Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
I prefer a model whereby certain things are verboten regardless of what parliament wants.
The best model for that is cultural, so think twice before destroying cultural norms.
Just been for a half-term trip into Manchester with smallest daughter. Next tram home not due for ten minutes so we thought we'd pop into the city gallery and get the one after. Why is the muaeums sector in England so desperate to squeeze 'having a nice time' out of the experience? The disapproval of its own collection drips from every notice. "These paintings attempt to show British 'morals'. The British empire was a terrible institution which expropriated goods, exploited colonised peoples and led to global inequality and the climate emergency." I mean, this is entirely arguable, though I'd argue there's considerably more to it than that. But you get this subtext ("you should be ashamed!") in pretty much every public sector funded museum in the country. I can't imagine any non-Anglophone country berates its people in this way. Can museums not focus a bit more on making a visit enjoyable and thereby attracting visitors?
Can't say I've experienced anything as simplistically moralistic as that and I've been to the Dockland's museum which in essence traces 300 years of port development as part of the slave trade. It just explains it in context. Or we can just ignore it, campaign against road names being explained, not talk about the massive hidden manor house now owned by a Russian oligarch originally built by a slave trader to Queen Elizabeth, but that would be ignorant (in the true sense).
How about going to the Imperial War Museum for their new exhibition? https://www.iwm.org.uk/events/unsilenced-sexual-violence-in-conflict apparently through the ages right to the modern day including the use of sexual violence by the Russians in Ukraine "we recommend allowing for several sessions of therapy following your visit"
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
And if he is do you think he will care what the ECHR thinks?
No because he will have taken us out like Putin and Lukashenko. I'd expect better of the Conservative Party.
Because, of course, there were no human rights abuses in Russia before they left the ECHR. No sir.
It did it's job of ensuring an uneasy post war peace.
The right wing argument in the UK is Brexit sovereignty redux. " No one is gonna tell us what to do!"
Your first para: no it didn't.
Have I missed a German invasion of Belgium?
It's true that there was largely peace in Europe post 1945, with the exception of the Yugoslav wars and the Ukrainian war. But I don't think the ECHR had anything to do with that at all. Largely, I'd say, it was NATO,and possibly also nukes. I'd be interested to hear how you think the EHCR kept the peace.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
I prefer a model whereby certain things are verboten regardless of what parliament wants.
The best model for that is cultural, so think twice before destroying cultural norms.
Ok but that's unreliable. I'm talking about international bodies with teeth. We're a way off this vision, I know, but it's disappointing to see things moving away rather than towards it. A blip, I hope (with little confidence).
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Howling at the moon.
Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
Comments
Or we can just ignore it, campaign against road names being explained, not talk about the massive hidden manor house now owned by a Russian oligarch originally built by a slave trader to Queen Elizabeth, but that would be ignorant (in the true sense).
How about going to the Imperial War Museum for their new exhibition?
https://www.iwm.org.uk/events/unsilenced-sexual-violence-in-conflict
apparently through the ages right to the modern day including the use of sexual violence by the Russians in Ukraine
"we recommend allowing for several sessions of therapy following your visit"
Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.
Therefore, I think, not eligible to be an MP.
NEW THREAD