Thats my problem with this whole thing Jambalaya. We apparently won't tolerate Universal internationalist approach to human rights, but we're more than happy for our domestic policies to be written in American corporate boardrooms. I suspect the motivations of European judges are slightly more benign, and less self-interested than those of a rapacious US corporate.
If we're going to be outraged at interference in our affairs, then lets at least be consistent
Well said Northwind. The knee-jerk reaction of most of the popular press to anything to do with 'Europe' has reached the stage where there's a real danger of the UK throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The ECHR issue is pure politicking from the Tories attempting to out-UKIP UKIP. The majority of the people whose votes they are attempting to capture with this are unlikely to be aware of what the court's role is, the volume of its work which affects the UK's courts (and ultimately our legislation) and what the UK's rejection of the convention might mean in real life.
Making the assumption that consensus from elsewhere cannot possibly be permitted to inform our way of life (ninfan's use of the prisoner voting question illustrating this belief) betrays a colonial sense of superiority, something that simply is misguided in the modern world.
The original topic is very sinister indeed. How much do you trust the current government?
How much do you trust the current government?
This is the basic, fundamental problem. We shouldn't have to trust any government.
We shouldn't have to trust any government.
Precisely.
Happy to, unlike Binners I thoroughly support the concept of reading and digesting opinions of people with knowledge and experience who might disagree on an issue, because thats how you further your own knowledge
On balance, I would say this approach, is not going too well for you so far 😉
The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.
remind us of the percentage in Europe again? its a europenan court with only one nation not signing.
do you think that the correct jurisdiction for that decision is with our own parliament, or somewhere else?
Bloody foreigners eh
The critical point is there is a check on the power of a parliament to curtail the rights of it citizens. Fairly obviously an external check will have greater autonomy than an internal one where the govt appoint the decision makers- would you like me to list the abusers of this process?. I am happy the decision is made by people unaffected by the electoral pressure as history shows, time and again, the majority are often happy to mistreat a minority be it prisoners sunni/Shia. Catholic/Protestant or jews /palestinians [ just for jam that one].
That Express story !!!
The court ruled that Theresa May cannot deport a 29 year old man who has lived with his family in the UK since he was 4 without giving him a hearing at an immigration tribunal. WTF is wrong with that . The court did not order it was against his human rights to be deported because he was illegitimate . it did not order that he should not be deported it just ordered that he be given a chance to argue his case not be whisked off at the stroke of May's pen.
This is a clear example of the deliberately whipped up little Englander hysteria that is being used to drive an anti HRA agenda based on ignorance and deliberate misinformation.
IMHO it is a travesty he is being treated differently just because his father was not married to his mother
He grew up here and has , effectively, lived here all his life.
His case should be heard and I believe his rights have been violated.
If he's been here legally since he was 4 he could have applied for citizenship and hence a passport. Then he has a right to stay (although I do have a view that says for serious offenses if you have another passport your more recently issued UK one should be resinded). As he didn't he should not have a right to stay. He should have no right to stay after commiting a serious crime.
If you have committed a serious crime you have no right to enter the US or to remain there is you are not a citizen. Singapore has a rolling 5 "permanent" residency and if you are on an employment visa if you do something they don't like you have to leave at 2 weeks notice. What is being proposed here is much more flexible.
Ken Clarke - one of the last remaining members of the Tory party who doesn't seem to be completely hatstand, has just come out and said it was unfathomable that we would want to quit the ECHR, when it provides legal protection against governments interfering in peoples lives, which is supposedly what the Tory party is all for.
If you have committed a serious crime you have no right to enter the US or to remain there is you are not a citizen
I am not sure it is a shining beacon of human rights personally- Guantanomo and its prisons/death penalty/guns issues for example so I am not sure why you keep citing it . Furthermore we are discussing Europe and a European court/treaty so it makes more sense to compare it with them than the USA or Singapore or, I assume, anywhere you have visited/worked.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/human-rights-laws-to-be-replaced-by-gut-instinct-2014100391320 ]The Mash nails it again[/url]
JY I keep citing it as its a democratic country of 350m people, and yes I have direct experience of visiting and working there hence I use it as an example, not unreasonable. Despite the acknowledged shortfalls (as noted by yourself) there is still a very long queue of people eager to live and work there so they must be doing something right. All EU member states have to accept the ECHR so how can I make a point of differentiation ? I could quote Switzerland, I'd be pretty sure he Swiss wouldn't hesitate to deport serious criminals - I can check.
I would be very open to some examples of where the ECHR has done something positive for someone in the UK, so far all we have here is scaremonger and philosophical differences.
All EU member states have to accept the ECHR so how can I make a point of differentiation ?
Fair point. I withdraw the objection
Still not a country I aspire to anymore than Russia is - I suspect what CMD is suggesting is nearer Putin than the US
jambalaya FFS the Human Rights Act Did not say he had a right to stay the act said he had a right to present his arguments to the proper tribunal and have them make a decision . All the Human Rights Act did was stop our dishonest twisted home secretary deporting him with the flick of a pen and no thought.
See the other Jamaican case linked to the "gay murder" in that one even Cat Flap May agreed if he was Gay it would be wrong to deport him, so far from being a human rights act scandal, it was a simple factual question is he really gay or is he just pretending to be gay in order to avoid being deported.
The Human Rights act and the Convention are utterly valuable and an asset to the countries justice system the people who oppose them either have sinister motives see May ( if you say things I don't like then you are a criminal) and Grayling( when I act illegally it is just a technicality if any one else does bang them up) or wilfully ignorant see Daily Mail.
good things from the HRA
1 stopped the extradition of Gary Mcinnon
2 allows BA staff to wear crosses
3 protects press freedom
4 made it legal for unmarried and gay couples to adopt
5 justice for rape victims
6 protects our soldiers in combat
7 stops elderly being kicked out of care homes
8 rights for disabled people
9 treatment for combat troops with PTSD
10 justice for the mentally ill.
....add not quite infinitum ..
Now you put it like that, its easy to see why Dave wants to get rid of it. Just imagine how much easier life could be? You abolish everything else, and then everyone is allowed to have the rights that you think they deserve on any given day.
The refusal to recognise of the ECHR would prove to be nirvana for any authoritarian politician. And as Blair proved, and despite railing against him at the time, Dave has continued to prove... once they get into power, they all become authoritarians. The ECHR provides them with lines they can't cross. Can you imagine where we'd be if Blair had been given free range to do as he chose? We'd be living in a police state FFS!
I would be very open to some examples of where the ECHR has done something positive for someone in the UK, so far all we have here is scaremonger and philosophical differences.
[url= https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/press-releases/government-issues-landmark-apology-over-christopher-alder%E2%80%99s-death-custody ]Here's an example[/url] - the ECHR did something positive for the family of this man who died in police custody.
Just had a quick peek at this thread and spotted this little beauty :
jambalaya - MemberHardly anyone reads the papers anymore......
😆
Thats my problem with this whole thing Jambalaya. We apparently won't tolerate Universal internationalist approach to human rights, but we're more than happy for our domestic policies to be written in American corporate boardrooms. I suspect the motivations of European judges are slightly more benign, and less self-interested than those of a rapacious US corporate.
Best post in this thread.
Hardly anyone reads the papers anymore......
I wish. They just read these kinds of papers
[img] 
?oh=8d00499be40fe98f0bacdc5e0baa4c9e&oe=5484CF13&__gda__=1420917804_e6840e987e5c0d4e87ff635c64957c5d[/img]
The UK in 20 years...
