Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The fight for Nadine’s seat hots up even though there’s no vacancy – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING: Man has opinion.

    Trying to organise a vote at conference

    The reality is there are lots of Tory members who want to keep BoZo.

    That you are denying reality is not my problem
    Even in his resignation BoJo is turning his opponents’ brains into blancmange.
    And the idea that he might be succeeded by a libertarian, rather than a centrist WEF plant, is scaring them even more. They thought that Johnson’s ideals would die with Johnson.
    “Centrist WEF plant”.
    I see you are heading toward full QAnon.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280

    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    This is the problem with so many of the 'doves'. They aren't spelling out what they think a deal would look like.

    The war will end as almost all other wars do -- in a negotiated settlement in which both sides have to make concessions.
    Yep, either with Ukraine or Russia negotiating from positions of strength, or much more likely both sides exhausted by attrition, and suffering from the weariness of allies for Ukraine and the general population for Russia. Of course to even suggest this puts you on some people’s watch lists.
    Absolutely fine to suggest it. There had been an expected counter offensive in Kherson in August which hasn't materialised. Now the Russian position is vulnerable on the west bank of the river because the bridges have been hit. So they may be suffocated more slowly.

    If the Ukrainians are putting hundreds of thousands of people under arms and Putin is resorting to sticking prisoners on the front line with virtually no training I can only see one winner - provided that is that the west actually wants Russia to lose. The military aid from the biggest European countries has been pitiful.
  • Scott_xP said:

    No they are not trying to overturn it

    They really are.

    Cruddas wants BoZo to unresign.

    They want a vote at conference to make/keep BoZo leader.
    There are some in labour who want Corbyn back

    Johnson and Corbyn are over no matter what Cruddas and others may wish for
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    Scott_xP said:

    No they are not trying to overturn it

    They really are.

    Cruddas wants BoZo to unresign.

    They want a vote at conference to make/keep BoZo leader.
    So what? There were lots of people who wanted Blair to stay too. Thatcher was famously asked to "cancel the resignation".

    You have lost the plot because BoJo triggers some completely irrational part of your brain.
    I hadn't heard that story about Thatcher before. I guess you're referring to backbench nonentity Michael Cartiss's boisterous calling out in the Commons? "Cancel the resignation! You can wipe the floor with these people!" Cartiss doesn't seem to be famous for much else.

    Peter Cruddas is an oligarch and what he's doing is at a different level from that.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175

    You have lost the plot

    I am not the one arguing to keep BoZo

    Why are you mad at me for pointing it out?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    Peter Cruddas is basically attempting a 1/6 but wearing a suit and a bit politer. Or judging by his recent twitter profile pic change (Now reverted) "Boris & St George" ... without the suit.
    He's as deluded as Steve Bray.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,800
    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    I'm more and more convinced we need to go back to coal for electricity generation in a serious way. It's about half the price of gas, available from lots of countries and it is easy to store unlike wind or solar. I know the government is stopping the shutdown of a few plants, but we really should do more.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    “Rishi Sunak refuses to commit to voting for Truss’s emergency budget if she wins Tory leadership”

    That’s a bit crazy threat in the middle of a campaign isn’t it? How does he and his supporters now rally round once the party has chosen the leader and direction to follow?

    What Rishi also said today, very much part of this, all the “freeze” proposals - the one from Labour, the one from Energy companies, require too much borrowing and he wouldn’t touch them.

    Correct me where wrong, There is a clear difference in financial direction between these two rival camps, High Tax borrow hating Sunak, High Borrow tax hating Truss - there doesn’t seem the be any compromise or middle ground longer it’s gone in does there, each camp thinks the others plan unsupportable in cabinet and perhaps commons?


    Sunak's backers better pray he doesn't cross the floor before quitting politics before taking his latest job in the globalist firmament, and they better thank their lucky stars the tories don't have primaries.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Dynamo said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No they are not trying to overturn it

    They really are.

    Cruddas wants BoZo to unresign.

    They want a vote at conference to make/keep BoZo leader.
    So what? There were lots of people who wanted Blair to stay too. Thatcher was famously asked to "cancel the resignation".

    You have lost the plot because BoJo triggers some completely irrational part of your brain.
    I hadn't heard that story about Thatcher before. I guess you're referring to backbench nonentity Michael Cartiss's boisterous calling out in the Commons? "Cancel the resignation! You can wipe the floor with these people!" Cartiss doesn't seem to be famous for much else.

    Peter Cruddas is an oligarch and what he's doing is at a different level from that.
    There were quite a few associations that were going to have a stiff chat with their MPs about how they should vote in the next ballot when Thatchers resignation was announced.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853

    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    This is the problem with so many of the 'doves'. They aren't spelling out what they think a deal would look like.

    The war will end as almost all other wars do -- in a negotiated settlement in which both sides have to make concessions.
    Yep, either with Ukraine or Russia negotiating from positions of strength, or much more likely both sides exhausted by attrition, and suffering from the weariness of allies for Ukraine and the general population for Russia. Of course to even suggest this puts you on some people’s watch lists.
    Absolutely fine to suggest it. There had been an expected counter offensive in Kherson in August which hasn't materialised. Now the Russian position is vulnerable on the west bank of the river because the bridges have been hit. So they may be suffocated more slowly.

    If the Ukrainians are putting hundreds of thousands of people under arms and Putin is resorting to sticking prisoners on the front line with virtually no training I can only see one winner - provided that is that the west actually wants Russia to lose. The military aid from the biggest European countries has been pitiful.
    The truth is despite all the propaganda from both sides, neither side is close to a significant city capture with the most likely "next up" targets either UK Gain Kherson or RU gain Nikolaev. They're both bogged down each capturing the occasional village - neither side going anywhere fast. I think the casualties on both sides are astronomical too.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    No they are not trying to overturn it

    They really are.

    Cruddas wants BoZo to unresign.

    They want a vote at conference to make/keep BoZo leader.
    There are some in labour who want Corbyn back

    Johnson and Corbyn are over no matter what Cruddas and others may wish for
    The difference is a majority of Conservative Party members want Johnson back, and one thing they are correct about is any return would lead to a resurgence of Conservative Party support amongst voters. His sins are cleansed!

    Only those who desire permanent Labour Party opposition want Corbyn back.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    Fishing said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    I'm more and more convinced we need to go back to coal for electricity generation in a serious way. It's about half the price of gas, available from lots of countries and it is easy to store unlike wind or solar. I know the government is stopping the shutdown of a few plants, but we really should do more.
    Problem is they did decomission quite a few plants rather than mothball them. The one I used to drive past on the A1M for example.

    They have used coal earlier in the year albeit in small quantities.

    We do need to pursue renewables where we can, and nuclear, but we will need hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future. Whatever the likes of XR think.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    edited August 2022
    Fishing said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    I'm more and more convinced we need to go back to coal for electricity generation in a serious way. It's about half the price of gas, available from lots of countries and it is easy to store unlike wind or solar. I know the government is stopping the shutdown of a few plants, but we really should do more.
    We blew up all our old coal plants and mines I think though ><. And that's before you get into the wails of "NOoooooooo" from well off commentators who would " regard it as a real step backward in the fight against climate change"...
    I'd reopen what can be reopened, overbuilding wind is another option we should seriously look at. And accelerating nuclear. And tidal. And more solar.
    DO IT ALL.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    Scott_xP said:

    You have lost the plot

    I am not the one arguing to keep BoZo

    Why are you mad at me for pointing it out?
    I'm not arguing to keep Boris either. Why does it enrage you to the point of apoplexy that there are people who are? You seem to see him as the embodiment of political evil, and view his continuing presence as a sign that the devil is at work.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING: Man has opinion.

    Trying to organise a vote at conference

    The reality is there are lots of Tory members who want to keep BoZo.

    That you are denying reality is not my problem
    Even in his resignation BoJo is turning his opponents’ brains into blancmange.
    And the idea that he might be succeeded by a libertarian, rather than a centrist WEF plant, is scaring them even more. They thought that Johnson’s ideals would die with Johnson.
    “Centrist WEF plant”.
    I see you are heading toward full QAnon.

    It's not qomplete until the 'MSM' gets a mention.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    Fishing said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    I'm more and more convinced we need to go back to coal for electricity generation in a serious way. It's about half the price of gas, available from lots of countries and it is easy to store unlike wind or solar. I know the government is stopping the shutdown of a few plants, but we really should do more.
    Waste to energy! Most mothballed coal fired power stations like Aberthaw can burn waste wood. In the grand scheme of the future of the planet it's a bad idea. But needs must.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 2022

    Brian Whitmore
    @PowerVertical
    ·
    Aug 23
    A Ukrainian victory against Russia will be a paradigm-shifting event for European security - similar to what occurred in 1989. In fact, it could be something of a 1989 redux. 1/6

    Brian Whitmore
    @PowerVertical
    ·
    Aug 23
    Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own sovereignty and independence, but also for the second liberation of Eastern Europe, finishing the process that began in 1989. 5/6

    https://twitter.com/PowerVertical/status/1561909180239433728

    "Victory", "liberation", "process". Utter duckspeak. Those tweeters should take their heads of 1989. If there was going to be a colour revolution in Russia (revolution of the birch twigs maybe?), it would have happened in 2018. And it didn't even come CLOSE in 2018. US and British embassies were permitted to "influence civil society" and "monitor political events" pretty much as they wanted, and they were wasting their time. I mention this because at the time I thought a CR might happen, and I learnt a lot from it not happening and subsequent reflection as to why. It's not going to happen in the near future either.

    Dominic Cummings is with me at least: "Truss’s definition of the end as ‘removing Russia from Crimea’ is a ticket to nuclear war".
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    Scott_xP said:

    You have lost the plot

    I am not the one arguing to keep BoZo

    Why are you mad at me for pointing it out?
    I'm not arguing to keep Boris either. Why does it enrage you to the point of apoplexy that there are people who are? You seem to see him as the embodiment of political evil, and view his continuing presence as a sign that the devil is at work.
    It did strike me that all Johnson's reprieves meant he had sold his soul to the Devil. Pincher was a price too high even for Satan.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    All applications for resource extraction & power generation need to be straight stamped "Yes" and fasttracked. Sod the NIMBYs and swampies. The Just Stop Oil lot and Mrs Moggins who doesn't want her view spoilt by a solar farm 3 miles from her house are two sides of the same coin.
    I agree. Pandering to NIMBY's is just as bad and that also goes for housing not just energy.

    The Tories really missed a trick by rowing back on wind farms onland earlier in the year. They are part of the mix. They also need to pursue tidal power as well. One thing that is guaranteed in renewables are the tides.

    The Lib Dems shamefully exploited local NIMBYISM when they won Chesham and Amersham. Good short term politics but poor for the long term.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    Pulpstar said:

    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    This is the problem with so many of the 'doves'. They aren't spelling out what they think a deal would look like.

    The war will end as almost all other wars do -- in a negotiated settlement in which both sides have to make concessions.
    Yep, either with Ukraine or Russia negotiating from positions of strength, or much more likely both sides exhausted by attrition, and suffering from the weariness of allies for Ukraine and the general population for Russia. Of course to even suggest this puts you on some people’s watch lists.
    Absolutely fine to suggest it. There had been an expected counter offensive in Kherson in August which hasn't materialised. Now the Russian position is vulnerable on the west bank of the river because the bridges have been hit. So they may be suffocated more slowly.

    If the Ukrainians are putting hundreds of thousands of people under arms and Putin is resorting to sticking prisoners on the front line with virtually no training I can only see one winner - provided that is that the west actually wants Russia to lose. The military aid from the biggest European countries has been pitiful.
    The truth is despite all the propaganda from both sides, neither side is close to a significant city capture with the most likely "next up" targets either UK Gain Kherson or RU gain Nikolaev. They're both bogged down each capturing the occasional village - neither side going anywhere fast. I think the casualties on both sides are astronomical too.
    Relax, those august western powers spent twenty years and a trillion dollars in Afghanistan turning the world's best fighters into the world's worst army. They know what they're doing.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    edited August 2022
    Given where solar panel prices are, and where electricity prices are going, I wonder whether we are close to the time where companies will install panels for free if you will agree to sell them all the electricity general at a certain price.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901

    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    This is the problem with so many of the 'doves'. They aren't spelling out what they think a deal would look like.

    The war will end as almost all other wars do -- in a negotiated settlement in which both sides have to make concessions.
    Yep, either with Ukraine or Russia negotiating from positions of strength, or much more likely both sides exhausted by attrition, and suffering from the weariness of allies for Ukraine and the general population for Russia. Of course to even suggest this puts you on some people’s watch lists.
    Absolutely fine to suggest it. There had been an expected counter offensive in Kherson in August which hasn't materialised. Now the Russian position is vulnerable on the west bank of the river because the bridges have been hit. So they may be suffocated more slowly.

    If the Ukrainians are putting hundreds of thousands of people under arms and Putin is resorting to sticking prisoners on the front line with virtually no training I can only see one winner - provided that is that the west actually wants Russia to lose. The military aid from the biggest European countries has been pitiful.
    You have mistaken Earth for Heaven.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    The Bin Men strike is escalating in Scotland.

    Jim Callaghan fans please explain.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    I would worry that the UK pulling out of the court might have long term unintended consequences in other countries. But… plenty of civilised nations around the world manage just fine without being a member. And being a member doesn’t seem to guarantee what I’d consider to be a baseline standard. So yeah, might as well leave it.

  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    “Rishi Sunak refuses to commit to voting for Truss’s emergency budget if she wins Tory leadership”

    That’s a bit crazy threat in the middle of a campaign isn’t it? How does he and his supporters now rally round once the party has chosen the leader and direction to follow?

    What Rishi also said today, very much part of this, all the “freeze” proposals - the one from Labour, the one from Energy companies, require too much borrowing and he wouldn’t touch them.

    Correct me where wrong, There is a clear difference in financial direction between these two rival camps, High Tax borrow hating Sunak, High Borrow tax hating Truss - there doesn’t seem the be any compromise or middle ground longer it’s gone in does there, each camp thinks the others plan unsupportable in cabinet and perhaps commons?

    I think Sunak knows any job he is offered by Truss isn't one he would want so is very happy to ensure there are enough dividing lines that he can turn any cabinet seat offer down.

    Were it not for the forthcoming energy disaster the argument would be a valid one , reduce tax and borrow money or borrow less money and keep taxes as they currently are. The reality is however that events have often taken what would usually be a rational discussion and the only real question is how much more needs to borrowed and who will receive it...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    This is the problem with so many of the 'doves'. They aren't spelling out what they think a deal would look like.

    The war will end as almost all other wars do -- in a negotiated settlement in which both sides have to make concessions.
    Yep, either with Ukraine or Russia negotiating from positions of strength, or much more likely both sides exhausted by attrition, and suffering from the weariness of allies for Ukraine and the general population for Russia. Of course to even suggest this puts you on some people’s watch lists.
    Absolutely fine to suggest it. There had been an expected counter offensive in Kherson in August which hasn't materialised. Now the Russian position is vulnerable on the west bank of the river because the bridges have been hit. So they may be suffocated more slowly.

    If the Ukrainians are putting hundreds of thousands of people under arms and Putin is resorting to sticking prisoners on the front line with virtually no training I can only see one winner - provided that is that the west actually wants Russia to lose. The military aid from the biggest European countries has been pitiful.
    The Ukrainian offensive seems to be a campaign of hitting logistics, rather than human waves running to the sound of gunfire.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799
    edited August 2022

    The Bin Men strike is escalating in Scotland.

    Jim Callaghan fans please explain.

    And despite this the SNP hand delivered a 4 page glossy document today explaining why I should be voting yes in the apparently forthcoming referendum. Have they no consideration at all? Where are we supposed to put it when our bins are not being emptied?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    Pulpstar said:

    Jeesh Sanna Marin seemingly having to apologise for having fun.

    This is a bizarre story, on a lot of levels.
    She seems to keep getting in to these political controversies by living an ordinary life.
    I don't think it reflects badly on her at all though, and it is consistent with the image that she is trying to project, both domestically and internationally.
    You do wonder who has really benefitted from this leak.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    All applications for resource extraction & power generation need to be straight stamped "Yes" and fasttracked. Sod the NIMBYs and swampies. The Just Stop Oil lot and Mrs Moggins who doesn't want her view spoilt by a solar farm 3 miles from her house are two sides of the same coin.
    I agree. Pandering to NIMBY's is just as bad and that also goes for housing not just energy.

    The Tories really missed a trick by rowing back on wind farms onland earlier in the year. They are part of the mix. They also need to pursue tidal power as well. One thing that is guaranteed in renewables are the tides.

    The Lib Dems shamefully exploited local NIMBYISM when they won Chesham and Amersham. Good short term politics but poor for the long term.
    There is no especial need for onshore wind. The newest, largest and most efficient turbines are pretty much impossible to install on land, as well.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 2022
    I heard a guy complaining about strikes saying "they" (the unions) "always" do things like this when the country is in a bad way, as it is right now because of the "cost of living crisis".

    That is an insane belch of self-justifying idiocy.
    Might as well call them foreign-paid saboteurs fresh from VK. Oh wait.

    People striking against falling real incomes, whether they're on the railways or working the bins, ARE addressing what opinion-channellers call the "COLC". What else are they doing? Being bolshie because they're bigoted against Waitrose-shopping wealth-inheritors who can't stand their own children and send them off to boarding school?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jeesh Sanna Marin seemingly having to apologise for having fun.

    This is a bizarre story, on a lot of levels.
    She seems to keep getting in to these political controversies by living an ordinary life.
    I don't think it reflects badly on her at all though, and it is consistent with the image that she is trying to project, both domestically and internationally.
    You do wonder who has really benefitted from this leak.

    So it’s implied by some here, these stories are a mere proxy for some other dastardly scandal that hasn’t yet been reported
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,752

    The Bin Men strike is escalating in Scotland.

    Jim Callaghan fans please explain.

    Rubbish? What rubbish?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 851
    edited August 2022
    Re. Ukraine endgame.

    Unless Putin is somehow internally removed (not impossible) he will need to save face. Formal annexation of Crimea, assurances on not joining Nato would be the minimum bar, I guess - with return of all Ukrainian citizens and complete withdrawal from eastern Ukraine, alongside some sort of reparations (even if in kind, e.g. discounted energy) on the Ukraine side.

    EDIT: also some kind of internationally observed sovereignty referendum in some areas may be necessary too.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Taz said:

    Fishing said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    I'm more and more convinced we need to go back to coal for electricity generation in a serious way. It's about half the price of gas, available from lots of countries and it is easy to store unlike wind or solar. I know the government is stopping the shutdown of a few plants, but we really should do more.
    Problem is they did decomission quite a few plants rather than mothball them. The one I used to drive past on the A1M for example.

    They have used coal earlier in the year albeit in small quantities.

    We do need to pursue renewables where we can, and nuclear, but we will need hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future. Whatever the likes of XR think.
    At this point, I’d be grateful for any sort of strategic thinking on energy from the Government. All we’ve had so far is a ban on solar panels in fields, as if that was the central question in our energy policy.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Do Europeans have a superior need for rights to non-Europeans?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    The clue is in the name.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    edited August 2022

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    All applications for resource extraction & power generation need to be straight stamped "Yes" and fasttracked. Sod the NIMBYs and swampies. The Just Stop Oil lot and Mrs Moggins who doesn't want her view spoilt by a solar farm 3 miles from her house are two sides of the same coin.
    I agree. Pandering to NIMBY's is just as bad and that also goes for housing not just energy.

    The Tories really missed a trick by rowing back on wind farms onland earlier in the year. They are part of the mix. They also need to pursue tidal power as well. One thing that is guaranteed in renewables are the tides.

    The Lib Dems shamefully exploited local NIMBYISM when they won Chesham and Amersham. Good short term politics but poor for the long term.
    There is no especial need for onshore wind. The newest, largest and most efficient turbines are pretty much impossible to install on land, as well.
    It's the fastest form of energy generation that can be banged up.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on
    Human Rights'?
    Why should geography be a limiting factor on membership? Totally outdated way of thinking about the world

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    edited August 2022
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    I don't think an axe and executioner's block feature in even Priti's wildest fantasies.

    Actually..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    I don't think an axe and executioners block feature in even Priti's wildest fantasies.

    Actually..
    I wouldn't be so sure. After coming up with Rwanda for a refugee assessment centre almost anything is possible.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 851

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    TBH I understand and probably would in some circs advocate capital punishment - on an emotional level at least, when you look at cases like Brady etc.; horrible crimes of cruelty and sadism, where society is in no way served by keeping the unrepentant perpetrator alive and protected at significant cost.

    But the rational obstacles are insuperable - firstly, it is irreversable, and people continue to be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. One is too many, when you're talking about ending life as the consequence. More broadly, the idea that the state can, under certain circumstances, execute its citizens is a troubling proposition.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    moonshine said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    I would worry that the UK pulling out of the court might have long term unintended consequences in other countries. But… plenty of civilised nations around the world manage just fine without being a member. And being a member doesn’t seem to guarantee what I’d consider to be a baseline standard. So yeah, might as well leave it.

    There are many civilised nations around the world who are not in the ECHR, but then only members of the Council of Europe are eligible. Every member of the Council of Europe is signed up to the ECHR, except one: Russia (who are in the process of being expelled). Almost every European nation is in the Council of Europe, except Belarus and Vatican City.

    So, who do we identify with more? Russia/Belarus/Vatican City on the one hand or everyone else in Europe?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799
    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Doesn't seem to stop Australia being in the European Song Contest.
  • darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Do Europeans have a superior need for rights to non-Europeans?
    Yes. The EHCR was imposed on Continental Europe as a response to the second world war, to guard against a revival of Nazism and encroaching Communism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#History

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    (And Vatican City.)

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    The resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine will be sorely tested in the coming years. No doubt there is some expectation management here but all the same it is grim. Meanwhile cranks blockade services on the M25 demanding no new oil or gas. idiots doing the Russians bidding.

    "National Grid warns of three-year energy crisis as emergency effort launched to cut factory power use"

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-grid-warns-of-three-year-energy-crisis-as-emergency-effort-launched-to-cut-factory-power-use/ar-AA10ZKcj?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=98c5b8f7d27a40beb502a8f982a969d6

    All applications for resource extraction & power generation need to be straight stamped "Yes" and fasttracked. Sod the NIMBYs and swampies. The Just Stop Oil lot and Mrs Moggins who doesn't want her view spoilt by a solar farm 3 miles from her house are two sides of the same coin.
    I agree. Pandering to NIMBY's is just as bad and that also goes for housing not just energy.

    The Tories really missed a trick by rowing back on wind farms onland earlier in the year. They are part of the mix. They also need to pursue tidal power as well. One thing that is guaranteed in renewables are the tides.

    The Lib Dems shamefully exploited local NIMBYISM when they won Chesham and Amersham. Good short term politics but poor for the long term.
    There is no especial need for onshore wind. The newest, largest and most efficient turbines are pretty much impossible to install on land, as well.
    It's the fastest form of energy generation that can be banged up.
    In the timescale of the current energy crunch, the relative differences in install times between onshore and offshore are irrelevant.

    You are not going to be able to install any new schemes, on or off shore by the end of the year.

    If nothing else, all the deliveries for turbines are bought years in advance, and there is little scope for expansion short of building new factories. You can’t rock up at Ted’s Turbine Dealership and just buy a few wind turbines.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Doesn't seem to stop Australia being in the European Song Contest.
    They're only allowed to sing European songs though. Nothing about kangaroos...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Very bloody easy for it to happen

    Referendum

    Let's take the 350m a week we spend on keeping lifers alive and give it to Our NHS

    Willoftherpeople innit
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    Ghedebrav said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    TBH I understand and probably would in some circs advocate capital punishment - on an emotional level at least, when you look at cases like Brady etc.; horrible crimes of cruelty and sadism, where society is in no way served by keeping the unrepentant perpetrator alive and protected at significant cost.

    But the rational obstacles are insuperable - firstly, it is irreversable, and people continue to be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. One is too many, when you're talking about ending life as the consequence. More broadly, the idea that the state can, under certain circumstances, execute its citizens is a troubling proposition.
    The Birmingham 6, the Cardiff 5, the Guildford 4 and Judith Ward would all have been customers of Mr Pierpoint without a doubt. And what of Stefan Kishko?

    When coppers decide fitting up "villains" is a bad idea...
  • darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    The European Court of Human Rights is the court of the Council of Europe. Non-European countries are not eligible to be members, thus no Japan etc. However, I note that the US, Canada and Japan (but not Aus, NZ or India) all have official observer status in the Council of Europe, so they are as involved as they are allowed to be while being on the wrong continent.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    Cyclefree said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    It is you being parochial I'm afraid.

    The UN Declaration of Human Rights mirrors much of what is in the ECHR. Many of the same people worked on the drafting of both. The countries outside Europe you mention subscribe to it. They are not planning to disown it. And yet you think Britain leaving a Convention it largely wrote, promoted and was one of the first to sign is somehow unimportant.
    The ECHR was written in an age where movement of people across continents was rare, today it isn't and while I wouldn't advocate leaving, it needs reforming to reflect the modern era. Much as the US Constitution needs to be updated so does the ECHR. European countries have simply become a soft touch on illegal immigration because the fundamental principles of the ECHR never envisioned 700 middle income Africans getting on a plane to Italy and overstaying their visas.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jeesh Sanna Marin seemingly having to apologise for having fun.

    This is a bizarre story, on a lot of levels.
    She seems to keep getting in to these political controversies by living an ordinary life.
    I don't think it reflects badly on her at all though, and it is consistent with the image that she is trying to project, both domestically and internationally.
    You do wonder who has really benefitted from this leak.

    Well. Russian narrative obviously. Silly, wee lassie can't be trusted and should be replaced by an older bloke with a strongman fetish.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Doesn't seem to stop Australia being in the European Song Contest.
    Fear not, moves to expel them are underway after they gave our brave would-have-won-but-for-them-pesky-Ukes entry nul point.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
    There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.

    In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    edited August 2022

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Do Europeans have a superior need for rights to non-Europeans?
    Europeans, possibly a few centuries late, decided that is was appropriate to let people on other continents do their own thing?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,524
    Dynamo said:

    Brian Whitmore
    @PowerVertical
    ·
    Aug 23
    A Ukrainian victory against Russia will be a paradigm-shifting event for European security - similar to what occurred in 1989. In fact, it could be something of a 1989 redux. 1/6

    Brian Whitmore
    @PowerVertical
    ·
    Aug 23
    Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own sovereignty and independence, but also for the second liberation of Eastern Europe, finishing the process that began in 1989. 5/6

    https://twitter.com/PowerVertical/status/1561909180239433728

    "Victory", "liberation", "process". Utter duckspeak. Those tweeters should take their heads of 1989. If there was going to be a colour revolution in Russia (revolution of the birch twigs maybe?), it would have happened in 2018. And it didn't even come CLOSE in 2018. US and British embassies were permitted to "influence civil society" and "monitor political events" pretty much as they wanted, and they were wasting their time. I mention this because at the time I thought a CR might happen, and I learnt a lot from it not happening and subsequent reflection as to why. It's not going to happen in the near future either.

    Dominic Cummings is with me at least: "Truss’s definition of the end as ‘removing Russia from Crimea’ is a ticket to nuclear war".
    Ah the troll within can not help itself, can it? Cummings spent several years in Russia and seems to have learned nothing. Patience, please, patience.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    Nowhere else in the world seems to have formed a supranational court to keep in line with the UN Convention on Human rights. They trust their own institutions such as the Supreme Court of Japan to interpret said convention.

    Imagine if the judges in the E(Court)HR were of the same bent as US Scotus justices and ruled that abortions couldn't take place because they infringe the No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. para was violated.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    edited August 2022

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    You see when cases tug at the heartstrings it seems like a good idea at the time, like after the Birmingham pub bombings, the Guildford bombings, the M42 bombings, the murder of Lynette White and the murder of Lesley Moleseed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    I see the armchair Henry Kissingers are out in force this afternoon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799
    Selebian said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Doesn't seem to stop Australia being in the European Song Contest.
    They're only allowed to sing European songs though. Nothing about kangaroos...
    Well, after Rolf Harris I think that is only right.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    Cyclefree said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    It is you being parochial I'm afraid.

    The UN Declaration of Human Rights mirrors much of what is in the ECHR. Many of the same people worked on the drafting of both. The countries outside Europe you mention subscribe to it. They are not planning to disown it. And yet
    you think Britain leaving a Convention it largely wrote, promoted and was one of the first to sign is somehow unimportant.
    Perhaps I am mistaken but I did not think there was a UN Court that is legally superior to the US Congress and Supreme Court.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    I wonder whether the criminal fraternity there will give up the killer. The police were all but begging them to on last night's news.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Jeesh Sanna Marin seemingly having to apologise for having fun.

    Her parties definitely look more fun than any of Boris' efforts.
    Seems that there are quite a few people looking for a problem and not finding it.

    36 year old drinks alcohol and dances. Oh no, the heavens are falling!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
    There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.

    In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
    So let's never return to them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Eh? Plenty of evidence that the right want that sort of thing.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/you-gov-poll-conservative-voters-death-penalty-160804166.html
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10284347/Tory-MP-backs-death-penalty-little-Arthurs-killers.html
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    It is you being parochial I'm afraid.

    The UN Declaration of Human Rights mirrors much of what is in the ECHR. Many of the same people worked on the drafting of both. The countries outside Europe you mention subscribe to it. They are not planning to disown it. And yet you think Britain leaving a Convention it largely wrote, promoted and was one of the first to sign is somehow unimportant.
    The ECHR was written in an age where movement of people across continents was rare, today it isn't and while I wouldn't advocate leaving, it needs reforming to reflect the modern era. Much as the US Constitution needs to be updated so does the ECHR. European countries have simply become a soft touch on illegal immigration because the fundamental principles of the ECHR never envisioned 700 middle income Africans getting on a plane to Italy and overstaying their visas.
    It's the 1951 Refugee Convention which needs updating not the ECHR.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Do Europeans have a superior need for rights to non-Europeans?
    Europeans, possibly a few centuries late, decided that is was appropriate to let people on other continents do their own thing?
    When was this? France sees itself as a global state to this day.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 787
    edited August 2022

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Doesn't seem to stop Australia being in the European Song Contest.
    Fear not, moves to expel them are underway after they gave our brave would-have-won-but-for-them-pesky-Ukes entry nul point.
    They didn't. The Australian public gave it 7 points. Their jury just didn't give us anything. Croatia were the only nation not to give us a single point although the Balkans in general were a bit of a dry spot for points.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,923

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    Putin would be delighted to find Britain joining him
    and Belarus as the only 3 European countries outside the ECHR.
    I take this as being quite a parochial view to be honest. None of the other 5-eye countries are members, nor Japan, nor India, or dozens of other free nations. But Hungary is. And Turkey. And Armenia and Albania.
    Maybe because it is the 'European Convention on Human Rights'?
    Do Europeans have a superior need for rights to non-Europeans?
    Europeans, possibly a few centuries late, decided that is was appropriate to let people on other continents do their own thing?
    When was this? France sees itself as a global state to this day.
    Perfidious Albion?
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere else in the world seems to have formed a supranational court to keep in line with the UN Convention on Human rights. They trust their own institutions such as the Supreme Court of Japan to interpret said convention.

    Imagine if the judges in the E(Court)HR were of the same bent as US Scotus justices and ruled that abortions couldn't take place because they infringe the No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. para was violated.

    The thing with the SCOTUS is the American voter has some sort of input into it via the Presidential right to appoint judges.

    Its pretty haphazard, as recent history shows, but its surely better than being subject to the judgements of persons who have no stake in our country or its institutions whatever.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
    There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.

    In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
    So let's never return to them.
    I don't think that we will, at least not in the foreseeable.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere else in the world seems to have formed a supranational court to keep in line with the UN Convention on Human rights. They trust their own institutions such as the Supreme Court of Japan to interpret said convention.

    Imagine if the judges in the E(Court)HR were of the same bent as US Scotus justices and ruled that abortions couldn't take place because they infringe the No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. para was violated.

    Nowhere else in the world? What of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights? The Caribbean Court of Justice? The Inter-American Court of Human Rights? Or indeed the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
    There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.

    In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
    So let's never return to them.
    And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    DavidL said:

    The Bin Men strike is escalating in Scotland.

    Jim Callaghan fans please explain.

    And despite this the SNP hand delivered a 4 page glossy document today explaining why I should be voting yes in the apparently forthcoming referendum. Have they no consideration at all? Where are we supposed to put it when our bins are not being emptied?
    You're greeting as if you are making stovies. Oh, the emotion.
  • Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    I wonder whether the criminal fraternity there will give up the killer. The police were all but begging them to on last night's news.
    Since the police already have the guy who was being shot at, the shooter can't be far behind. Would it be a defence in law that he killed Olivia by mistake while trying to murder someone else?
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    MISTY said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere else in the world seems to have formed a supranational court to keep in line with the UN Convention on Human rights. They trust their own institutions such as the Supreme Court of Japan to interpret said convention.

    Imagine if the judges in the E(Court)HR were of the same bent as US Scotus justices and ruled that abortions couldn't take place because they infringe the No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. para was violated.

    The thing with the SCOTUS is the American voter has some sort of input into it via the Presidential right to appoint judges.

    Its pretty haphazard, as recent history shows, but its surely better than being subject to the judgements of persons who have no stake in our country or its institutions whatever.
    Yet - I see it the other way - sometimes you need an external third party saying - that is wrong...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    I wonder whether the criminal fraternity there will give up the killer. The police were all but begging them to on last night's news.
    Since the police already have the guy who was being shot at, the shooter can't be far behind. Would it be a defence in law that he killed Olivia by mistake while trying to murder someone else?
    Nope. Transferred malice.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    I wonder whether the criminal fraternity there will give up the killer. The police were all but begging them to on last night's news.
    Since the police already have the guy who was being shot at, the shooter can't be far behind. Would it be a defence in law that he killed Olivia by mistake while trying to murder someone else?
    No. What with murdering anyone being illegal!

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,986

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    I wonder whether the criminal fraternity there will give up the killer. The police were all but begging them to on last night's news.
    Since the police already have the guy who was being shot at, the shooter can't be far behind. Would it be a defence in law that he killed Olivia by mistake while trying to murder someone else?
    I think it's murder. That the girl wasn't the target doesn't really matter.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Eh? Plenty of evidence that the right want that sort of thing.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/you-gov-poll-conservative-voters-death-penalty-160804166.html
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10284347/Tory-MP-backs-death-penalty-little-Arthurs-killers.html
    I was referring to politicians in general, not one Tory MP. We are not heading back to executing convicted criminals. We just are not. The Conservatives have been in power for 12 years - no sign of the Bring Back the Noose law yet.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    I wonder whether the criminal fraternity there will give up the killer. The police were all but begging them to on last night's news.
    The name of the suspect in the Rhys Jones murder was painted onto walls locally.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 851

    Ghedebrav said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    TBH I understand and probably would in some circs advocate capital punishment - on an emotional level at least, when you look at cases like Brady etc.; horrible crimes of cruelty and sadism, where society is in no way served by keeping the unrepentant perpetrator alive and protected at significant cost.

    But the rational obstacles are insuperable - firstly, it is irreversable, and people continue to be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. One is too many, when you're talking about ending life as the consequence. More broadly, the idea that the state can, under certain circumstances, execute its citizens is a troubling proposition.
    The Birmingham 6, the Cardiff 5, the Guildford 4 and Judith Ward would all have been customers of Mr Pierpoint without a doubt. And what of Stefan Kishko?

    When coppers decide fitting up "villains" is a bad idea...
    Yeah - that's a third vital point.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere else in the world seems to have formed a supranational court to keep in line with the UN Convention on Human rights. They trust their own institutions such as the Supreme Court of Japan to interpret said convention.

    Imagine if the judges in the E(Court)HR were of the same bent as US Scotus justices and ruled that abortions couldn't take place because they infringe the No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. para was violated.

    Nowhere else in the world? What of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights? The Caribbean Court of Justice? The Inter-American Court of Human Rights? Or indeed the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea?
    Laws of Oléron go back almost a millennium, supranational maritime law for Europe (the northern bits anyway).
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    edited August 2022

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
    To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
    There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.

    In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long
    as they had a really interesting trust problem to
    address at 11.00am. Different days.
    So let's never return to them.

    And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
    I don’t think social trends in this country would support it. I was however quite struck that in Asia, the same Millennials who would gladly stick their necks above the trench on issues such as LGBT and free speech and would not look out of place in any European or American campus, were generally fierce defenders of the death penalty.

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Eh? Plenty of evidence that the right want that sort of thing.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/you-gov-poll-conservative-voters-death-penalty-160804166.html
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10284347/Tory-MP-backs-death-penalty-little-Arthurs-killers.html
    I was referring to politicians in general, not one Tory MP. We are not heading back to executing convicted criminals. We just are not. The Conservatives have been in power for 12 years - no sign of the Bring Back the Noose law yet.
    The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has voiced support for the death penalty in recent years. https://www.indy100.com/news/priti-patel-resurfaced-clip-death-penalty-ian-hislop-question-time-video-home-secretary-9020006
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
    Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to.
    It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch.
    Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
    I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
    The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
    Also not going to happen.
    Backs to the wall, no EU, no ECHR, why not give capital sentences for nonces a whirl?
    No one is seriously proposing that. No matter how despicable. The murderer of Sarah Everard would be the first in line, surely? Will never be released, so why feed him for 30 years?

    And yet there is no clamour (among politicians at least) for that to happen.

    Its a classic straw man to beat people on the right.
    Based on overheard conversations this morning, whoever pulled the trigger to kill nine year old Olivia in Liverpool would not be missed.
    I wonder whether the criminal fraternity there will give up the killer. The police were all but begging them to on last night's news.
    Since the police already have the guy who was being shot at, the shooter can't be far behind. Would it be a defence in law that he killed Olivia by mistake while trying to murder someone else?
    No.
This discussion has been closed.