Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
So if we leave the ECHR, we will be in good, democratic company.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR
Problem solved
How then do you use it as a foreign policy tool?
I don’t care about using it as a foreign policy tool. That’s not what human rights are for
This is about the British people having as much sovereignty as the Australian or American people, who certainly would not submit in fundamental ways to a foreign court in a foreign country (and yes I know we kicked the whole thing off)
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.
But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.
And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
Americanese is not English. Though related, admittedly, in the manner of an elephant and a manatee.
Tusk, tusk.
There is a serious point, in that the CMS while focused on American English is actually generally used as a standard grammar guide in a way the OED is for spelling.
So if they agree with me, regardless of what Ishmael thinks I'm happy I'm right.
you are saying "each man" is plural?
Respect. A positively HYUFDian claim.
No, I'm saying if they refer to 'each man' it means there was more than one of them!
You wouldn't use the word 'each' instead of 'the' for just one, would you?
No, but that doesn't prevent it from being singular. Each man had a sword = All the men had swords. That doesn't make "Each man had swords" acceptable.
"A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources"; are you seriously saying that is not good English?
Well, yes. Because apart from anything else it should be a general comment in the plural, so 'journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources.'
OK: this allegation was made by a journalist, who when asked refused to reveal their source.
... reveal the sources used.
Would do, and you avoid the potential singular/plural clash, especially if you have just been talking about a multiple entity.
"PB posters were accused of rabidly attacking innocent tractor enthusiasts. The journalist refused to reveal the sources used."
I am not saying there's not ways round it, if you accept the premise that ways round need to be found, just as if you arbitrarily declared that "is going to" wasn't English I can always substitute "will." Doesn't make "is going to" bad English.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
Genuine question, does Deputy PM formally make you “number 2” in the rankings.
I was never quite sure.
Yes doing it this way. Order of seniority, when written down, is order of appointment in our system.
Edit - but there’s a difference between de jour and de facto seniority. Under that definition for example, a newly appointed Chancellor is most junior. They are no. So her de facto seniority vs, say, the Chancellor is all about the PM saying so.
I think I may spend some of winnings on these shoes, do you think Liz Truss would approve?
I clearly have no taste and I am not sure about Liz, but I would caution against those shoes as I would suggest; a) you might be wise to keep the cash to help you children and their children pay down the £190b energy bail out debt and; b) they remind me of something Showaddywaddy might have worn during the last killer recession.
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.
EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.
EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
He was fired. He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.
And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
Its disturbing in any workplace.
Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
I think he was after martyrdom.
Enoch Burke is a great name.
Anglican, not surprisingly.
He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.
The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality
I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
That's not actually difficult.
Child answers a question.
Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.
I was never quite sure.
According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
Apparently he's been such a knob in his previous roles that there's no junior minister willing to work with him either. So he's got to be his own minister of state too.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.
Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
Well that's my position exactly. And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too. I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person. Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
Truss has not appointed some duffers, but seems to have saved it up to have one big duffer in place. Come on Liz, not even Boris entrusted that buffoon with real responsibility, there's no need to do this.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in countries that have the rule of law.
No, the fact the countries have the rule of law is the guarantor.
Your logic is like religious people saying I believe in the Bible because its the word of God and I believe in God because of the Bible.
The ECHR/Council of Europe should have expelled Russia decades ago. They didn't. Guarantor of nothing.
Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR
Problem solved
But the government presumably want to remove certain bits, or else they'd not be so mad. So which bits?
Not necessarily. It might just be Britain doesn't want foreigners telling us what to do.
The idea of a consortium including Britain at its proper size really upsets some people.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
The idea that Truss has madly forsaken some huge reserve of Thatcherian talent in ignoring Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak is piquant
Sunak is the guy who said “I don’t have any working class friends” and thought it was fine for his billionaire wife to avoid UK tax; Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, but in a wig
Shapps is the guy who wants everyone to have bike numberplates even if they're just cycling down a country lane for 5 minutes.
To be honest I think ebikes are as fast as mopeds and should have plates the same. Deliveroo riders on them are maniacs. Completely manual bikes are OK.
ebikes are not just for Deliveroo anymore, and they hunt in packs.
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.
EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.
EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
He was fired. He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.
And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
Its disturbing in any workplace.
Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
I think he was after martyrdom.
Enoch Burke is a great name.
Anglican, not surprisingly.
He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all.
The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality
He's not been jailed for mispronoun-cing. Read it properly. Contempt of court.
The reason he was asked to stay away from school is because he hounded the headteacher at an anniversary dinner, shouting at her when she suggested they talk about the issue at a more appropriate time.
It's massively inappropriate behaviour and it's no surprise that he should be asked to stay away from the school, nor that they should go to court to enforce it when he refused to comply. Whether the original issue was one of pronouns is irrelevant. It could have been stolen stationery, or any other number of minor acts of misconduct, but it escalated because of his determination to make a protest out of it.
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.
Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
Well that's my position exactly. And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too. I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person. Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
It's a running together of the Welsh pronouns 'fe' (he) and 'hi' (pronounced he and meaning, amusingly, she).
It works better than combining the English ones, or at least I think it does.
And by adding an r or m you could easily replace 'his/hers' and 'him/her.'
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
If it works then what harm is done by it? Mild inconveniencing?
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
If it works then what harm is done by it? Mild inconveniencing?
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.
I was never quite sure.
According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.
In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.
So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).
Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
If it works then what harm is done by it? Mild inconveniencing?
Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR
Problem solved
But the government presumably want to remove certain bits, or else they'd not be so mad. So which bits?
Not necessarily. It might just be Britain doesn't want foreigners telling us what to do.
The idea of a consortium including Britain at its proper size really upsets some people.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
But the ECtHR does nothing to ensure courts are independent. It has failed on its own terms.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
The idea that Truss has madly forsaken some huge reserve of Thatcherian talent in ignoring Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak is piquant
Sunak is the guy who said “I don’t have any working class friends” and thought it was fine for his billionaire wife to avoid UK tax; Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, but in a wig
Shapps is the guy who wants everyone to have bike numberplates even if they're just cycling down a country lane for 5 minutes.
To be honest I think ebikes are as fast as mopeds and should have plates the same. Deliveroo riders on them are maniacs. Completely manual bikes are OK.
ebikes are not just for Deliveroo anymore, and they hunt in packs.
Yes, so licence plates for them would be good. Our local drug dealers seem to favour them.
Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.
I was never quite sure.
According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.
In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.
So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).
Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
It’s a bugger’s muddle. There should be a clear order of a precedence in the event of the PM’s indisposal.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.
I was never quite sure.
According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.
In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.
So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).
Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
It’s a bugger’s muddle. There should be a clear order of a precedence in the event of the PM’s indisposal.
There is - but it's set by the PM rather than the same for every PM.
Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.
I was never quite sure.
According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.
In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.
So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).
Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
Can't really understand the need for ranking at all. In the event of a mass event decapitating government under our system we're not going to go designated survivor and appoint the 17th person in the ranking or something.
Amusingly, the wikipedia list from July shows Rees-Mogg was at the very bottom of the list of Cabinet Ministers in the rankings, below even the minister without portfolio - that, Liz, rather shows the non-importance of the job he was given as a junior minister granted Cabinet status despite not being a secretary of state.
Only non-Cabinet ministers were below him, so don't really count. He was literally the least important member of the Cabinet, officially. That must have bruised his ego.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
I think for Remainers it is a last shred of European rule over the UK that they are desperate to cling onto. Which is probably reason enough to get rid of it. But more importantly, all the arguments in favour of it seem to melt away when analysed, like snow in spring sun
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
What reasoning was required? You are in prison as you have been found guilty of a crime. Until release you may not vote. Tough. Don’t commit crime folks. Pretty simple really.
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
I trust these things to Microsoft Word, its easier.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.
As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
First time that likely not a single white male holds the PM post or any of the 3 great offices of state.
However while I am all for diversity we must not forget that white males tend to be more Conservative than average so not sure not even having one at the top is a great move, Farage will note and Labour of course is led by a white male still
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.
Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
Well that's my position exactly. And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too. I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person. Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
Before the Truss Sunak result -
"Whoever becomes PM will have a massive in-tray. So let's hope they have a big enough table to put it on."
As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?
Corbyn is a fucking idiot.
It is clearly good to have more ethnic minorities and women in Government, the Tories have done a good job on that, as have Labour. One of Corbyn's stupid points was arguing over this kind of thing.
Comments
I was never quite sure.
This is about the British people having as much sovereignty as the Australian or American people, who certainly would not submit in fundamental ways to a foreign court in a foreign country (and yes I know we kicked the whole thing off)
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Otherwise, no.
In fact technically the rankings in terms of order of precedence start with the Lord Chancellor, then the PM, then the Lord President.
Edit - but there’s a difference between de jour and de facto seniority. Under that definition for example, a newly appointed Chancellor is most junior. They are no. So her de facto seniority vs, say, the Chancellor is all about the PM saying so.
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567213027300188161?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567213027300188161
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_ranking
In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
@SebastianEPayne
·
3m
Chancellor
@KwasiKwarteng
is the new chancellor
And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too.
I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person.
Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
Your logic is like religious people saying I believe in the Bible because its the word of God and I believe in God because of the Bible.
The ECHR/Council of Europe should have expelled Russia decades ago. They didn't. Guarantor of nothing.
The idea of a consortium including Britain at its proper size really upsets some people.
It's massively inappropriate behaviour and it's no surprise that he should be asked to stay away from the school, nor that they should go to court to enforce it when he refused to comply. Whether the original issue was one of pronouns is irrelevant. It could have been stolen stationery, or any other number of minor acts of misconduct, but it escalated because of his determination to make a protest out of it.
It works better than combining the English ones, or at least I think it does.
And by adding an r or m you could easily replace 'his/hers' and 'him/her.'
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
No serious Cabinet includes him, least of all that critical portfolio.
So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).
Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567214692472324100?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
Accountability does.
There should be a clear order of a precedence in the event of the PM’s indisposal.
I'm feeling optimistic about Liz now.
But too dim to be left in charge of owt.
Amusingly, the wikipedia list from July shows Rees-Mogg was at the very bottom of the list of Cabinet Ministers in the rankings, below even the minister without portfolio - that, Liz, rather shows the non-importance of the job he was given as a junior minister granted Cabinet status despite not being a secretary of state.
Only non-Cabinet ministers were below him, so don't really count. He was literally the least important member of the Cabinet, officially. That must have bruised his ego.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?
Pretty simple really.
Superb appointment
However while I am all for diversity we must not forget that white males tend to be more Conservative than average so not sure not even having one at the top is a great move, Farage will note and Labour of course is led by a white male still
That's the same mistake Theresa May made.
"Whoever becomes PM will have a massive in-tray. So let's hope they have a big enough table to put it on."
What's wrong with that?
It is clearly good to have more ethnic minorities and women in Government, the Tories have done a good job on that, as have Labour. One of Corbyn's stupid points was arguing over this kind of thing.