The ECHR - should we LEAVE?

[Sheepy]

So do most other judicial systems

Clause 39 of Magna Carta guaranteed the right to a fair trial 800 years ago.

Torture has never been part of the English legal system, although being on the wrong side of the powers that be has never been a good idea either.

In 1772 the Sommersett case did not abolish slavery, but the English though it did and acted as though it did.

Gerry is ok and being only 13. should be excused his teenage whoring around for attention. But it wouldn't be a bad idea is he read a book once in a while.

Take no notice, Gerry will be getting his prayer mat out so often soon he won't have time to worry about any good Friday agreements.

[Borchester]

Why would the UK want to leave the ECHR, it basically set it up. If you political class want to leave this then you would want to ask why? what is it that the UK would want to change

The Convention secures:

• the right to life (Article 2)
• freedom from torture (Article 3)
• freedom from slavery (Article 4)
• the right to liberty (Article 5)
• the right to a fair trial (Article 6)
• the right not to be punished for something that wasn't against the law at the time (Article 7)
• the right to respect for family and private life (Article 8
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
• freedom of expression (Article 10)
• freedom of assembly (Article 11)
• the right to marry and start a family (Article 12)
• the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights (Article 14)
• the right to protection of property (Protocol 1, Article 1)
• the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2)
• the right to participate in free elections (Protocol 1, Article 3)
• the abolition of the death penalty (Protocol 13)

So do most other judicial systems

Clause 39 of Magna Carta guaranteed the right to a fair trial 800 years ago.

Torture has never been part of the English legal system, although being on the wrong side of the powers that be has never been a good idea either.

In 1772 the Sommersett case did not abolish slavery, but the English though it did and acted as though it did.

Gerry is ok and being only 13. should be excused his teenage whoring around for attention. But it wouldn't be a bad idea is he read a book once in a while.

[GerryT]

This explains it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA


Why would the UK want to leave the ECHR, it basically set it up. If you political class want to leave this then you would want to ask why? what is it that the UK would want to change

The Convention secures:

• the right to life (Article 2)
• freedom from torture (Article 3)
• freedom from slavery (Article 4)
• the right to liberty (Article 5)
• the right to a fair trial (Article 6)
• the right not to be punished for something that wasn't against the law at the time (Article 7)
• the right to respect for family and private life (Article 8
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
• freedom of expression (Article 10)
• freedom of assembly (Article 11)
• the right to marry and start a family (Article 12)
• the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights (Article 14)
• the right to protection of property (Protocol 1, Article 1)
• the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2)
• the right to participate in free elections (Protocol 1, Article 3)
• the abolition of the death penalty (Protocol 13)

[Sheepy]

Migrants wave the middle finger as number of people crossing Channel this year passes 13,000 (msn.com)
Thats OK s^^t for brains, you won't be staying long.

[Thomas]

That would be against ECHR rules . Would they also have to wear a badge so we all new who they were ? 
Which is the main problem . Government not keeping up infrastructure  with the rising population . Its only when people can't get their kids into the school around the corner or a hospital appointment for 6 months people start to ask questions . Only the other day we had people round talking about water meters , that we will have to have one as we are in a water 'stressed' area due to climate change ()  They didnt like my version of the problem which included ,dividends for shareholders too many people ,mass immigration and the governments failure to control it at reasonable levels .

But hey blame it on climate change , they can charge us for that . 

yep brlliant post. Flooding the uk with mass uncontrolled immigration , then trying to justify it with saying migrants pay thier way while at the same time not keeping up with infrastructure was tony blairs big problem as we all know.

While borkie makes light of a million migrants coming to the uk in a short period of time , England especially cannot feed fuel or power itself , roads are the most congested in europe , they throw up new build estates and take water from old reservoirs built half a century ago and much else.

Even people like sir david attenborough on the subject of climate change talks about the elephant in the room.....human overpopulation.

If a government cant control its own borders then it is failing in its duty as a government.

[Thomas]

Not really.

Throughout history there have been these mass migrations and throughout history the locals have bitched.

In London the locals would periodically rise up and slaughter the migrants, which was a bit rich because a generation before they were the immigrants. And folk don't migrate because of wars or famine or economics, although these are major factors, but because they have itchy feet.

The Scots and Irish didn't leave Scotland and Ireland because the landlords being arseholes or the English eating all the spuds, although that did spur them on. They left because the great diasporas since forever had already established huge Irish and Scottish communities elsewhere who had told them that there was not only a better life elaewhere, but a different one.

i think we both know the history of human migration , but you keep trying to make light of the fact the conservatives have broken political promises after political promises on the subject of mass migration into the uk...specifically england , and it is deeply unpopular and harmfull to their electoral chances. The only good thing you have is labour look even weaker.

The big difference is in history , it took tens of thousands of years for the human popualtion to reach 1 billion people 122 years ago. In the space of a century , even with world wars and famines , we are now approaching 8 billion people.

Its unsustainable in the long term for many many reasons .

England is too small a country , to support its massive population. You could fit inside france 5 times over but have similar popualtions. The idea governments can keep expanding the working age popualtion each generation to pay for the previous retired generation is of course fancifull.

You can make light of it all you like , but its clear the conservatives are facking useless at stopping mass uncontrolled immigration. They will pay the price at the ballot box for that failure.

[Streetwalker]

Judging by these figures, it would be cheaper and easier to just hand out National Insurance numbers as they arrive, with a little ID card with their name, fingerprint and photo and "Temporary resident of UK".

That would be against ECHR rules . Would they also have to wear a badge so we all new who they were ?  

We just need the infrastructure expanding so we can teach the kids, treat the sick, and so on.

Which is the main problem . Government not keeping up infrastructure  with the rising population . Its only when people cant get their kids into the school around the corner or a hospital appointment for 6 months people start to ask questions . Only the other day we had people round talking about water meters , that we will have to have one as we are in a water 'stressed' area due to climate change ()  They didnt like my version of the problem which included ,dividends for shareholders too many people ,mass immigration and the governments failure to control it at reasonable levels . 

But hey blame it on climate change , they can charge us for that .   

[Barry]

No I dont think we should leave it . What we should do is have competent judges who uphold its values so the intervention of it is not required .
The UK government will now do what they should have done and show good reason why people are being deported to Africa

But its all a smokescreen , arguing the toss over a few boat people while the government has issued over 1 million visas in the past year to foriegn nationals .

Judging by these figures, it would be cheaper and easier to just hand out National Insurance numbers as they arrive, with a little ID card with their name, fingerprint and photo and "Temporary resident of UK".
Would save lots of hassle. We just need the infrastructure expanding so we can teach the kids, treat the sick, and so on.

I'm not in agreement with such a policy, but it is better than the current utter 5+1tstorm.

[Borchester]

Immigration is a constant throughout human history as we know , but the mass immigration of the last 25 years , as the world popualtion swells to levels that it can barely hold is something new.

Not really.

Throughout history there have been these mass migrations and throughout history the locals have bitched.

In London the locals would periodically rise up and slaughter the migrants, which was a bit rich because a generation before they were the immigrants. And folk don't migrate because of wars or famine or economics, although these are major factors, but because they have itchy feet.

The Scots and Irish didn't leave Scotland and Ireland because the landlords being arseholes or the English eating all the spuds, although that did spur them on. They left because the great diasporas since forever had already established huge Irish and Scottish communities elsewhere who had told them that there was not only a better life elaewhere, but a different one.

[Thomas]

I doubt the ECHR rule that applies to this Iraqi gentleman has anything to do with the NI protocol.
And none of them will be legally enforceable.

no one has said it does. I raised the point that leaving the ECHR affects the GFA. Your government cant bleat to the usa and the EU it is standing up for the GFA whilse systematically trying to destroy it by undermining key parts of it , which include the ECHR.

Simply pointing out one possible side effect of daft priti patels headline grabbing leaving the ECHR.

All sounds good to the rabble rousers , but in the real world there will be real consequences.

[Thomas]

No I dont think we should leave it . What we should do is have competent judges who uphold its values so the intervention of it is not required .
The UK government will now do what they should have done and show good reason why people are being deported to Africa

But its all a smokescreen , arguing the toss over a few boat people while the government has issued over 1 million visas in the past year to foriegn nationals .

well said mate , and you get to the nub of the issue.

Immigration is a constant throughout human history as we know , but the mass immigration of the last 25 years , as the world popualtion swells to levels that it can barely hold is something new. So it is a global problem.

The fact of the matter though , is that both labour and conservative governments have been quick to blame everyone else for their own shortcomings on the matter.

The tories have been in power 12 years , and how many excuses have we heard in that time for their absolute failiure to get to grips with mass immigration?

We had theresa may decimate the border force when she was home secretarty , then make grandiose statements on controlling immigration when she became PM that she failed to keep. Johnson exactly the same.

The uk is out the EU , and talking of leaving the ECHR. Eventually , the uk government is going to run out of scapegoats , and who will they blame then?

[Streetwalker]

No I dont think we should leave it . What we should do is have competent judges who uphold its values so the intervention of it is not required .
The UK government will now do what they should have done and show good reason why people are being deported to Africa 

But its all a smokescreen , arguing the toss over a few boat people while the government has issued over 1 million visas in the past year to foriegn nationals . 

[cromwell]

Everyone who has the law invoked against them is entitled to legal representation.

The current trend of blaming judges and lawyers when politics leads the country's law enforcers astray is worrying — looks like the government is softening up the electorate for agreement to radically alter the role of the independent role of the judiciary...

Which would be a massive mistake.

[Baff]

I doubt the ECHR rule that applies to this Iraqi gentleman has anything to do with the NI protocol.
And none of them will be legally enforceable.

As noted above all the UK needs is an equivalent set of human rights to meet GFA requirements.
Currently NI has the NICHR.

[Borchester]

Effectively we have left the ECHR.

The only authority it has is moral and no one gives a toss about that, although the government does appear to be having second thoughts about the idea of dumping the refugees in Rwanda.

We seem to be making heavy weather of the whole business. The refugees are keen to come here and most of them will make a go of things. Most remainers hate the UK and long to go to Strasbourg where they can sit at the feet of the ECHR and adore the EU.

Surely we can arrange a swap?