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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did Boris and his brexiteer cultists not dangle the carrot if leaving the ECHR in the run up to the 2018 election as part of 'getting Brexit done'? " ECJ not ECHR | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get why there’s legal challenges to government actions, especially when it’s common law or very old acts of parliament. But if a brand new act was passed and action taken based on that act, should a unelected judge that will have their own political opinions, have the power to rule against an elected parliament?" Yes. Judges can only challenge new laws on the basis that they are unworkable, inconsistent, or incompatible with existing law. If the new law won't work, the judge is right to reject cases brought under that law. Judges can't just decide not to enforce a law. Only parliament can make or remove laws. "I’m thinking if we were to leave the ECHR but first pass new laws in parliament that have pretty much the same content except for the asylum aspects, surely that’s that?" We already have done that. That's how "international law" works, by each individual country creating their own laws that covers the 'international' one. If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did Boris and his brexiteer cultists not dangle the carrot if leaving the ECHR in the run up to the 2018 election as part of 'getting Brexit done'? ECJ not ECHR" Cheers.. 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do believe there is something called section 61 of the Magna Carta. See link below. https://x.com/debsuenew/status/1310523319465148418" Section 61 of the Magna says that the council of 25 barons is empowered to seize property from the crown to repair an injustice, if the Monarch fails to repair said justice within a reasonable time. The Magna Carta doesn't give any rights to commoners. It refers to "free men" in several places, but it means nobles that are not allied to another Monarch. It certainly doesn't give the general populace the right to rise up and overthrow the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do believe there is something called section 61 of the Magna Carta. See link below. https://x.com/debsuenew/status/1310523319465148418" Is that the one used by the so called 'freemen of the land'..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do believe there is something called section 61 of the Magna Carta. See link below. https://x.com/debsuenew/status/1310523319465148418 Is that the one used by the so called 'freemen of the land'..?" Is that like those "sovereign citizens" over in the USA? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do believe there is something called section 61 of the Magna Carta. See link below. https://x.com/debsuenew/status/1310523319465148418 Is that the one used by the so called 'freemen of the land'..? Is that like those "sovereign citizens" over in the USA?" I think there's similarities but not sure on the details.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do believe there is something called section 61 of the Magna Carta. See link below. https://x.com/debsuenew/status/1310523319465148418" "Is that the one used by the so called 'freemen of the land'..?" "Is that like those "sovereign citizens" over in the USA?" It's one of the passages, yes. The basic mistake that the Sovereign Citizens make is in assuming that the words "free man" written in the Magna Carta in 1215 have the same meaning in today's language. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy." You | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy." Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall?" Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant." And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. " And you are advocating for a foreign court, entirely outside the UK’s democratic control to have the final say over our laws, with no recourse from our Parliament or people. That’s not oversight that’s surrendering sovereignty. Accountability should lie with those we elect. I would like to hear your counter to this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. " It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. And you are advocating for a foreign court, entirely outside the UK’s democratic control to have the final say over our laws, with no recourse from our Parliament or people. That’s not oversight that’s surrendering sovereignty. Accountability should lie with those we elect. I would like to hear your counter to this" If we are a signatory to such things then yes until we withdraw we abide by their findings, we do so with other globally agreed obligations etc such as visas, rules on transport.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy." A few people have tried to escape from their legal responsibilities by such poorly thought through statements, that have no legal basis. Eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56295261 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. A few people have tried to escape from their legal responsibilities by such poorly thought through statements, that have no legal basis. Eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56295261" I agree, homosexuals used to be legally chemically castrated, imprisoned, lynched for not adhering to their legal responsibilities, it's all changed now beacause the state does not require legal satisfaction from homosexual acts, Were they wrong for doing so when it was natural for them, under common law homosexuality has always been and will always be lawful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. " I’d like to know how you think one high court or three appeal court judges, all unelected with next to no accountability or scrutiny, should have the power to say what laws the elected parliament can enact and which are “unreasonable” in their opinion? This ain’t the same as a Home Secretary deciding to revoke someone’s citizenship. These types of decisions should have legal oversight. But if Parliament passes a law…. Let’s say to try change the age of sexual consent to 18 or lower the drinking age to 17. Who is a judge to say “no you can’t do that” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d like to know how you think one high court or three appeal court judges, all unelected with next to no accountability or scrutiny, should have the power to say what laws the elected parliament can enact and which are “unreasonable” in their opinion? " That's exactly what a judge can do, and are supposed to do. For example a Judge can issue a Declaration of Incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA. The Judge would examine if the law passed by Parliament supports or breaches the rights in the Human Rights Act. . This does not automatically change the law. Instead, it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide whether to change the law or not. . It's not so much as case of how I think one "high court or three appeal court judges, blah blah blah". It's more a case of that is how it works at this moment in time. So if a law did breach the HRA, then yes indeed, a judge is empowered to highlight that breach. Unfortunately they cannot undo the law. Because of Parliamentary sovereignty. At least we have something to challenge PS I suppose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. " I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would like to hear your counter to this" As others have mentioned, which you seemed to have conveniently forgotten, we are international signatories to a whole host of worldwide conventions. . The UK has ratified at least 91 ILO conventions since 2024. We've ratified over 200 conventions under the Council of Europe. Then there are the others like the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Oh and WTO core agreements (GATT) and TRIPS. . Not meeting our obligations under various conventions will indeed have consequences and some of a legal perspective from higher authorities than our own Parliament. Because we signed up for those conventions and must abide by them. Clearly foreign courts can and do act above national laws from time to time. (Arrest Warrants for example) . I don't feel I need to counter anything. But it is amusing you asking me to try. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. " Are you a believer in the freeman of the land type movement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just pointing out the irony that we don’t really have democracy in the way we think we do. Unelected civil servants creating laws for unelected judges and the unelected House of Lords to say if Parliament can pass. I’m being slightly flippant, but only slightly. " Should everyone in public office be elected? The US system does that with many key positions; it comes with benefits and drawbacks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just pointing out the irony that we don’t really have democracy in the way we think we do. Unelected civil servants creating laws for unelected judges and the unelected House of Lords to say if Parliament can pass. I’m being slightly flippant, but only slightly. " UK democracy is Head of State - unelected Upper chamber of Parliament - unelected Party in power in lower chamber - 63% of seats on 34% of popular vote | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just pointing out the irony that we don’t really have democracy in the way we think we do. Unelected civil servants creating laws for unelected judges and the unelected House of Lords to say if Parliament can pass. I’m being slightly flippant, but only slightly. Should everyone in public office be elected? The US system does that with many key positions; it comes with benefits and drawbacks." There is no perfect system. The idea of a 2nd chamber scrutinising the “lower” chamber is pretty redundant. If they are elected their make up will just mirror the lower chamber unless the elections were 2 years apart. Let’s say we did that and reform filled the upper chamber and Labour filled the lower chamber, nothing gets done. This happens sometimes in the US when the democrats control congress but the republicans control the senate. We could have just one all powerful house and have elections every 2 years, but it can take time for a new government to change course from the previous one so not sure that’s viable. Or just order the SAS to kill all the lefties lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. " You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"calling for government to be above the law is part of what defines fascism" Yeah but it's only 'lefties'.. Or the Irish, or none whites, or gays.. It's so lol..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? " Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.?" if tried and convicted by the courts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.?" If it breaches the threshold..
If this is your response to what I asked which you seem intent upon deflection and banal whataboutery than asking I'll leave you to it..
Better things to do on a nice day without playing fuckwit tennis..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.? If it breaches the threshold..
If this is your response to what I asked which you seem intent upon deflection and banal whataboutery than asking I'll leave you to it..
Better things to do on a nice day without playing fuckwit tennis.. "Lol threshold you talk utter bollocks and sound like the fascists of 1939 germany, the new threshold is you can now attack the jewish community because they said so and it's wrong but hey ho the government said you could or turn a blind eye. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.? If it breaches the threshold..
If this is your response to what I asked which you seem intent upon deflection and banal whataboutery than asking I'll leave you to it..
Better things to do on a nice day without playing fuckwit tennis..
Lol threshold you talk utter bollocks and sound like the fascists of 1939 germany, the new threshold is you can now attack the jewish community because they said so and it's wrong but hey ho the government said you could or turn a blind eye."I'm not suggesting anyone can attack any community, why is it utter bollocks that any government bring in legislation to look at new threats to society? You seem to be equating the laws we have today, some of which have been brought in to address the very real issues we've seen where complete twats went on a rampage because they were too stupid to think logically with the vile regime of nazi Germany? You can't think it think it's fine that such people who incite others, be they foreign state actors or just those hell bent on hatred and division to commit arson, smash up property and attack the police shouldn't be held to account? Is that what you really think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There is no perfect system. The idea of a 2nd chamber scrutinising the “lower” chamber is pretty redundant. If they are elected their make up will just mirror the lower chamber unless the elections were 2 years apart. " Or elected differently, e.g. PR, appointments based upon service (such as business leaders/law experts). HoC is still supreme, but it acts as a check on the HoC to a large extent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"calling for government to be above the law is part of what defines fascism" Not seen a post calling for that. The law makers and law enforcement should be bound by the law as much as anyone else. But in practice that doesn’t happen. Reporting a police officer for a minor crime or traffic offence is close to impossible. Bringing a private prosecution is the only way. Not talking serious offences of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.? If it breaches the threshold..
If this is your response to what I asked which you seem intent upon deflection and banal whataboutery than asking I'll leave you to it..
Better things to do on a nice day without playing fuckwit tennis..
Lol threshold you talk utter bollocks and sound like the fascists of 1939 germany, the new threshold is you can now attack the jewish community because they said so and it's wrong but hey ho the government said you could or turn a blind eye.
I'm not suggesting anyone can attack any community, why is it utter bollocks that any government bring in legislation to look at new threats to society?
You seem to be equating the laws we have today, some of which have been brought in to address the very real issues we've seen where complete twats went on a rampage because they were too stupid to think logically with the vile regime of nazi Germany?
You can't think it think it's fine that such people who incite others, be they foreign state actors or just those hell bent on hatred and division to commit arson, smash up property and attack the police shouldn't be held to account?
Is that what you really think?
"You change your tune like the UK weather, people like you were the ones attacking the jewish community in 1938, thresholds you can hide behind then because it is fashionable at the time but history judges differently, and I thought you had better things to do than post on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"calling for government to be above the law is part of what defines fascism Not seen a post calling for that. " that is exactly what you have been calling for so far on this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"calling for government to be above the law is part of what defines fascism" But having the law above government is equally odious. In fact, it's worse, because the judiciary are neither elected nor directly accountable to the people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the judiciary are neither elected nor directly accountable to the people." that's point of an independent judiciary, otherwise the courts would be a tool for political parties or despotic party leaders .... be very careful what you wish for | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.? If it breaches the threshold..
If this is your response to what I asked which you seem intent upon deflection and banal whataboutery than asking I'll leave you to it..
Better things to do on a nice day without playing fuckwit tennis..
Lol threshold you talk utter bollocks and sound like the fascists of 1939 germany, the new threshold is you can now attack the jewish community because they said so and it's wrong but hey ho the government said you could or turn a blind eye.
I'm not suggesting anyone can attack any community, why is it utter bollocks that any government bring in legislation to look at new threats to society?
You seem to be equating the laws we have today, some of which have been brought in to address the very real issues we've seen where complete twats went on a rampage because they were too stupid to think logically with the vile regime of nazi Germany?
You can't think it think it's fine that such people who incite others, be they foreign state actors or just those hell bent on hatred and division to commit arson, smash up property and attack the police shouldn't be held to account?
Is that what you really think?
You change your tune like the UK weather, people like you were the ones attacking the jewish community in 1938, thresholds you can hide behind then because it is fashionable at the time but history judges differently, and I thought you had better things to do than post on here."It's sunny, has been for weeks 
Try it, might relax you .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.? If it breaches the threshold..
If this is your response to what I asked which you seem intent upon deflection and banal whataboutery than asking I'll leave you to it..
Better things to do on a nice day without playing fuckwit tennis..
Lol threshold you talk utter bollocks and sound like the fascists of 1939 germany, the new threshold is you can now attack the jewish community because they said so and it's wrong but hey ho the government said you could or turn a blind eye.
I'm not suggesting anyone can attack any community, why is it utter bollocks that any government bring in legislation to look at new threats to society?
You seem to be equating the laws we have today, some of which have been brought in to address the very real issues we've seen where complete twats went on a rampage because they were too stupid to think logically with the vile regime of nazi Germany?
You can't think it think it's fine that such people who incite others, be they foreign state actors or just those hell bent on hatred and division to commit arson, smash up property and attack the police shouldn't be held to account?
Is that what you really think?
You change your tune like the UK weather, people like you were the ones attacking the jewish community in 1938, thresholds you can hide behind then because it is fashionable at the time but history judges differently, and I thought you had better things to do than post on here.
It's sunny, has been for weeks
Try it, might relax you .. "Yeah yeah the fascist thresholds that's your new name. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. And you are advocating for a foreign court, entirely outside the UK’s democratic control to have the final say over our laws, with no recourse from our Parliament or people. That’s not oversight that’s surrendering sovereignty. Accountability should lie with those we elect. I would like to hear your counter to this" the ECHR isn't a court, so no sovereignty has been surrendered to foreigners. stop it with your scarmongering garbage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to ask yourselves,,, who are you, are you free with your one and only life or are you controlled by scribblings on parchment made up by other human beings who in reality do not have best intentions for you only for themselves. Being governed by a parliamentary democracy is by consent, they can't make be governed "not freeman" if you do not register your interest to participate in parliamentary democracy. Interesting opinion but I would guess any competent lawyer would strongly advise against it as a defence or mitigation in relation to having been charged with a crime as per the laws set by parliament(s) in our history.. A person of course can argue they don't consent to the process, they might even refuse to participate in a case but sure as shit they'll still get convicted in absentia if necessary.. Then what, blanket protest and smear their faeces on the cell wall? Convicted of what? in a case of what? Not abide to a group of just over 600 peoples set of rules that they change to suit themselves. It is of course a scenario but if that's too difficult for you to expand upon your other post to which I took to a logical potential situation then that's fine .. I need context, convicted of what in a case of what, criminal, fruadulancy, none crime hate incident an x post, myself 2 of those deserve a custodial sentence if found guilty the other 2 should not garner any attention from a free society but they are pushed with prejudice and implemented by ,,,,,. You provided the context, whether you think such and such is bollocks (I may agree with you but it's irrelevant).. An offence that breaches the threshold for a custodial sentence as per the law..? What then for this imaginary 'freeman' Is there free women as an aside do you know? Your opinion please. Does an x post deserve a custodial sentence in a free society.? If it breaches the threshold..
If this is your response to what I asked which you seem intent upon deflection and banal whataboutery than asking I'll leave you to it..
Better things to do on a nice day without playing fuckwit tennis..
Lol threshold you talk utter bollocks and sound like the fascists of 1939 germany, the new threshold is you can now attack the jewish community because they said so and it's wrong but hey ho the government said you could or turn a blind eye.
I'm not suggesting anyone can attack any community, why is it utter bollocks that any government bring in legislation to look at new threats to society?
You seem to be equating the laws we have today, some of which have been brought in to address the very real issues we've seen where complete twats went on a rampage because they were too stupid to think logically with the vile regime of nazi Germany?
You can't think it think it's fine that such people who incite others, be they foreign state actors or just those hell bent on hatred and division to commit arson, smash up property and attack the police shouldn't be held to account?
Is that what you really think?
You change your tune like the UK weather, people like you were the ones attacking the jewish community in 1938, thresholds you can hide behind then because it is fashionable at the time but history judges differently, and I thought you had better things to do than post on here.
It's sunny, has been for weeks
Try it, might relax you ..
Yeah yeah the fascist thresholds that's your new name."One thing I've never been is one of those fucking scumbags.. Have stood against them though.. Try again.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. And you are advocating for a foreign court, entirely outside the UK’s democratic control to have the final say over our laws, with no recourse from our Parliament or people. That’s not oversight that’s surrendering sovereignty. Accountability should lie with those we elect. I would like to hear your counter to this the ECHR isn't a court, so no sovereignty has been surrendered to foreigners. stop it with your scarmongering garbage "Oh dear.... It looks like you have conflated the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Court of Human Rights, "which is a court", and the that interprets and enforces the ECHR. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR, and by remaining in the Convention, we are under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This court is not a UK court and its rulings bind our legal system. UK sovereignty is controlled, because foreign judges can override decisions made by our elected Parliament and our courts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would like to hear your counter to this As others have mentioned, which you seemed to have conveniently forgotten, we are international signatories to a whole host of worldwide conventions. . The UK has ratified at least 91 ILO conventions since 2024. We've ratified over 200 conventions under the Council of Europe. Then there are the others like the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Oh and WTO core agreements (GATT) and TRIPS. . Not meeting our obligations under various conventions will indeed have consequences and some of a legal perspective from higher authorities than our own Parliament. Because we signed up for those conventions and must abide by them. Clearly foreign courts can and do act above national laws from time to time. (Arrest Warrants for example) . I don't feel I need to counter anything. But it is amusing you asking me to try. " You haven’t actually addressed the point I raised.. Yes, we’re signatories to international conventions, but my question was about democratic accountability. Whether you believe it’s right that a foreign court should have final say over UK law, above our Parliament and courts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. And you are advocating for a foreign court, entirely outside the UK’s democratic control to have the final say over our laws, with no recourse from our Parliament or people. That’s not oversight that’s surrendering sovereignty. Accountability should lie with those we elect. I would like to hear your counter to this the ECHR isn't a court, so no sovereignty has been surrendered to foreigners. stop it with your scarmongering garbage
Oh dear....
It looks like you have conflated the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Court of Human Rights, "which is a court", and the that interprets and enforces the ECHR.
The UK is a signatory to the ECHR, and by remaining in the Convention, we are under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
This court is not a UK court and its rulings bind our legal system.
UK sovereignty is controlled, because foreign judges can override decisions made by our elected Parliament and our courts.
"oh dear, it seems while spewing your garbage you have deliberately conflated ECJ and ECHR, the later of which this country devised .... and oh dear you think that something this country devised is the work of foreigners | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we left the ECHR, we would be able to ignore all of the precedents set by ECHR rulings, and our courts could decide for themselves what our laws meant. And that is terrifying in both its breadth and scope. Where would oversight and accountability arise from then ? Who could step in and say to the government, "No. That's not right. We are going to legally challenge you to prevent that thing from happening." . The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that ? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that's what floats your boat. No one should act with impunity, even for those who dare to win. They need the greatest oversight of all. And you are advocating for a foreign court, entirely outside the UK’s democratic control to have the final say over our laws, with no recourse from our Parliament or people. That’s not oversight that’s surrendering sovereignty. Accountability should lie with those we elect. I would like to hear your counter to this the ECHR isn't a court, so no sovereignty has been surrendered to foreigners. stop it with your scarmongering garbage
Oh dear....
It looks like you have conflated the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Court of Human Rights, "which is a court", and the that interprets and enforces the ECHR.
The UK is a signatory to the ECHR, and by remaining in the Convention, we are under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
This court is not a UK court and its rulings bind our legal system.
UK sovereignty is controlled, because foreign judges can override decisions made by our elected Parliament and our courts.
oh dear, it seems while spewing your garbage you have deliberately conflated ECJ and ECHR, the later of which this country devised .... and oh dear you think that something this country devised is the work of foreigners "I really don't understand why you need to be so rude, repeatedly. What I’ve written is accurate and has nothing to do with the ECJ, which is exactly why I didn't mention it. If you need an example of fact, look up the Hirst v UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"calling for government to be above the law is part of what defines fascism Not seen a post calling for that. that is exactly what you have been calling for so far on this thread." lol, you clearly haven’t read my posts properly. I’ve not actually called for anything. I made a couple of suggestions and started they were flawed. And my suggestions were the exact opposite of fascism. How is the country being run by democratically elected MPs rather than unelected, unaccountable quangos and judges fascist? The think Google is your friend here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the ECHR isn't a court, so no sovereignty has been surrendered to foreigners. stop it with your scarmongering garbage" "Oh dear.... It looks like you have conflated the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Court of Human Rights, "which is a court", and the that interprets and enforces the ECHR." "oh dear, it seems while spewing your garbage you have deliberately conflated ECJ and ECHR, the later of which this country devised ..." "I really don't understand why you need to be so rude, repeatedly. What I’ve written is accurate and has nothing to do with the ECJ, which is exactly why I didn't mention it." If it helps to dispel any doubt, here's the website of the European Court of Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You haven’t actually addressed the point I raised.. Yes, we’re signatories to international conventions, but my question was about democratic accountability. Whether you believe it’s right that a foreign court should have final say over UK law, above our Parliament and courts." I fail to see why you are so interested in whether I feel it is right a foreign court should have final say over UK law. I'm a nobody. The fact of the matter is that some do, for reasons given previously (eg, the UK has signed up to abide by various treaties and obligations). That's not a case of right or not. It's a case of meeting our obligations and agreements. Let's say you and I sign a treaty. You agree to X. Whether it is "right" or not is irrelevant. We both signed and committed to the treaty. Asking a 3rd party if it's right or not is going to solicit a wide range of responses, most if not all which are going to be noise. If they are a subject-matter expert or were involved in the treaty negotiation and review, then perhaps they'd have more clout. If it helps, I am never "Spirit of the Law" in legal frameworks at least. Always "Letter of the Law". Terms matter above all else, for terms can be judged objectively. Feelings and intentions cannot because they are subjective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the ECHR isn't a court, so no sovereignty has been surrendered to foreigners. stop it with your scarmongering garbage Oh dear.... It looks like you have conflated the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Court of Human Rights, "which is a court", and the that interprets and enforces the ECHR. oh dear, it seems while spewing your garbage you have deliberately conflated ECJ and ECHR, the later of which this country devised ... I really don't understand why you need to be so rude, repeatedly. What I’ve written is accurate and has nothing to do with the ECJ, which is exactly why I didn't mention it. If it helps to dispel any doubt, here's the website of the European Court of Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/" Good call | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You haven’t actually addressed the point I raised.. Yes, we’re signatories to international conventions, but my question was about democratic accountability. Whether you believe it’s right that a foreign court should have final say over UK law, above our Parliament and courts. I fail to see why you are so interested in whether I feel it is right a foreign court should have final say over UK law. I'm a nobody. The fact of the matter is that some do, for reasons given previously (eg, the UK has signed up to abide by various treaties and obligations). That's not a case of right or not. It's a case of meeting our obligations and agreements. Let's say you and I sign a treaty. You agree to X. Whether it is "right" or not is irrelevant. We both signed and committed to the treaty. Asking a 3rd party if it's right or not is going to solicit a wide range of responses, most if not all which are going to be noise. If they are a subject-matter expert or were involved in the treaty negotiation and review, then perhaps they'd have more clout. If it helps, I am never "Spirit of the Law" in legal frameworks at least. Always "Letter of the Law". Terms matter above all else, for terms can be judged objectively. Feelings and intentions cannot because they are subjective. " The reason I asked you specifically is because of what you wrote earlier in the thread: You said: “The first thing all totalitarian regimes do is remove all guardrails which could oppose them. Are people happy with that? Because if they are, then the USA, Russia, China and North Korea are more than willing to have you. Go there and revel in your authoritarianism if that’s what floats your boat.” That’s a strong statement. So I’m asking you how do you get from the UK wanting to control its own legal system and be accountable to its own people, to claiming that leaving the ECHR is a step towards totalitarianism? If I follow your logic, you would want a check on the ECHR, and a check on that check.. Or is it something more simple, leaving the EU becomes more complete? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That’s a strong statement. So I’m asking you how do you get from the UK wanting to control its own legal system and be accountable to its own people, to claiming that leaving the ECHR is a step towards totalitarianism?" How do I get from A to B, is what you are asking ? . Several democracies have transitioned into totalitarian regimes throughout history. . Here are some notable examples. . 1. The Weimar Republic (which was a democratic government) was dismantled after Mr Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. The Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act allowed him to bypass parliamentary procedures. Loss of oversight. . 2. Stalinist Era. There was some participatory governance after the Bolshevik Revolution, but under Stalin it transformed in to a totalitarian regime. I admit I do not know how he achieved that, only that he did. Loss of oversight again. . 3. Greece, with General Ioannis Metaxas in 1936-1941. He suspended the Greek Parliament with royal support and established an authoritarian regime. Loss of oversight again. I suspect the oversight that did exist sided with him. . 4. Hungary. Victor Orbán. Systematically undermined democratic institutions by controlling the media, weakening judicial independence, and altering electoral laws to favour his party. The elements which did have oversight have been greatly weakened. . Other examples exist of course... (Venezuela & Hugo Chávez : He expanded executive powers and curtailed checks and balances). Maduro continued in the same vein, eroding democratic norms and politically repressing some people). . Portugal (Salazar and the Estado Novo). Authoritarian regime which suppressed political opposition and dismantled democratic structures. . The playbook of an authoritarian regime in distinguished with 3 main features. . 1.Consolidation of Power. A small group or single leader maintain power and they bypass checks and balances. This leads to arbitrary decision making. The judiciary and legislature are usually co-opted or rendered ineffective. They are often used to "legitimise" the regime's actions. . 2. Suppression of Opposition. Censorship of the media, imprisoning political opponents, use of violence against demonstrators. Control the narrative and prevent challenges to authority. . 3. Undermine Democratic Principles. Some regimes may hold electrinos or maintain a façade of democratic institutions. But elections are rarely free or fair. Voter fraud, suppression, disqualification of opposing candidates. . One tool to prevent the above is oversight, preferably with an international element to it which other countries can bring to bear if necessary. This is achieved with countries being signatories to various treaties and subjecting themselves to supranational courts (whose powers transcend national boundaries or governments). . This is why I believe it is vital to have oversight beyond national borders. It may not stop any of the above, but it's certainly going to shine a light on authoritarian practices and attempts to seize power and draw international condemnation. In a world that appears to be growing more darker by the day, the need to shine a spotlight in the murky shadow has never been more needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is why I believe it is vital to have oversight beyond national borders. It may not stop any of the above, but it's certainly going to shine a light on authoritarian practices and attempts to seize power and draw international condemnation. In a world that appears to be growing more darker by the day, the need to shine a spotlight in the murky shadow has never been more needed." Do you honestly think that if we leave the ECHR, there will be no one to "shine a spotlight" on nasty Nige and his fascist forces? Will all of the human rights activists just say "oh well, the UK isn't signed up the human rights convention, so we'd better keep quiet"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you honestly think that if we leave the ECHR, there will be no one to "shine a spotlight" on nasty Nige and his fascist forces? Will all of the human rights activists just say "oh well, the UK isn't signed up the human rights convention, so we'd better keep quiet"?" That's an interesting take, because whilst we've been talking about supranational oversight at a government/parliamentary level, you've gone straight in with an ECHR and NF "deathmatch". How curious. Are you an authoritarian? . I don't care who the oversight oversees, left, right, middle or whoever. Only that there is oversight and ultimately not from within our own country, where it can easily be subverted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you honestly think that if we leave the ECHR, there will be no one to "shine a spotlight" on nasty Nige and his fascist forces? Will all of the human rights activists just say "oh well, the UK isn't signed up the human rights convention, so we'd better keep quiet"?" "That's an interesting take, because whilst we've been talking about supranational oversight at a government/parliamentary level, you've gone straight in with an ECHR and NF "deathmatch". How curious. Are you an authoritarian?" Not an authoritarian. I was just answering in the spirit of the more recent posts, which have been about Farage and the ECHR. Reading back on your posts, I accept that you've said nothing about Farage. "I don't care who the oversight oversees, left, right, middle or whoever. Only that there is oversight and ultimately not from within our own country, where it can easily be subverted." But my point stands. Do you think that non-UK human rights groups will stop looking at the UK if we leave the ECHR? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't care who the oversight oversees, left, right, middle or whoever. Only that there is oversight and ultimately not from within our own country, where it can easily be subverted." So you're anti-sovereignity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't care who the oversight oversees, left, right, middle or whoever. Only that there is oversight and ultimately not from within our own country, where it can easily be subverted. So you're anti-sovereignity." I think any government that needs to be brought to account by an international oversight is not going to abide by that oversights opinions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think any government that needs to be brought to account by an international oversight is not going to abide by that oversights opinions. " You are quite correct. The UK did indeed not abide with EU law in a landmark case called Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CJEU (1990). . The CJEU held that UK law could be suspended if it conflicted with EU law. UK courts were required to disapply an Act of Parliament that breached EU rights. . Other notable cases are Hirst v. the United Kingdom (No. 2) [2005] ECHR 681 . R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26 . Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (CJEU, 2011) . Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 56 . Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 . There are many more, but in essence it's not uncommon or unprecedented for courts with international oversight to rule on other countries, and ultimately that's a good thing. Countries should not be able to what the flip they like if they are treaty members and fail to abide by their obligations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't care who the oversight oversees, left, right, middle or whoever. Only that there is oversight and ultimately not from within our own country, where it can easily be subverted. So you're anti-sovereignty." I'm anti-corruption. The source is irrelevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But my point stands. Do you think that non-UK human rights groups will stop looking at the UK if we leave the ECHR?" Of course not, and if anything the scrutiny will be more intense. If I was in charge of non-UK human rights group, I'd be fostering even stronger ties with UK human rights groups, if only to say "Are you folks ok ? What's going on ?". As a citizen of the UK, of which I assume you are, I'd want to hear your voice and make sure you are safe and being protected and supported by your government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But my point stands. Do you think that non-UK human rights groups will stop looking at the UK if we leave the ECHR?" "Of course not, and if anything the scrutiny will be more intense. If I was in charge of non-UK human rights group, I'd be fostering even stronger ties with UK human rights groups, if only to say "Are you folks ok ? What's going on ?". As a citizen of the UK, of which I assume you are, I'd want to hear your voice and make sure you are safe and being protected and supported by your government." But earlier on you were saying that the ECHR wouldn't stop the UK abusing human rights, but you thought we should remain members as it would "shine a light on authoritarian practices". If the ECHR can't stop the UK sliding into totalitarianism, and there is already plenty of light being shone on human rights, why do we need to still remain members? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
