adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978 
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 9, 2024 12:42:57 GMT
Take it up with the courts that interpreted the facts that they had full access to, not me (and definitely not the Express!)... I asked you which bit of the WORDING you find to be the problem, because that's the only thing that will change here between the EConvHR and the putative British Bill of Rights. Should there be... 1. No such second clause giving reasons why threats override rights? 2. No such right at all? 3. A differently worded second clause? Worded in what way? It won't be the wording that's at fault. ... As ever, it will come down to interpretation. Correct. By the courts, in the full light of available evidence. The same courts that will interpret any "British Bill of Rights" that's introduced to replace the convention.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 2,974
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 9, 2024 12:49:55 GMT
Uh huh . 'european' for starters. An artificial construct that falls apart with the lightest touch. You do know it's nothing to do with the EU...? This is a map of the 47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, the body that manages the Convention. Why is the UK "special"?Historically, we have been one of the finest countries on earth. Be proud of it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 9, 2024 12:53:43 GMT
You do know it's nothing to do with the EU...? This is a map of the 47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, the body that manages the Convention. Why is the UK "special"?Historically, we have been one of the finest countries on earth. Be proud of it. Historically, we have been complete and utter b'st'ds to vast swathes of the world. Accept that, too. But it's not what I asked. Why shouldn't our government be held to the same standards we expect of all those near neighbours?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 2,974
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 9, 2024 13:02:41 GMT
Historically, we have been one of the finest countries on earth. Be proud of it. Historically, we have been complete and utter b'st'ds to vast swathes of the world. Accept that, too.But it's not what I asked.Why shouldn't our government be held to the same standards we expect of all those near neighbours? I don't accept it - by the standards of the relevant time over the past handful of centauries we tended to be a nation that others aspired to. Even when we ran an empire as many others did, we were far less cruel to the "natives" than many other empires were. Building roads, railways and running things fairly with courts etc. No, I'm not saying its something to aspire today but by the standards of the time we were pretty good, should be proud of all our achievements and definitely not ashamed to be British. It is what you asked - you said why are we "special" which you put in italics to make it sound "special" as in "special needs".
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1,287
|
Post by james100 on Oct 9, 2024 13:05:09 GMT
How does the continued presence of Binaj in the UK stop you enjoying your family life? Clearly the Immigration Tribunal does not find his presence here a threat to public safety, a threat to crime prevention, or a threat to the rights and freedoms of others... including you... else they would be well within their rights to say that threat trumped the boy's rights. Which is in direct contradiction to the court which sentenced him to 30 months inside - a sentence he hasn't yet served. He very clearly is a proven threat to those rights and freedoms, despite what this tribunal might say. You don't get 30 months inside for organising boy scouts' bring & buy sales. I completely agree with you on this case. It's arguable that ECHR guidelines have been misapplied by UK court, and I'd like to see clearer guidelines to avoid this in future. I hope it's overturned. At the same time, ECHR principles were successfully applied to amend policy in the Netherlands which effectively discriminated against age, wealth (and common sense) - the infamous 'Box 3' notional wealth tax. A guardrail system that reduces the state overreaching control feels overwhelmingly good to me (even though it's often portrayed as a hamstring of governmental autonomy in a negative way). When I read this brief roundup of the ECHR history, rights, application, I was struck by how relevant these protections are under the current government!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 9, 2024 13:13:20 GMT
Historically, we have been complete and utter b'st'ds to vast swathes of the world. Accept that, too.But it's not what I asked.Why shouldn't our government be held to the same standards we expect of all those near neighbours? I don't accept it No, I didn't think you would. I thought you might deny the UK's pivotal role in the triangle slave trade, on which the industrial revolution was built. I thought you might deny a multiplicity of massacres and inhumanities in colonisation, all the way through to the middle of the 20th century. I thought you might deny rank hypocrisy in the UK's interactions with others, all the way through to the present day. You can't be proud of cherry-picked glories whilst refusing to accept the darker side of history. That's just dishonesty.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,582
Likes: 2,615
|
Post by keitha on Oct 9, 2024 15:37:03 GMT
No, I didn't think you would. I thought you might deny the UK's pivotal role in the triangle slave trade, on which the industrial revolution was built. I thought you might deny a multiplicity of massacres and inhumanities in colonisation, all the way through to the middle of the 20th century. I thought you might deny rank hypocrisy in the UK's interactions with others, all the way through to the present day. You can't be proud of cherry-picked glories whilst refusing to accept the darker side of history. That's just dishonesty. Are / were we any worse than the French, Spanish, Americans, Arabs with the white slave trade, etc etc, even now I would argue that in many instances rich Arabs holding the passports of foreign workers put them in a form of slavery. The Peterloo Massacre mans inhumanity to his fellow man knows no bounds
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 9, 2024 15:40:28 GMT
No, I didn't think you would. I thought you might deny the UK's pivotal role in the triangle slave trade, on which the industrial revolution was built. I thought you might deny a multiplicity of massacres and inhumanities in colonisation, all the way through to the middle of the 20th century. I thought you might deny rank hypocrisy in the UK's interactions with others, all the way through to the present day. You can't be proud of cherry-picked glories whilst refusing to accept the darker side of history. That's just dishonesty. Are / were we any worse than the French, Spanish, Americans, Arabs with the white slave trade, etc etc, even now I would argue that in many instances rich Arabs holding the passports of foreign workers put them in a form of slavery. The Peterloo Massacre mans inhumanity to his fellow man knows no bounds I'm not sure it's a great one to be playing top-trumps with, but I'd say the UK had a fairly strong historical hand, absolutely... And, yes, if we're going to be preaching the rights card to the current naughties, it doesn't help if we're seen as shirking back from the same standards, does it?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,582
Likes: 2,615
|
Post by keitha on Oct 9, 2024 16:47:15 GMT
Are / were we any worse than the French, Spanish, Americans, Arabs with the white slave trade, etc etc, even now I would argue that in many instances rich Arabs holding the passports of foreign workers put them in a form of slavery. The Peterloo Massacre mans inhumanity to his fellow man knows no bounds I'm not sure it's a great one to be playing top-trumps with, but I'd say the UK had a fairly strong historical hand, absolutely... And, yes, if we're going to be preaching the rights card to the current naughties, it doesn't help if we're seen as shirking back from the same standards, does it? we need to be amongst the leaders in these things such as Rights, Climate change etc the argument we are only 1%, means we need to be an example
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 9, 2024 16:54:06 GMT
I'm not sure it's a great one to be playing top-trumps with, but I'd say the UK had a fairly strong historical hand, absolutely... And, yes, if we're going to be preaching the rights card to the current naughties, it doesn't help if we're seen as shirking back from the same standards, does it? we need to be amongst the leaders in these things such as Rights, Climate change etc the argument we are only 1%, means we need to be an example We should aspire to be, absolutely. For ourselves internally, as much as for our external relationships. Whether the rest of the world agrees that they'll grant us that recognition is for them, not us. We can influence it, but we have no right to expect it. And the more we're in denial about our past, and the more insular we are, the less likely they are to do that.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,031
Likes: 4,431
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 9, 2024 17:37:19 GMT
If we have a sane, sensible, responsible government that wouldn't even consider breaching any of those basic rights... then you're right, we don't. It only becomes invaluable if we have a government that aren't and would. Heaven forfend. Remember, given it's the same courts that'd be ruling on breaches of a proposed "British bill", then the only reason to leave the existing framework is to weaken those protections. It's eminently possible to introduce additional ones on top. So which of these articles, these rights do you believe is unnecessary? www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENGLike many I have an aversion to any rules or regulations that have an E in the title (apart from EU261, which is top-notch, high quality, common sense regulation).
But I look at things from a different perspective. If we weren't in the ECHR which of the 16 articles do you think would be at risk from not being respected? I don't believe that we need foreigners to tell us how to respect human rights, any more than we need them to tell us how to manage immigration, food standards or the border in Northern Ireland.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 9, 2024 17:57:34 GMT
If we weren't in the ECHR which of the 16 articles do you think would be at risk from not being respected? Given that this whole debate has arisen from the last government's flagship policy having been found to be in breach of the ban on inhumane treatment and torture... ...and that a previous Home-Secretary-then-Prime-Minister raised the same debate after being found to be trying very hard to do exactly the same... Surely it's very simple... If there was no risk of the rights not being respected, having a legally binding rule in place would not be a problem, because it would make exactly zero difference whether it was there or not. Or am I missing some subtle detail here? Except for the minor detail that it's UK courts that have told our government that they aren't doing precisely that.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 11, 2024 19:08:06 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 11, 2024 19:18:20 GMT
Another UK court decision... tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-001078Any objections to the following...? ARTICLE 6
Right to a fair trial
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the
interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 11, 2024 19:33:05 GMT
Another UK court decision... tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-001078Any objections to the following...? ARTICLE 6
Right to a fair trial
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the
interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.Apart from the fact that Albania is a member of the ECHR so all those rules apply to an Albanian court ... so entire family is here illegally & can can return to a country subject to the same rules. Thank god he wasnt accused of crimes in the US which supercedes human rights law in UK courts. I've only skim read it but it seems if you blow somebody's head off, providing you skip the country before you are told about a trial youre good under your human rights
|
|
