a law of our country is it not ? Again, what does the Second Amendment have to do with the European Convention on Human Rights? Do you know that the European Convention on Human Rights and how it is governed? Again, what country do you believe will "dictate" anything to the UK as a consequence? Is it not a erosion of national sovereignty? " So you actually do not know anything about the subject. You're guessing. What does the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA have to do with the ECHR? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What is the European Convention on Human Rights and how it is governed? How is it incorporated into UK law? What other country "dictates" what the UK does through these laws? Please take the time to understand the topic otherwise you just generate noise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Majority of the world drives on the rights side of the road. It's inhumane when people visit they have to comply with the national sovereign laws of that nation. I can forget and cause a tragic accident by driving on the right. Should you change that to comply with the rest? Or you going to convict me of wreckless driving. National sovereignty applies " This is not the great point that you seem to thin it is, because you do not seem to have bothered to understand the topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are we that uncivilised that we need the ECHR to tell us what's right or wrong? As we have been instrumental in creating the thing, I would say not if flip this and say that what's the bis issue ppl have with the echr if we comply with it? Which rights do we see as not being rights ? Why do we need to be told? The laws were incorporated into ours. We chose to follow them. If the Tory party was to have changed the Ministerial code before Zahawi was removed it would be indicative of corruption. It was ignored by Johnson. If the process of investigating bullying was to be modified it would also be indicative of corruption. If you are not going to try to infringe these laws it really doesn't matter who interprets them as they are the same laws. Unless they are inconvenient, of course, and you just want to be able to change them to suit your political needs. I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope I don't know why you think that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has anything to do with the ECHR. I'm not even sure that you know what the European Convention on Human Rights is or how it is managed. Do you, actually know? What other nation do you believe dictates its interpretation? Simple it's a law of our country is it not ? Again, what does the Second Amendment have to do with the European Convention on Human Rights? Do you know that the European Convention on Human Rights and how it is governed? Again, what country do you believe will "dictate" anything to the UK as a consequence? Is it not a erosion of national sovereignty? " It's not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""I believe in the second amendment. Should I have other nations dictating my life ? Nope" Then I bet you just LOVE Chapter 10 (USMCA)!" You mean that it involves negotiations with other nations to resolve disputes over agreements? That there may be arbitration and courts involved? That it won't be settled with use of weapons? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original post related to the Tories leaving the ECHR. Go for it I say" Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original post related to the Tories leaving the ECHR. Go for it I say" do you mean withdrawing the convention, or the court ...? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
