Human Rights

Article 22

We in the UK have no say in the elections of judges which is done by the EU parliament from a list of candidates presented.
the list of candidates can be rigged by the EU commission eg who would you vote for from this list

Lord Denning MR
Micheal Heath
Judy Scheindlin

you see instantly you get a divide
those who want a female judge have only  candidate
Lord Denning would top many lists
Micheal Heath would be my vote because I have had dealings with him and he saw straight through the obfuscation and general muddying of the waters by the other party. Quote during delivery of his judgement in my case "Mrs A, I find an incredible witness, her answers were at best evasive,her dress and demeanour in this court, including chewing gum whilst giving evidence was not appropriate" She sat there with a big silly smirk on her face. he then turned to me "Mr A on the other hand presents as a very credible witness, he answered the questions of the court openly, without recourse to notes, and in the face of outbursts from the other party. He was prepared to look me straight in the eye whilst delivering his evidence, and did not react when the other party was not in the courts opinion being entirely truthful"

I went from dejection to elation in the few minutes he took to say that

Article 8
is being used in the UK to stop the deportation of criminals, and by used I mean high court judges quote it "he has the right to family life"
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the

law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the

country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection

of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms

of others.

IIRC this is in cases being taken as 
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

exercise of this right

ie ignoring all the provisos

IMHO those that have committed egregious offences IMHO including the Rotherham/Bradford grooming gangs, Murder etc should be removed from the UK if they were not British citizens at the time of the offence.
I have to add I do however fundamentally disagree with removing from the UK anyone who came her aged under say 10 and commits an offence at lets say 35 years of age.

ARTICLE 22
Election of judges
The judges shall be elected by the Parliamentary Assembly with respect to each High Contracting Party by a majority of votes cast from a list of three candidates nominated by the High Contracting Party

Woah up... Let's go back a step.
You DO know that neither the convention nor the court are absolutely anything at all to do with the EU, right...?
The Council of Europe has 46 member countries, every single widely-recognised country in geographical Europe except Russia (kicked out last year over Ukraine), Kazakhstan and Belarus (dictatorships with horrible rights records) and the Vatican (theocracy).
www.coe.int/en/web/portal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe

The "high contracting party" is the country - the UK... Each country has absolute discretion in the three candidates they nominate for their one judge, with the provisos that they should all be qualified and credible (so no padding a list with idiots to push the decision in one direction), and it should not be a single-sex list.

The "parliamentary assembly" is not the EU Parliament, but the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The 306 members are parliamentarians from the member country parliaments, in proportion to population. The UK holds 18 of those seats, including one of the 19 vice-presidents (the MP for Henley).
pace.coe.int/pages/committee-30/committee-on-the-election-of-judges-to-the-european-court-of-human-rights
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Assembly_of_the_Council_of_Europe

ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

That sounds perfectly reasonable and acceptable to me.

So your issue is not the wording of the article itself, but your understanding of how UK courts are interpreting that wording?

(BTW, the cases usually waved around by the Mail and Telegraph etc are codswallop - especially the infamous cat. righttoremain.org.uk/cats-lies-and-family-ties-human-rights-and-wrongs-at-tory-party-conference/ )

Yep, that happens frequently.

Any non-UK national sentenced to over 12mo is routinely and automatically deported at release - providing their home country is safe for their return, obvs. The Home Sec has to order any variation to that, which can only be in certain circumstances. A court can also order deportation as part of the sentence for shorter terms.

UK nationals (even dual nationals) cannot be deported under international law, because the UK is their home country. But a dual national can be stripped of their UK nationality, then deported to their other home country. And, obvs, it's illegal to leave anybody stateless.

Except for the minor detail that that flag was the Council of Europe flag nearly four decades before the EU existed...

www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/the-european-flag
"On 25 October 1955 the Parliamentary Assembly unanimously approved the emblem of a circle of gold stars on a blue background. On 9 December 1955 the organisation's Committee of Ministers adopted the star-studded flag, which was launched officially on 13 December of the same year in Paris.

A symbol for the whole of Europe
In 1983 the European Parliament in turn adopted the flag devised by the Council of Europe and recommended that it become the European Communities' emblem. The European Council gave its approval in June 1985. The European Union's institutions began to use the flag in 1986.

The European flag has since become synonymous with a shared political project which unites all Europeans, transcending their diversity."

Not really.

A judicial execution would be in breach of P6 A1 (adopted 1983), but not in breach of A2 (adopted 1950). The later addition renders that final clause redundant, at most.

No, because they're taxes, not contracts.

That article bars debtors' prisons.

There's certainly a few platforms, as well as borrowers, should join the Curries (yes, Liam, I do mean you) - but there's a lot more to hit 'em with than merely not meeting contracts.

and that is perhaps why in many peoples minds the 2 are seen as the same thing

was reading an interesting book a few weeks back and the debtors prisons got mentioned, and how the wealthy could get bring their mistresses in and have parties , whereas the poor struggled

www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100938#:~:text=Prisons%20in%20London%20where%20debtors,and%20Marshalsea%20(closed%201842).

The gutter press?  Any ambiguation has its roots in the EU (EC as it was back then) and their bizarre decision to adopt the symbol to represent solely the EU member states... as well as the whole of Europe! 

I would suggest the meaning of the "circle of stars" symbol is far more likely to be taken to mean the EU these days, as keitha has interpreted it. 

Otherwise, why aren't non-EU vehicle number plates in Europe using it?  Countries like Norway, Albania, Iceland, Switzerland, Moldova, North Macedonia and the UK are constituents of Europe, but only the EU nations are seemingly permitted to display the circle of stars.  The symbol clearly doesn't really mean the whole of Europe, it's just another pig's ear botch job, let's be honest.  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Europe

You're quite right, of course, but the last few posts were discussing it, so I don't take all the blame.  

(Would you like to focus instead on your contribution above about p2p borrowers and debtors' prison?  )