Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Next you'll be referring to Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
His family and close friends still call him Al.
He only became Boris after he was sacked for lying at The Times.
A bit more complicated than that, aiui. Boris was Boris at Eton and Oxford, Alexander at the Times, then Boris again at the Telegraph.
Yes, that make sense. His Eton and Oxford friend Darius Guppy used 'Boris' when they discussing having someone beaten up.
Jews to blame klaxon, only it’s the elitist, woke, liberal Jews in this case. The Board of Deputies may sue after being described as such. Will Tommeh need a separate visa for his Türkiye teeth?
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
See also Leonard James Callaghan and James Gordon Brown.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member, so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that of Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
Do you realise how farcically dated your argument is. "Oooh, we will LOOK BAD on the WORLD STAGE." - when these laws are preventing the deportation of child abusers, drug dealers and violent criminals. That sort of 'legitimacy' we can do without seeking.
I never said anything of the sort @Luckyguy1983 . Maybe you should try reading what I said first before going into rant mode. I didn't even put forward a pro or anti argument.
I simply pointed out that someone arguing that Australia and Canada aren't part of the ECHR which is a European organisation is a bonkers argument. Do you disagree with that?
You did say something like it, in your previous post. You decried the 'human rights hinterland' occupied by Russia and Belarus. Are you telling me that was not an attempt to make an argument based on bad optics?
Conservatives will be BANNED from standing as Tory candidates at the next general election unless they sign up to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, Kemi Badenoch tells @CamillaTominey
So it looks like I won't be becoming a Tory MP at the next election.
Doesn't look like a huge pool of candidates at the moment to be honest, must be willing to back leaving the ECHR but also hate Farage and love Kemi and willing to submit to a gruelling campaign with a 90% chance of defeat
surely there must be loads of councillors about to lose their seats who would like to give it a shot?
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Next you'll be referring to Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker.
...Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform...
It's not "taking the fight to Reform". She's fighting her opponent about an issue of their choosing at a time of their choosing, when they can easily outbid any attack she makes. At the very least she's not winning and is not setting the agenda.
That isn't an accurate analysis at all. Kemi asked Lord Wolfson to look at this issue in June, and report back before the conference. That isn't a timetable of Reform's choosing; it's one of her choosing.
Jews to blame klaxon, only it’s the elitist, woke, liberal Jews in this case. The Board of Deputies may sue after being described as such. Will Tommeh need a separate visa for his Türkiye teeth?
Conservatives will be BANNED from standing as Tory candidates at the next general election unless they sign up to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, Kemi Badenoch tells @CamillaTominey
So it looks like I won't be becoming a Tory MP at the next election.
Doesn't look like a huge pool of candidates at the moment to be honest, must be willing to back leaving the ECHR but also hate Farage and love Kemi and willing to submit to a gruelling campaign with a 90% chance of defeat
surely there must be loads of councillors about to lose their seats who would like to give it a shot?
Given the Tories will be lucky to hold half their current seats on current polling they would first need a Tory MP to not stand again and then the seat be in one of the top 60 or so safeish Tory seats
Jews to blame klaxon, only it’s the elitist, woke, liberal Jews in this case. The Board of Deputies may sue after being described as such. Will Tommeh need a separate visa for his Türkiye teeth?
...Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform...
It's not "taking the fight to Reform". She's fighting her opponent about an issue of their choosing at a time of their choosing, when they can easily outbid any attack she makes. At the very least she's not winning and is not setting the agenda.
That isn't an accurate analysis at all. Kemi asked Lord Wolfson to look at this issue in June, and report back before the conference. That isn't a timetable of Reform's choosing; it's one of her choosing.
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education but picking up Greens and LDs on sustainability, whilst the Tories should concentrate on repairing their reputation as being hard-nosed but economically competent. Trying to outdo Reform on immigration is, paradoxically, just losing votes to Reform by continually focusing on immigration. A battle they can never win.
Do you have magic wands which Labour can wave to improve health and education ?
Or for the Conservatives to wave to reduce the oldies demand for more welfarism ?
No magic wand, no. They'd probably have to prioritise and implement policies targeting those, rather than use the magic wands they currently have for immigration that are working so well.
Honestly, what a ridiculous level of debate.
What policies do you want to prioritise and implement and how would that happen and where would the money come from ?
This is a country with financial constraints, with a process state, with vested interests, with competing and often incompatible demands.
There are few quick fixes and there are even fewer quick fixes which do not create other problems.
You mean there are winners and losers depending upon priorities? Levers to pull and alliances to form which will increase one way, whilst taking away from others? What a revolutionary thought.
And it means that its a lot easier to write on niche websites "improve the NHS and education" than it is to actually improve the NHS and education in reality.
Of course it is. Is that the level of your debate? You think if the Greens or Reform or the BNP or the Monster Raving Loony Party were in power, everything would be the same, as policies and priorities make no difference? You agree that both Tories and Labour are at the height of their polling by concentrating on outdoing Reform on immigration? [shakes head; rolls eyes]
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education but picking up Greens and LDs on sustainability, whilst the Tories should concentrate on repairing their reputation as being hard-nosed but economically competent. Trying to outdo Reform on immigration is, paradoxically, just losing votes to Reform by continually focusing on immigration. A battle they can never win.
Do you have magic wands which Labour can wave to improve health and education ?
Or for the Conservatives to wave to reduce the oldies demand for more welfarism ?
No magic wand, no. They'd probably have to prioritise and implement policies targeting those, rather than use the magic wands they currently have for immigration that are working so well.
Honestly, what a ridiculous level of debate.
What policies do you want to prioritise and implement and how would that happen and where would the money come from ?
This is a country with financial constraints, with a process state, with vested interests, with competing and often incompatible demands.
There are few quick fixes and there are even fewer quick fixes which do not create other problems.
You mean there are winners and losers depending upon priorities? Levers to pull and alliances to form which will increase one way, whilst taking away from others? What a revolutionary thought.
And it means that its a lot easier to write on niche websites "improve the NHS and education" than it is to actually improve the NHS and education in reality.
Of course it is. Is that the level of your debate? You think if the Greens or Reform or the BNP or the Monster Raving Loony Party were in power, everything would be the same, as policies and priorities make no difference? You agree that both Tories and Labour are at the height of their polling by concentrating on outdoing Reform on immigration? [shakes head; rolls eyes]
It was YOU who wrote the vacuous drivel of
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education
without given any suggestion how that could be done beyond the further vacuous drivel of
prioritise and implement policies targeting those
Now if you want to improve health and education you have to suggest policies to do so, how such policies can be implemented, what the costs will be etc.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Aren't you on expenses ?
It varies. For random booze in bars and “incidentals”, often not. And fair enough
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
At the same time a whisky at the Willow Tea Rooms in Glasgow costs £6, and that included two shortbread biscuits.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
At the same time a whisky at the Willow Tea Rooms in Glasgow costs £6, and that included two shortbread biscuits.
It's the Spoons beer festival at the moment. £2.15 for any pint of ale in our branch. Pick the strong ones and you can be sozzled for £6.45.
It works better for my arthritis than codeine. That's my excuse anyway.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
At the same time a whisky at the Willow Tea Rooms in Glasgow costs £6, and that included two shortbread biscuits.
Are you supposed to dunk the shortbread in the whisky?
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
At the same time a whisky at the Willow Tea Rooms in Glasgow costs £6, and that included two shortbread biscuits.
Are you supposed to dunk the shortbread in the whisky?
Off topic, but I think some of you will find this success -- by a government! -- a pleasant change from most recent posts.
Like many others in Gjoa Haven-- a hamlet perched high in Canada's Arctic, alone on a large, flat windswept island -- Betty Kogvic never had any interest in plants. . . . Today, though, Ms. Kogvic grows strawberries , carrots, broccoli, bell peppers, microgreens, tomatoes and myriad other fruits and vegetable -- year round.
Thanks to a high tech greenhouse. Which she loves.
I have a friend in Ireland who works for a startup that makes LED that are specifically tuned for the wavelengths of light for photosynthesis: it's therefore an incredibly energy efficient way of growing food. (Especially compared to the old way, beloved of cannabis farms of old, where you had a bunch of high power sodium lamps, and then had a massive heat problem to deal with.)
In fact, there's an awful lot of extremely interesting planttech right now, that should give us enormous confidence that the world (absent the stupidity of politicians*) is not going to run out of food.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Next you'll be referring to Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
At the same time a whisky at the Willow Tea Rooms in Glasgow costs £6, and that included two shortbread biscuits.
It's the Spoons beer festival at the moment. £2.15 for any pint of ale in our branch. Pick the strong ones and you can be sozzled for £6.45.
It works better for my arthritis than codeine. That's my excuse anyway.
Pints from £1.79 in our local one. I had a nice 5%+ IPA the other day , it was £1.89. Nice pint as well.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Compelling to you obviously, but not a reason you are able to articulate it seems. To your point of whataboutery on Australia and Canada. Both countries would undoubtedly be in the Council of Europe if they were in Europe, but they are not, so they are not. Australia all but admitted this somewhat wistfully in its strategic white paper
I have articulated a reason, our laws should be subject to democracy.
The fact that we are in Europe and they are not is utterly irrelevant. We are still humans, just like them. We are talking about human rights, not European rights.
When you claim democracy without any other rationale, are you proposing another of your stupid referendums? I would ask how the previous one went, but you would probably say, just fine! (And as a DEI type person I do welcome very minority views, so there you go)
I accept the UK won't necessarily start torturing people just because it's left a convention banning it. The proposal is pointless. Its pointlessness is the point however. It would cause a lot of damage for no benefit and it's only being proposed because they can't think of anything better to do.
Off topic, but I think some of you will find this success -- by a government! -- a pleasant change from most recent posts.
Like many others in Gjoa Haven-- a hamlet perched high in Canada's Arctic, alone on a large, flat windswept island -- Betty Kogvic never had any interest in plants. . . . Today, though, Ms. Kogvic grows strawberries , carrots, broccoli, bell peppers, microgreens, tomatoes and myriad other fruits and vegetable -- year round.
Thanks to a high tech greenhouse. Which she loves.
I have a friend in Ireland who works for a startup that makes LED that are specifically tuned for the wavelengths of light for photosynthesis: it's therefore an incredibly energy efficient way of growing food. (Especially compared to the old way, beloved of cannabis farms of old, where you had a bunch of high power sodium lamps, and then had a massive heat problem to deal with.)
In fact, there's an awful lot of extremely interesting planttech right now, that should give us enormous confidence that the world (absent the stupidity of politicians*) is not going to run out of food.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Compelling to you obviously, but not a reason you are able to articulate it seems. To your point of whataboutery on Australia and Canada. Both countries would undoubtedly be in the Council of Europe if they were in Europe, but they are not, so they are not. Australia all but admitted this somewhat wistfully in its strategic white paper
I have articulated a reason, our laws should be subject to democracy.
The fact that we are in Europe and they are not is utterly irrelevant. We are still humans, just like them. We are talking about human rights, not European rights.
When you claim democracy without any other rationale, are you proposing another of your stupid referendums? I would ask how the previous one went, but you would probably say, just fine! (And as a DEI type person I do welcome very minority views, so there you go)
I accept the UK won't necessarily start torturing people just because it's left a convention banning it. The proposal is pointless. Its pointlessness is the point however. It would cause a lot of damage for no benefit and it's only being proposed because they can't think of anything better to do.
No, no need for a referendum, if we elect a Parliament that wants to change things they can and should. No Parliament can bind its successors.
If a majority is elected to change the law, the law should change.
Its not pointless to have the people we elect as the ultimate arbiters of setting the law.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
At the same time a whisky at the Willow Tea Rooms in Glasgow costs £6, and that included two shortbread biscuits.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Compelling to you obviously, but not a reason you are able to articulate it seems. To your point of whataboutery on Australia and Canada. Both countries would undoubtedly be in the Council of Europe if they were in Europe, but they are not, so they are not. Australia all but admitted this somewhat wistfully in its strategic white paper
I have articulated a reason, our laws should be subject to democracy.
The fact that we are in Europe and they are not is utterly irrelevant. We are still humans, just like them. We are talking about human rights, not European rights.
When you claim democracy without any other rationale, are you proposing another of your stupid referendums? I would ask how the previous one went, but you would probably say, just fine! (And as a DEI type person I do welcome very minority views, so there you go)
I accept the UK won't necessarily start torturing people just because it's left a convention banning it. The proposal is pointless. Its pointlessness is the point however. It would cause a lot of damage for no benefit and it's only being proposed because they can't think of anything better to do.
No, no need for a referendum, if we elect a Parliament that wants to change things they can and should. No Parliament can bind its successors.
If a majority is elected to change the law, the law should change.
Its not pointless to have the people we elect as the ultimate arbiters of setting the law.
Absolutely a need for a referendum. After the Welsh/Scottish elections next year there isn't going to much to bet on and a vicious battle over the ECHR would provide ample opportunity.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member, so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that of Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
Do you realise how farcically dated your argument is. "Oooh, we will LOOK BAD on the WORLD STAGE." - when these laws are preventing the deportation of child abusers, drug dealers and violent criminals. That sort of 'legitimacy' we can do without seeking.
I never said anything of the sort @Luckyguy1983 . Maybe you should try reading what I said first before going into rant mode. I didn't even put forward a pro or anti argument.
I simply pointed out that someone arguing that Australia and Canada aren't part of the ECHR which is a European organisation is a bonkers argument. Do you disagree with that?
You did say something like it, in your previous post. You decried the 'human rights hinterland' occupied by Russia and Belarus. Are you telling me that was not an attempt to make an argument based on bad optics?
I certainly did not say anything of the sort. Someone else did and then someone responded with Canada/Australia and I pointed out that was ridiculous.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
At the same time a whisky at the Willow Tea Rooms in Glasgow costs £6, and that included two shortbread biscuits.
Eurgh. Whisky & shortbread?
Never tried it? It works well, if the shortbread is good stuff, not too sweet.
Consider sherry and madeira cake - another classic pairing.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Compelling to you obviously, but not a reason you are able to articulate it seems. To your point of whataboutery on Australia and Canada. Both countries would undoubtedly be in the Council of Europe if they were in Europe, but they are not, so they are not. Australia all but admitted this somewhat wistfully in its strategic white paper
I have articulated a reason, our laws should be subject to democracy.
The fact that we are in Europe and they are not is utterly irrelevant. We are still humans, just like them. We are talking about human rights, not European rights.
When you claim democracy without any other rationale, are you proposing another of your stupid referendums? I would ask how the previous one went, but you would probably say, just fine! (And as a DEI type person I do welcome very minority views, so there you go)
I accept the UK won't necessarily start torturing people just because it's left a convention banning it. The proposal is pointless. Its pointlessness is the point however. It would cause a lot of damage for no benefit and it's only being proposed because they can't think of anything better to do.
No, no need for a referendum, if we elect a Parliament that wants to change things they can and should. No Parliament can bind its successors.
If a majority is elected to change the law, the law should change.
Its not pointless to have the people we elect as the ultimate arbiters of setting the law.
So you are in favour of amongst other things Triple Lock and Digital ID, purely because the the first is government policy and the second will be?
Aren't the nutritional values dropping though. You can grow them but ....
Had a nice crop of apples this year and there was a marked difference in taste compared to supermarket ones.
Ummm: apples are grown on trees in orchards.
Now, I grant you that many apple trees start their life inside in a greenhouse or a container, but they're taken outside to orchards before (long before) they actually produce apples. The inside stage for an apple tree is really just about root development.
Off topic, but I think some of you will find this success -- by a government! -- a pleasant change from most recent posts.
Like many others in Gjoa Haven-- a hamlet perched high in Canada's Arctic, alone on a large, flat windswept island -- Betty Kogvic never had any interest in plants. . . . Today, though, Ms. Kogvic grows strawberries , carrots, broccoli, bell peppers, microgreens, tomatoes and myriad other fruits and vegetable -- year round.
Thanks to a high tech greenhouse. Which she loves.
I have a friend in Ireland who works for a startup that makes LED that are specifically tuned for the wavelengths of light for photosynthesis: it's therefore an incredibly energy efficient way of growing food. (Especially compared to the old way, beloved of cannabis farms of old, where you had a bunch of high power sodium lamps, and then had a massive heat problem to deal with.)
In fact, there's an awful lot of extremely interesting planttech right now, that should give us enormous confidence that the world (absent the stupidity of politicians*) is not going to run out of food.
Aren't the nutritional values dropping though. You can grow them but ....
Had a nice crop of apples this year and there was a marked difference in taste compared to supermarket ones.
Just been on holiday in Devon. Mrs C and I had a walk in Branscombe - so many apple varieties and so many trees bursting with the stuff, so much more flavour indeed.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education but picking up Greens and LDs on sustainability, whilst the Tories should concentrate on repairing their reputation as being hard-nosed but economically competent. Trying to outdo Reform on immigration is, paradoxically, just losing votes to Reform by continually focusing on immigration. A battle they can never win.
Do you have magic wands which Labour can wave to improve health and education ?
Or for the Conservatives to wave to reduce the oldies demand for more welfarism ?
No magic wand, no. They'd probably have to prioritise and implement policies targeting those, rather than use the magic wands they currently have for immigration that are working so well.
Honestly, what a ridiculous level of debate.
What policies do you want to prioritise and implement and how would that happen and where would the money come from ?
This is a country with financial constraints, with a process state, with vested interests, with competing and often incompatible demands.
There are few quick fixes and there are even fewer quick fixes which do not create other problems.
You mean there are winners and losers depending upon priorities? Levers to pull and alliances to form which will increase one way, whilst taking away from others? What a revolutionary thought.
And it means that its a lot easier to write on niche websites "improve the NHS and education" than it is to actually improve the NHS and education in reality.
Of course it is. Is that the level of your debate? You think if the Greens or Reform or the BNP or the Monster Raving Loony Party were in power, everything would be the same, as policies and priorities make no difference? You agree that both Tories and Labour are at the height of their polling by concentrating on outdoing Reform on immigration? [shakes head; rolls eyes]
It was YOU who wrote the vacuous drivel of
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education
without given any suggestion how that could be done beyond the further vacuous drivel of
prioritise and implement policies targeting those
Now if you want to improve health and education you have to suggest policies to do so, how such policies can be implemented, what the costs will be etc.
You want me to write the manifestoes of both Labour and Conservative on a post on PB, then give a fully costed budget concerning taxes, incentives and international alliances? There are plenty of options, but first come the priorities. For both Tory and Labour, it's currently Reform-lite. It's not working.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
That would force me to sell my flat, crashing house prices and massively increasing the number of homes available to first-time buyers. I'd be forced to invest my equity in local businesses or worse: save it and have a bank lend it out to one of the new owners as a mortgage. Property would no longer be seen as an investment opportunity but rather as somewhere to live .
TSE, will you join me and our fellow hard-pressed landlords local business people in a protest* in Morningside next week? Can do any weekday as most of us don't need to work for a living. Drinks afterward at the Golf Tavern - we can get our own back and hit some of our woke tenants with a pitch as they cycle through Bruntsfield Links.
*@PoliceScotland it will be a one-off event. No repeats I promise.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
At the moment, thanks to the Tories, anybody who is a British Citizen and has the right to another citizenship (like me for example) can be stripped of their British Citizenship and deported by order of the Home Secretary.
That would force me to sell my flat, crashing house prices and massively increasing the number of homes available to first-time buyers. I'd be forced to invest my equity in local businesses or worse: save it and have a bank lend it out to one of the new owners as a mortgage. Property would no longer be seen as an investment opportunity but rather as somewhere to live .
TSE, will you join me and our fellow hard-pressed landlords local business people in a protest* in Morningside next week? Can do any weekday as most of us don't need to work for a living. Drinks afterward at the Golf Tavern - we can get our own back and hit some of our woke tenants with a pitch as they cycle through Bruntsfield Links.
*@PoliceScotland it will be a one-off event. No repeats I promise.
Don't forget to stock up on the pre-sliced onions in Morningside Waitrose - Polis has a habit of being difficult with knives.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
At the moment, thanks to the Tories, anybody who is a British Citizen and has the right to another citizenship (like me for example) can be stripped of their British Citizenship and deported by order of the Home Secretary.
That's [edit] almost everyone in NI for a start, no?
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
At the moment, thanks to the Tories, anybody who is a British Citizen and has the right to another citizenship (like me for example) can be stripped of their British Citizenship and deported by order of the Home Secretary.
That's [edit] almost everyone in NI for a start, no?
I think it's a bit different for Irish Citizens as they are supposed to have the same rights as British Citizens when living in the UK (I think?).
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
She herself is committing to deporting 750,000 regardless of whether there are 750,000 who meet the criteria for deportation or not. If there are only 250k and the voters have been promised 750k one shouldn't be surprised if skin colour becomes the next criteria.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
At the moment, thanks to the Tories, anybody who is a British Citizen and has the right to another citizenship (like me for example) can be stripped of their British Citizenship and deported by order of the Home Secretary.
That's [edit] almost everyone in NI for a start, no?
I think it's a bit different for Irish Citizens as they are supposed to have the same rights as British Citizens when living in the UK (I think?).
You might be right. But there's something not quite right there. Remember there were issues when dual Irish/something else people wanted to marry UK subjects. HO wouldn't have it. Not quite sure of the logic but apparently HO only took the something else bit seriously - being Irish did not count or something.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
She herself is committing to deporting 750,000 regardless of whether there are 750,000 who meet the criteria for deportation or not. If there are only 250k and the voters have been promised 750k one shouldn't be surprised if skin colour becomes the next criteria.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
At the moment, thanks to the Tories, anybody who is a British Citizen and has the right to another citizenship (like me for example) can be stripped of their British Citizenship and deported by order of the Home Secretary.
That's [edit] almost everyone in NI for a start, no?
That solves the problem with all this HRA stuff TSE was worried about on the fly, then.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member, so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that of Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
Do you realise how farcically dated your argument is. "Oooh, we will LOOK BAD on the WORLD STAGE." - when these laws are preventing the deportation of child abusers, drug dealers and violent criminals. That sort of 'legitimacy' we can do without seeking.
I never said anything of the sort @Luckyguy1983 . Maybe you should try reading what I said first before going into rant mode. I didn't even put forward a pro or anti argument.
I simply pointed out that someone arguing that Australia and Canada aren't part of the ECHR which is a European organisation is a bonkers argument. Do you disagree with that?
You did say something like it, in your previous post. You decried the 'human rights hinterland' occupied by Russia and Belarus. Are you telling me that was not an attempt to make an argument based on bad optics?
I certainly did not say anything of the sort. Someone else did and then someone responded with Canada/Australia and I pointed out that was ridiculous.
My sincere apologies to you then, I got lost in the quote nest. And I redirect my comment to whomever made the other.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
At the moment, thanks to the Tories, anybody who is a British Citizen and has the right to another citizenship (like me for example) can be stripped of their British Citizenship and deported by order of the Home Secretary.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
So for some clarity on my post(s) which seem to have been widely misunderstood. Normally this is due to my bad wording, but I can't find anything wrong. I am assuming it is because the previous comments in the thread have not been read and therefore it looks like I am saying something i am not.
a) @Nigelb and @BartholomewRoberts I am certainly not saying people outside Europe don't have human rights. I am sure you both know me well enough that I would never say that.
My post was in response to a nonsense post which argued that also neither Australia nor Canada were in the ECHR in response to someone saying that only Russian and Belarus were not in the ECHR in Europe. Well of course Australia and Canada aren't. They can't be. They aren't in Europe. I was simply pointing out this was a nonsense argument and nothing to do with human rights outside of Europe.
b) @Luckyguy1983 I don't know where to begin. You seem to be quoting stuff I never said nor slightly implied. I gave no hint as to my opinion on the ECHR at all. I was just responding to the nonsense argument about Australia/Canada. That is they are not synonymous with Russia/Belarus in relation to being in Europe and therefore the person who made the connection was talking nonsense.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
She herself is committing to deporting 750,000 regardless of whether there are 750,000 who meet the criteria for deportation or not. If there are only 250k and the voters have been promised 750k one shouldn't be surprised if skin colour becomes the next criteria.
The 750K seems to come from the Pew Research Centre. Details here. Based on a 2017 study(?) and recently revised. So there is some basis for the number even if it means *everyone* in the Pew categories.
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
She herself is committing to deporting 750,000 regardless of whether there are 750,000 who meet the criteria for deportation or not. If there are only 250k and the voters have been promised 750k one shouldn't be surprised if skin colour becomes the next criteria.
The 750K seems to come from the Pew Research Centre. Details here. Based on a 2017 study(?) and recently revised. So there is some basis for the number even if it means *everyone* in the Pew categories.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
She herself is committing to deporting 750,000 regardless of whether there are 750,000 who meet the criteria for deportation or not. If there are only 250k and the voters have been promised 750k one shouldn't be surprised if skin colour becomes the next criteria.
Criterion
Personally I'd suggest pedantry be near the top of the deportation list criteria.
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It was sensible politics from Kemi to use the opportunity to be a bit less gamey than Reform's policy.
However, I don't really accept that Reform's policy is 'more right wing' - what it actually is is more realistic.
Labour are in power. They can legislate tomorrow to curb ILR. Reform will not gain power until after the Boriswave migrants have already achieved ILR. So their pledge to revisit the status of those who already have ILR is the only way that they will be able to deal with the problems posed by the Boriswave.
That's why Labour are being deeply specious and hypocritical by calling Reform's policy racist, and why Kemi's policy of delaying ILR is also a bit dishonest, given that it fails to present a solution that will be viable by the time she gets into power.
In this case, it is Reform who has the 'worked out' policy rather than the 'unworkable slogans', and they have suffered the brickbats because of it.
However, Kemi was right to take advantage, whilst rightly criticising Labour for namecalling.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member, so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that of Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
Do you realise how farcically dated your argument is. "Oooh, we will LOOK BAD on the WORLD STAGE." - when these laws are preventing the deportation of child abusers, drug dealers and violent criminals. That sort of 'legitimacy' we can do without seeking.
I never said anything of the sort @Luckyguy1983 . Maybe you should try reading what I said first before going into rant mode. I didn't even put forward a pro or anti argument.
I simply pointed out that someone arguing that Australia and Canada aren't part of the ECHR which is a European organisation is a bonkers argument. Do you disagree with that?
You did say something like it, in your previous post. You decried the 'human rights hinterland' occupied by Russia and Belarus. Are you telling me that was not an attempt to make an argument based on bad optics?
I certainly did not say anything of the sort. Someone else did and then someone responded with Canada/Australia and I pointed out that was ridiculous.
My sincere apologies to you then, I got lost in the quote nest. And I redirect my comment to whomever made the other.
No need to apologise. As you can see from my post that has crossed in the ether to you (and others) I have clearly caused utter confusion. And I suspect the other (different issue) is due to the quote nest as well.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
Hmm. Is it for people with big hands, please?
(my stock of Microsoft 2000 mice is beginning to run out)
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
At the moment, thanks to the Tories, anybody who is a British Citizen and has the right to another citizenship (like me for example) can be stripped of their British Citizenship and deported by order of the Home Secretary.
The citizenship removal was New Labour IIRC.
You may be right there, but the ability to remove it without notice was a Tory creation
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
She herself is committing to deporting 750,000 regardless of whether there are 750,000 who meet the criteria for deportation or not. If there are only 250k and the voters have been promised 750k one shouldn't be surprised if skin colour becomes the next criteria.
Criterion
Personally I'd suggest pedantry be near the top of the deportation list criteria.
"... suggest that pedantry be ..." and "list of criteria for deportation" surely.
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
+1
Logitech just own the mouse space.
I’ve got MX Master(s) at home and at work. Had them so long, forgotten when and where I got them. They just work.
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
I am still using a Kensington Turbo Mouse that must be at least 25 years old
I thought the most significant part of Badenoch speech was when she said she was black, a woman, and a conservative and 'I am British, as are my children, and nobody is going to deport my children from this country'
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
It's also a bit optimistic, surely.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
She herself is committing to deporting 750,000 regardless of whether there are 750,000 who meet the criteria for deportation or not. If there are only 250k and the voters have been promised 750k one shouldn't be surprised if skin colour becomes the next criteria.
Criterion
Personally I'd suggest pedantry be near the top of the deportation list criteria.
"... suggest that pedantry be ..." and "list of criteria for deportation" surely.
Beware I would do a deal with to send them to that shithole Trumpistan.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I agree. I agree. I agree. We don't have to be in the European one. I never said we did.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I agree. I agree. I agree. We don't have to be in the European one. I never said we did.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
Sigh.
Its not a flaw.
Its immaterial that they can't be. They're not and they're democracies.
If we choose not to be, then we will be democracies not in it, just like them.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Compelling to you obviously, but not a reason you are able to articulate it seems. To your point of whataboutery on Australia and Canada. Both countries would undoubtedly be in the Council of Europe if they were in Europe, but they are not, so they are not. Australia all but admitted this somewhat wistfully in its strategic white paper
I have articulated a reason, our laws should be subject to democracy.
The fact that we are in Europe and they are not is utterly irrelevant. We are still humans, just like them. We are talking about human rights, not European rights.
When you claim democracy without any other rationale, are you proposing another of your stupid referendums? I would ask how the previous one went, but you would probably say, just fine! (And as a DEI type person I do welcome very minority views, so there you go)
I accept the UK won't necessarily start torturing people just because it's left a convention banning it. The proposal is pointless. Its pointlessness is the point however. It would cause a lot of damage for no benefit and it's only being proposed because they can't think of anything better to do.
No, no need for a referendum, if we elect a Parliament that wants to change things they can and should. No Parliament can bind its successors.
If a majority is elected to change the law, the law should change.
Its not pointless to have the people we elect as the ultimate arbiters of setting the law.
Absolutely a need for a referendum. After the Welsh/Scottish elections next year there isn't going to much to bet on and a vicious battle over the ECHR would provide ample opportunity.
The Scotland Act requires that all laws must be compatible with the European Conventions. (Whether that has always been achieved I don't know).
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
1) the problematic rulings are all novel interpretations of the law in U.K. courts 2) at this point someone tries the “it’s not novel” gambit. I think redefining the family to include non-relatives by blood and marriage as novel. 3) this in turn comes from a culture in the law and courts. 4) it’s perfectly possible to get other interpretations of the law. Some lawyers seem to believe that the interpretation of law both progresses and is fixed in stone. 5) “Keep the coinage and the courts. Let the rabble have the rest.”
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
Canada was a founding member of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, I think. It has likewise respected the decision of international courts, as with https://www.icj-cij.org/case/67 , the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America).
Bart knows nothing of the real world. International law is something respected by most democracies and necessarily entails international courts.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I agree. I agree. I agree. We don't have to be in the European one. I never said we did.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
Sigh.
You were right all along @kjh , Canada and Australia are on the continent of Europe whilst Russia and Belarus (for the most part are).
That doesn't fit the narrative of the poster who has been banging on about human rights in Canada and Australia all day.
Although Australia are in Eurovision, which might be the root of his confusion.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I agree. I agree. I agree. We don't have to be in the European one. I never said we did.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
Sigh.
You were right all along @kjh Canada and Australia are in on the continent of Europe what Russia and Belarus (for the most part are).
That doesn't fit the narrative of the poster who has been banging on about human rights in Canada and Australia all day.
Although Australia are in Eurovision, which might be the root of his confusion.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
There's a world of difference between an advisory court you can choose to respect or choose to ignore, and a binding authority.
Australia and Canada could withdraw from international agreements, and we can withdraw from international agreements. By and large, we don't and they don't.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
There's a world of difference between an advisory court you can choose to respect or choose to ignore, and a binding authority.
Australia and Canada could withdraw from international agreements, and we can withdraw from international agreements. By and large, we don't and they don't.
Indeed, by and large we don't and they don't, but if we or they vote to do so, we or they can.
No court has the authority to override their High/Supreme Court. Choosing whether to respect advisory courts is optional.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
There's a world of difference between an advisory court you can choose to respect or choose to ignore, and a binding authority.
Australia and Canada could withdraw from international agreements, and we can withdraw from international agreements. By and large, we don't and they don't.
If your narrative over Gazan genocide dovetailed with Barty's view, you wouldn't want to be inside some international human rights rules package either.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I agree. I agree. I agree. We don't have to be in the European one. I never said we did.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
Sigh.
You were right all along @kjh , Canada and Australia are on the continent of Europe whilst Russia and Belarus (for the most part are).
That doesn't fit the narrative of the poster who has been banging on about human rights in Canada and Australia all day.
Although Australia are in Eurovision, which might be the root of his confusion.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
And Australia and Canada, like the UK, are signed up to various treaties on fundamental human rights, and respect the decisions of international courts, which you think is wrong.
They're signed up to various treaties, yes, but implement the law using their own courts, not international courts.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has. The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
There's a world of difference between an advisory court you can choose to respect or choose to ignore, and a binding authority.
Australia and Canada could withdraw from international agreements, and we can withdraw from international agreements. By and large, we don't and they don't.
Indeed, by and large we don't and they don't, but if we or they vote to do so, we or they can.
No court has the authority to override their High/Supreme Court. Choosing whether to respect advisory courts is optional.
We should be in the same situation as them.
The ICJ, to pick one example all 3 countries are in, is not (solely) an advisory court. It issues binding judgements ( https://www.icj-cij.org/how-the-court-works "By signing the Charter, a Member State of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which it is a party.").
We are in the same situation as Australia and Canada. We can withdraw from the ECHR (and should if a party with that manifesto commitment wins a majority in the Commons). We currently choose to be in the ECHR, as Australia and Canada choose to be in various international organisations and agreements.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I agree. I agree. I agree. We don't have to be in the European one. I never said we did.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
Sigh.
Its not a flaw.
Its immaterial that they can't be. They're not and they're democracies.
If we choose not to be, then we will be democracies not in it, just like them.
Geography is irrelevant to our shared humanity.
You do know you are arguing with someone who agrees with you don't you?
You have still completely missed the point of the original post. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you are talking about. Nothing. It has nothing to do with human rights, ECHR, democracies, etc, etc. Nothing to do with us being in the ECHR or not. Nothing. It was simply pointing out a logical flaw.
I'll try an analogy:
Person A: Oldham Athletic are not good enough to be in the Premier Division
Person B: So what, neither are AC Milan in the Premier Division
Now person A has expressed an opinion which you may or may not agree with. Person B's response is irrational because AC Milan can't be in the Premier Division no matter how good they are because they are Italian. It is a nonsensical response.
That is what happened many posts ago with person B saying, 'So what neither are Canada or Australia in the EHCR' It was nonsense because they can't be.
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
I need to get one instantly. A Smithson tech recommendation is gold standard. You and your father introduced me to both Xiaomi phones and Nothing ear pods (both of which I'm using this minute). So Logitech MX Master 4 Mouse it is. Even if it does sound like a cartoon character.
Robert - We can extend your argument further: That arctic greenhouse is sponsored, in part, by the Canada Space Agency. I assume those at the agency are thinking that, if we colonize space, the colonists will have to grow most of their food where they are living.
(For the record: In my not entirely humble opinion, the evidence suggests that the ChiComs plan to colonize the moon, within the next 20 years.)
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
I need to get one instantly. A Smithson tech recommendation is gold standard. You and your father introduced me to both Xiaomi phones and Nothing ear pods (both of which I'm using this minute). So Logitech MX Master 4 Mouse it is. Even if it does sound like a cartoon character.
I have one too, along with the MX keyboard. Both so good that I've got another set in the office.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I agree completely. You misunderstood my post. Someone argued in defence of leaving the ECHR that Australia and Canada weren't in it. Of course they aren't in it. It is a European organisation. It was a nonsense argument.
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Its not a nonsense argument, we are a democracy just like Australia and Canada.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
I agree. I agree. I agree. We don't have to be in the European one. I never said we did.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
Sigh.
You were right all along @kjh , Canada and Australia are on the continent of Europe whilst Russia and Belarus (for the most part are).
That doesn't fit the narrative of the poster who has been banging on about human rights in Canada and Australia all day.
Although Australia are in Eurovision, which might be the root of his confusion.
Canada and Australia are not...!
You were too fast for me. I was homing on the missing 'not'.
I even said 'its not Eurovision' in my original post
God I wish I had never posted now. I was only being a pedant.
It is amazing how long a discussion can go without me even expressing an opinion on the subject matter (I haven't yet)
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
I need to get one instantly. A Smithson tech recommendation is gold standard. You and your father introduced me to both Xiaomi phones and Nothing ear pods (both of which I'm using this minute). So Logitech MX Master 4 Mouse it is. Even if it does sound like a cartoon character.
I have one too, along with the Master keyboard. Both so good that I've got another set in the office.
How long/wide is your hand, if I might ask, please? I have trouble as most mice are too small for my hands. It's really a rat I need.
I just bought the Logitech MX Master 4 mouse, replacing my old Logitech mouse from... from... from before I moved to America (so at least 8 years ago).
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
I need to get one instantly. A Smithson tech recommendation is gold standard. You and your father introduced me to both Xiaomi phones and Nothing ear pods (both of which I'm using this minute). So Logitech MX Master 4 Mouse it is. Even if it does sound like a cartoon character.
I have one too, along with the Master keyboard. Both so good that I've got another set in the office.
How long/wide is your hand, if I might ask, please? I have trouble as most mice are too small for my hands. It's really a rat I need.
Average, I'd say. The mouse itself is certainly on the large side (not great for travelling/chucking in a pannier), but I understand there is a lot of complexity around ergonomics so don't take my word for it.
Comments
Will Tommeh need a separate visa for his Türkiye teeth?
https://x.com/i_ammukhtar/status/1974759614483976334?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Something that the membership can support.
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education
without given any suggestion how that could be done beyond the further vacuous drivel of
prioritise and implement policies targeting those
Now if you want to improve health and education you have to suggest policies to do so, how such policies can be implemented, what the costs will be etc.
It works better for my arthritis than codeine. That's my excuse anyway.
source$: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/world/canada/gjoa-haven-canada-greenhouse-plants-produce.html
And they need that food, given the hamlet's rapidly growing population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjoa_Haven
I have a friend in Ireland who works for a startup that makes LED that are specifically tuned for the wavelengths of light for photosynthesis: it's therefore an incredibly energy efficient way of growing food. (Especially compared to the old way, beloved of cannabis farms of old, where you had a bunch of high power sodium lamps, and then had a massive heat problem to deal with.)
In fact, there's an awful lot of extremely interesting planttech right now, that should give us enormous confidence that the world (absent the stupidity of politicians*) is not going to run out of food.
* This, I admit, is a stretch
I accept the UK won't necessarily start torturing people just because it's left a convention banning it. The proposal is pointless. Its pointlessness is the point however. It would cause a lot of damage for no benefit and it's only being proposed because they can't think of anything better to do.
In fact, there's an awful lot of extremely interesting planttech right now, that should give us enormous confidence that the world (absent the stupidity of politicians*) is not going to run out of food.
* This, I admit, is a stretch
=====================================================================================
Aren't the nutritional values dropping though. You can grow them but ....
Had a nice crop of apples this year and there was a marked difference in taste compared to supermarket ones.
That's two more than next year.
If a majority is elected to change the law, the law should change.
Its not pointless to have the people we elect as the ultimate arbiters of setting the law.
Can we even start to realise how far the right of Reform have gone that any leading politician has to say that ?
Anyone supporting Reform should hang theie heads in shame
For goodness sake I'm not arguing elsewhere doesn't have human rights just that Australia isn't in Europe so naturally wouldn't be in the European organisation as someone tried to use as a nonsense justification.
Consider sherry and madeira cake - another classic pairing.
Democracy innit?
Now, I grant you that many apple trees start their life inside in a greenhouse or a container, but they're taken outside to orchards before (long before) they actually produce apples. The inside stage for an apple tree is really just about root development.
Aren't the nutritional values dropping though. You can grow them but ....
Had a nice crop of apples this year and there was a marked difference in taste compared to supermarket ones.
Just been on holiday in Devon. Mrs C and I had a walk in Branscombe - so many apple varieties and so many trees bursting with the stuff, so much more flavour indeed.
If Reform wins the next election, how is she going to stop them from being deported?
TSE, will you join me and our fellow hard-pressed
landlordslocal business people in a protest* in Morningside next week? Can do any weekday as most of us don't need to work for a living. Drinks afterward at the Golf Tavern - we can get our own back and hit some of our woke tenants with a pitch as they cycle through Bruntsfield Links.*@PoliceScotland it will be a one-off event. No repeats I promise.
a) @Nigelb and @BartholomewRoberts I am certainly not saying people outside Europe don't have human rights. I am sure you both know me well enough that I would never say that.
My post was in response to a nonsense post which argued that also neither Australia nor Canada were in the ECHR in response to someone saying that only Russian and Belarus were not in the ECHR in Europe. Well of course Australia and Canada aren't. They can't be. They aren't in Europe. I was simply pointing out this was a nonsense argument and nothing to do with human rights outside of Europe.
b) @Luckyguy1983 I don't know where to begin. You seem to be quoting stuff I never said nor slightly implied. I gave no hint as to my opinion on the ECHR at all. I was just responding to the nonsense argument about Australia/Canada. That is they are not synonymous with Russia/Belarus in relation to being in Europe and therefore the person who made the connection was talking nonsense.
Wish I hadn't pointed out the logical flaw now.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/
And it's really good. So if anyone wants a mouse upgrade that will probably last the best part of a decade, I recommend it.
However, I don't really accept that Reform's policy is 'more right wing' - what it actually is is more realistic.
Labour are in power. They can legislate tomorrow to curb ILR. Reform will not gain power until after the Boriswave migrants have already achieved ILR. So their pledge to revisit the status of those who already have ILR is the only way that they will be able to deal with the problems posed by the Boriswave.
That's why Labour are being deeply specious and hypocritical by calling Reform's policy racist, and why Kemi's policy of delaying ILR is also a bit dishonest, given that it fails to present a solution that will be viable by the time she gets into power.
In this case, it is Reform who has the 'worked out' policy rather than the 'unworkable slogans', and they have suffered the brickbats because of it.
However, Kemi was right to take advantage, whilst rightly criticising Labour for namecalling.
Speech was pretty good I thought.
So what if it is a European organisation? We have no obligation or duty to be in every European organisation. We aren't in the EU.
We can choose whether to be in an organisation or not. If it doesn't suit us, we can choose not to be in it. If we aren't in the ECHR then we will be in the same company as Australia and Canada as a western democracy with our own courts as ultimate courts, not in the same company as Belarus and Russia who aren't democracies.
(my stock of Microsoft 2000 mice is beginning to run out)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_and_Borders_Act_2022
Logitech just own the mouse space.
I’ve got MX Master(s) at home and at work. Had them so long, forgotten when and where I got them. They just work.
The High Court of Australia is Australia's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's supreme court. No international court has the authority to override it, and none ever has.
You are completely missing the point that goes back umpteen posts ago and was simply a logic point.
I will try again (although I feel like banging my head against the wall):
a) Someone said something about Russia/Belarus not being in the ECHR (it doesn't matter what the details are)
b) Someone else said in response that neither are Canada or Australia as some counter argument (to whatever it was)
My point was (and it is my only point and nothing else) Canada and Australia CAN'T be members of the ECHR as it is a European only organisation and therefore this argument is logically flawed
That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about the pros and cons, nothing about human rights elsewhere, nothing about us being in it or not. Nothing about anything else at all. Just the logical flaw in saying 'neither are Canada or Australia in the ECHR'
Sigh.
Its immaterial that they can't be. They're not and they're democracies.
If we choose not to be, then we will be democracies not in it, just like them.
Geography is irrelevant to our shared humanity.
1) the problematic rulings are all novel interpretations of the law in U.K. courts
2) at this point someone tries the “it’s not novel” gambit. I think redefining the family to include non-relatives by blood and marriage as novel.
3) this in turn comes from a culture in the law and courts.
4) it’s perfectly possible to get other interpretations of the law. Some lawyers seem to believe that the interpretation of law both progresses and is fixed in stone.
5) “Keep the coinage and the courts. Let the rabble have the rest.”
Bart knows nothing of the real world. International law is something respected by most democracies and necessarily entails international courts.
There's a world of difference between an advisory court you can choose to respect or choose to ignore, and a binding authority.
That doesn't fit the narrative of the poster who has been banging on about human rights in Canada and Australia all day.
Although Australia are in Eurovision, which might be the root of his confusion.
No court has the authority to override their High/Supreme Court. Choosing whether to respect advisory courts is optional.
We should be in the same situation as them.
We are in the same situation as Australia and Canada. We can withdraw from the ECHR (and should if a party with that manifesto commitment wins a majority in the Commons). We currently choose to be in the ECHR, as Australia and Canada choose to be in various international organisations and agreements.
You have still completely missed the point of the original post. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you are talking about. Nothing. It has nothing to do with human rights, ECHR, democracies, etc, etc. Nothing to do with us being in the ECHR or not. Nothing. It was simply pointing out a logical flaw.
I'll try an analogy:
Person A: Oldham Athletic are not good enough to be in the Premier Division
Person B: So what, neither are AC Milan in the Premier Division
Now person A has expressed an opinion which you may or may not agree with. Person B's response is irrational because AC Milan can't be in the Premier Division no matter how good they are because they are Italian. It is a nonsensical response.
That is what happened many posts ago with person B saying, 'So what neither are Canada or Australia in the EHCR' It was nonsense because they can't be.
(For the record: In my not entirely humble opinion, the evidence suggests that the ChiComs plan to colonize the moon, within the next 20 years.)
I even said 'its not Eurovision' in my original post
God I wish I had never posted now. I was only being a pedant.
It is amazing how long a discussion can go without me even expressing an opinion on the subject matter (I haven't yet)
➡️ REF: 31% (-1)
🌹 LAB: 21% (-1)
🌳 CON: 19% (+1)
🔶 LDEM: 13% (+1)
🟢 GRN: 9% (+2)
From
@jlpartnerspolls
From 26th Sept - 3rd October
Changes with 1st September"
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/14972/partners?page=9