Which of the rights do the Tories want us to get rid of?
Just the one that an unelected Judge in Strasbourg interprets.
You'd prefer *our* unelected judges to the Strasbourg unelected judges?
Absolutely.
British legal experts judging British legal issues.
Got it. So, the most important thing is the nationality of the judge presiding over the case? Not whether it's "fair" or anything like that?
So, it would be ok if the judge was someone like Paul J. Mahoney, I guess?
Where did I mention the Nationality of the Judge?
Problem is Chizz, you read what you want to read and interpret it all in the same blinkered fashion.
Well, when you answered my question about Strasbourg judges with the comment "Absolutely. British legal experts judging British legal issues", I naturally assumed you meant British judges. In fact I can't see how else I could have interpreted that. What did you mean, if you didn't mean British judges?
Every country seems to get a judge if they've signed up. That means that a judge from Russia (yes, really), or that other centre for human rights excellence, Azerbaijan, for example could be hearing your case. Or one from Albania where a Defence Minister said “What remains to be done is to beat them up with a stick. If you don’t understand this, I can explain it: to beat them with a rubber stick.” when describing how he'd deal with a Gay Rights protest march..... So, on reflection maybe dealing with this stuff in UK courts is not so silly? BTW there's a situation vacant for the Irish judge, I'm reminded of Father Ted and the Eurovision Song contest - it's too expensive for us to be in it...
So, Azerbaijan and Russia are happy to be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, but they're a bit too onerous for Britain? Great!
Unlike those two countries the UK does, on occasion, actually learn from ECHR rulings. Russia's record suggests that whilst they acknowledge the ECHR, their adherence to it is, at best, lip service.
Which makes the ECHR virtually toothless. Meanwhile look at the Supreme Court in America, where thousands of state or federal laws are either scrapped or need to be rewritten due to their rulings. That is largely due to the fact that the Judiciary in integrated within the country's legal system, rather than being an outside arbiter that has very little power to enforce its rulings.
Which of the rights do the Tories want us to get rid of?
Just the one that an unelected Judge in Strasbourg interprets.
You'd prefer *our* unelected judges to the Strasbourg unelected judges?
Absolutely.
British legal experts judging British legal issues.
Got it. So, the most important thing is the nationality of the judge presiding over the case? Not whether it's "fair" or anything like that?
So, it would be ok if the judge was someone like Paul J. Mahoney, I guess?
Where did I mention the Nationality of the Judge?
Problem is Chizz, you read what you want to read and interpret it all in the same blinkered fashion.
Well, when you answered my question about Strasbourg judges with the comment "Absolutely. British legal experts judging British legal issues", I naturally assumed you meant British judges. In fact I can't see how else I could have interpreted that. What did you mean, if you didn't mean British judges?
Every country seems to get a judge if they've signed up. That means that a judge from Russia (yes, really), or that other centre for human rights excellence, Azerbaijan, for example could be hearing your case. Or one from Albania where a Defence Minister said “What remains to be done is to beat them up with a stick. If you don’t understand this, I can explain it: to beat them with a rubber stick.” when describing how he'd deal with a Gay Rights protest march..... So, on reflection maybe dealing with this stuff in UK courts is not so silly? BTW there's a situation vacant for the Irish judge, I'm reminded of Father Ted and the Eurovision Song contest - it's too expensive for us to be in it...
So, Azerbaijan and Russia are happy to be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, but they're a bit too onerous for Britain? Great!
Yes, Russia has by far and away the most rulings against it. Which rather suggests that nothing gets any better despite the ECHR! For example Chechen civilians have had over 100 cases upheld by the court. Do you think they reckon it's all hunky dory?
"For too long, we have been... Saying to our citizens as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone..."
Sounds great...
Do we need to tackle extremism, yes, but this act isn't. It's dealing with symptoms not causes. It won't stop extremists but what it does allow is for the government to silence critics who "don't conform to British values". Where do you draw the line? What if some nut job convinces the country to put them in charge. Their definition of values will be completely different. It is almost Orwellian in its ideals.
If anything you are marginalising more people, making them more angry and more likely to turn to extreme acts to get their point across.
Well I for one, applaud the fact, that people preaching hate & death to others, will not be permitted to do so in public.
If the likes of Anjem Choudary weren't allowed to preach hate on our streets, the likes of Lee Rigby may not have been murdered. RIP Lee.
But it wasn't the public preaching that caused Lee's death. It was the "underground" preaching. And this act could drive more people underground where they are more likely to be radicalised.
This act is only treating a symptom and making the cause worse. You won't stop mindless acts by marginalising those vulnerable to the ideas. You have to deal with the ideas.
Also, to counter the point about people preaching death to charlton supporters. What if they banned supporting charlton? How would that make you feel? You would be angry, you would want to act out in some way for your rights. I would hope that you wouldn't go to extremes but I'm hoping you can see the point I am trying to make.
This won't be sold to the vulnerable as preventing hate speech, it will be sold as suppressing Islam. They will be told that the only way to worship Islam is underground, it will drive the vulnerable into the arms of those you want to stop.
Yes we need to fight extremism, but not by limiting free speech.
It has nothing to do with worshiping Islam. I'm fine with worshiping Islam and so are all parties.
It's hate preaching that has to stop.
Where should we draw the line for free speach ?
Was Hitler ok ?
That is the point. At what point does something become 'hate preaching'? Is expressing a strong dislike to someone else's view 'hate preaching'? Is someone expressing hate for muslim's preaching about a dislike for western life 'hate preaching'? This will likely be a law which will unenforceable. This is more about Cameron trying to sound hard in front of the backbenchers.
It has nothing to do with worshiping Islam. I'm fine with worshiping Islam and so are all parties.
It's hate preaching that has to stop.
Where should we draw the line for free speach ?
Was Hitler ok ?
"Hate preaching" is illegal. It doesn't require a *new* law to make it *more* illegal - it's already illegal. No-one is suggesting that "hate preaching" should be made legal. You can be fined for "hate preaching"; you can be imprisoned; or both.
We do not need new laws to make "hate preaching" illegal. The law is already in place - it's the Public Order Act 1986.
Your have to let it go, you have 5 yrs to learn how to get over the fact that a tory gvmt is in power, five years is a long stretch to look for every negative going. you will if you haven't already started to be consumed by a vacuum of gloom, your sounding and posting on this thread like a kid that didn't get a toy they wanted
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Who knows - even Millwall supporters got relegated with more class and good grace than the loony left have managed. Aah, perhaps the clue is in their name then?
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Have the UKIP kippers stopped claiming electoral fraud in South Thanet? Have they stopped moaning about the electoral system (a complaint that only appeared from them after the election)
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Have the UKIP kippers stopped claiming electoral fraud in South Thanet? Have they stopped moaning about the electoral system (a complaint that only appeared from them after the election)
Well not here and not on my Facebook feed an not on that journalists Facebook or Twitter feeds
The police will decide after their investigation about the fraud issue in Thanet. One thing is for sure, you don't win a council election by a country mile and lose a parliamentary seat election without there being a whiff of a stitch up!
The police will decide after their investigation about the fraud issue in Thanet. One thing is for sure, you don't win a council election by a country mile and lose a parliamentary seat election without there being a whiff of a stitch up!
Different boundaries for the council and the constituency though aren't there?
I haven't looked at it to be honest so you are more aware than I am. That would explain it then. There were a lot of issues in this election in general. Stolen ballot papers, candidates names missing from ballot papers, people not being able to vote as their names were not on the lists. There was one episode of ballot boxes being found unopened after the announcement of the final result. I am not saying these were all to do with UKIP because they weren't but issues none the less.
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Who knows - even Millwall supporters got relegated with more class and good grace than the loony left have managed. Aah, perhaps the clue is in their name then?
Have you got definition of the loony left? Where on your scale does one cross over your line of "leftnest" or is anyone who voted for a left of centre party a loony?
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Who knows - even Millwall supporters got relegated with more class and good grace than the loony left have managed. Aah, perhaps the clue is in their name then?
Have you got definition of the loony left? Where on your scale does one cross over your line of "leftnest" or is anyone who voted for a left of centre party a loony?
Knowingly Tweeting a photo from 11 years ago (Labour term) of 15 or so magnums of Moet being delivered to 11 Downing Street and labelling it “Tory austerity in all its glory” is pretty mental ain't it?
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Who knows - even Millwall supporters got relegated with more class and good grace than the loony left have managed. Aah, perhaps the clue is in their name then?
Have you got definition of the loony left? Where on your scale does one cross over your line of "leftnest" or is anyone who voted for a left of centre party a loony?
Knowingly Tweeting a photo from 11 years ago (Labour term) of 15 or so magnums of Moet being delivered to 11 Downing Street and labelling it “Tory austerity in all its glory” is pretty mental ain't it?
Pretty stupid yes. What's your point, people post stupid stuff on Twitter and Facebook?
Whatever side of the political spectrum you are, if you think you're morally superior to others because of who you voted for I think that qualifies you as a loony. And a twat.
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Who knows - even Millwall supporters got relegated with more class and good grace than the loony left have managed. Aah, perhaps the clue is in their name then?
Have you got definition of the loony left? Where on your scale does one cross over your line of "leftnest" or is anyone who voted for a left of centre party a loony?
You know full well I was referring to the lefties who try to stifle debate with their abuse of anyone that doesn't agree with their views. They are there for all to see and hear.
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Who knows - even Millwall supporters got relegated with more class and good grace than the loony left have managed. Aah, perhaps the clue is in their name then?
Have you got definition of the loony left? Where on your scale does one cross over your line of "leftnest" or is anyone who voted for a left of centre party a loony?
Knowingly Tweeting a photo from 11 years ago (Labour term) of 15 or so magnums of Moet being delivered to 11 Downing Street and labelling it “Tory austerity in all its glory” is pretty mental ain't it?
Pretty stupid yes. What's your point, people post stupid stuff on Twitter and Facebook and Charlton Life?
Have you read the link I posted mate? It sums it up for me as I said. The vilifying of people for the way they voted, I don't remember such a backlash when Blair gt in
Comments
Which makes the ECHR virtually toothless. Meanwhile look at the Supreme Court in America, where thousands of state or federal laws are either scrapped or need to be rewritten due to their rulings. That is largely due to the fact that the Judiciary in integrated within the country's legal system, rather than being an outside arbiter that has very little power to enforce its rulings.
This act is only treating a symptom and making the cause worse. You won't stop mindless acts by marginalising those vulnerable to the ideas. You have to deal with the ideas.
Also, to counter the point about people preaching death to charlton supporters. What if they banned supporting charlton? How would that make you feel? You would be angry, you would want to act out in some way for your rights. I would hope that you wouldn't go to extremes but I'm hoping you can see the point I am trying to make.
This won't be sold to the vulnerable as preventing hate speech, it will be sold as suppressing Islam. They will be told that the only way to worship Islam is underground, it will drive the vulnerable into the arms of those you want to stop.
Yes we need to fight extremism, but not by limiting free speech.
It's hate preaching that has to stop.
Where should we draw the line for free speach ?
Was Hitler ok ?
40,000,000 votes cast in last years X Factor.
Although also postal votes in Labour marginals...objection withdrawn.
We do not need new laws to make "hate preaching" illegal. The law is already in place - it's the Public Order Act 1986.
Your have to let it go, you have 5 yrs to learn how to get over the fact that a tory gvmt is in power, five years is a long stretch to look for every negative going. you will if you haven't already started to be consumed by a vacuum of gloom, your sounding and posting on this thread like a kid that didn't get a toy they wanted
Stop your whingeing: why the Left are such bad losers
Have the UKIP kippers stopped claiming electoral fraud in South Thanet? Have they stopped moaning about the electoral system (a complaint that only appeared from them after the election)