Proof -

[observer]

You said it !   

[Lt Kije]

Not answering, it doesn't surprise me, as looking at your own bullshit written down, isn't the same as saying it. It's there for all to read????

[observer]

Think your out on a tangent now Kije, which I suppose helps when you can't defend what's actually going on. 

[Lt Kije]

Obs, America and China have both said they are not interested in doing a separate trade deal with the U.K., I didn't say it they did, that's not fear tactics, it's called telling the truth!!, I perfectly understand why the out campaign would call it fear tactics, as the two biggest economies in the world have said no trade deal if we leave, there's a big difference between a Ellington the truth and fear!!, it seems to me the out campaign fear the truth!!!!

[Davy51]

It is interesting that the family of Jean Charles Menenez are today at the European court of human rights regarding the death of the Brazilian in the aftermath of 7/7.It was a tragedy & should not have happened,but i say interesting to imagine what would happen if the public victims of terrorism were to try & get the Mad Mullahs into court. I imagine it would never happen.

[Lt Kije]

A more interesting question is why haven't they?,

 

And if it was not for the European court, which by the way is nothing to do with the EU, the Menedez family would have no where to go????

That's part of the problem, many people get the European institutions mixed up, there has been a lot of mis information over the years????

[observer]

A condition of EU membership, is membership of the ECHR - we need to exit both; if we want to end such nonsense as illegal migrants running over and killing a young British girl,  then claiming the right to stay in the UK due to him starting a family - and securing from the ECHR "A RIGHT TO A FAMILY LIFE" -  utter liberal nonsense.   

[Lt Kije]

But leaving the ECHR is not up for vote????????

Your right to free speach is enshrined by the ECHR not by the UK parliament, your right to free speach before the ECHR was common law, which could have been changed without even a vote in parliament, it's under pinned now.

Article 8

 

 

“ Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

 

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

”

Nothing wrong with what it says

 

And it's nothing to do with the EU

[Davy51]

Aren't most successful democracies based on the UK system. The Magna Carta led the way &, love him or hate him ,Oliver Cromwell abolished absolute rule in Britain. Many of our Euro friends are from countries that were dictatorships within living memory & most of these countries rode rough shod over the human rights of its citizens.

The ECHR owes a lot to our systems of democracy & judiciary.

[Lt Kije]

You are right Davy51 The Uk was one of the main writers of it????????

[observer]

The ECHR was set up, mainly with UK influence at the end of WW2; it's intent to never allow a State to infringe on basic human rights generally accepted by the UN.  The problem is, that, over the years, it's been distorted by liberal judges, who've abused the original intent of the Treaty with their rulings, and continue to do so. (I refer to the example I used).  We have, and could use, our own supreme court for this purpose, subject to laws made in our own elected Parliament. Membership of the EU is conditional on membership of the ECHR.

[Lt Kije]

Would you say your example was an extreme Obs, used to get the most out of your point?

So the problem is not with the act, just the way you think some judges implement it?

So nothing wrong with the act then.

[observer]

Didn't say there was, but we're not in control of the Judges who are abusing it's decision making, largely in favour of the criminals; who will no doubt soon be given a vote in prison !

[Lt Kije]

The judges in the main are UK judges Obs, and the courts where most of the problems with the act come from are UK courts

[Davy51]

The original concept of the common market was a good idea, although why we had to abandon the Commonwealth was beyond me . The idea,i believe, was to bring an end to wars in Europe with a mutually beneficial trade partnership. The great problem is that the EU in its present form has produced a bureaucracy run by ineffectual little Hitlers with a desire to mould Europe to its own blueprint irrespective of the differences between the wide spectrum of countries that make up Europe. These Eurocrats have created a nest which is feeding off its component countries,when in reality, the Eurocrats should be serving Europe. Instead these self serving parasites,who are supposed to be intelligent people, have been allowed to set up what is nothing more than a very expensive club for the political elite. Sort out the problems at the top & Europe could be viable,but i doubt that will ever happen.

[observer]

The ECHR Judges derive from various States and many Countries ignore it's findings, like the Russians. As usual, the UK takes all rulings literally, as we do with EU rules, and usually complies. Although we haven't yet complied with the ECHR ruling that prisoners be allowed to vote - should be interesting.

[Lt Kije]

Obs, you have said your self, there is nothing wrong with the act, just the way it is interpreted, why not keep the act and re educate are people on how to use it, as any act a UK government brings in, they will try to find ways round it and use it for purposes it was not intended

[observer]

The problem with all "laws" designed by the legislature, is that they either are full of loop-holes (thus open to abuse by tax-avoiders foe example) or are capable of (mis)- interpretation by Judges. The origin of the HR Treaty came about as a result mainly of the WW2 holocaust experience, so had nothing at all to do with the claims of convicted criminals; who now use it to claim a right to vote, or asylum on the basis of a right to a family life etc. In other words, it has been completely devalued by PC liberal Judges and therefore their Court (the ECHR) has been devalued too.